Miralus's page

These look great. A minor comment. Since these are explicitly for summoning, it might make sense to remove the abilities not available to summoned creatures

A summoned monster cannot summon or otherwise conjure another creature, nor can it use any teleportation or planar travel abilities. Creatures cannot be summoned into an environment that cannot support them. Creatures summoned using this spell cannot use spells or spell-like abilities that duplicate spells with expensive material components

So the Lantern Archon cannot teleport and cannot cast Continual Flame (costly component). A Dretch cannot summon another Dretch.

It would be nice to clean this up so I'm not tempted to use an ability that is not supported by mistake in the heat of a combat :-).

As long as everyone else is asking, I'll through my name into the ring. Please send me a copy if you can. I'll be playing a summoning wizard next week for the first time and this would be quite useful. steve at sbass dot org.

Thanks,

Steve

Have you considered including traits in the guide? I'm not sure how many people are using traits, but if they are, there are some that seem really well suited to the aspiring god-wizard. There are two that really stand out to me.

Focused Mind Your childhood was either dominated by lessons of some sort (be they musical or academic) or by a horrible home life that encouraged your ability to block out distractions to focus on the immediate task at hand. You gain a +2 trait bonus on concentration checks.

This applies to all concentration checks, not just for defensive casting as with the Combat Casting feat. And it will add to the bonus from the feat as it is a trait bonus.

Reactionary You were bullied often as a child, but never quite developed an offensive response. Instead, you became adept at anticipating sudden attacks and reacting to danger quickly. You gain a +2 trait bonus on Initiative checks.

This adds to the bonus from Improved Initiative, and if you take both you have a +6 bonus on initiative checks.

For a multi-classed wizard, I can see taking Magical Knack as it raises your CL by (up to) two levels.

Magical Knack You were raised, either wholly or in part, by a magical creature, either after it found you abandoned in the woods or because your parents often left you in the care of a magical minion. This constant exposure to magic has made its mysteries easy for you to understand, even when you turn your mind to other devotions and tasks. Pick a class when you gain this trait—your caster level in that class gains a +2 trait bonus as long as this bonus doesn’t increase your caster level higher than your current Hit Dice.

None of the others look nearly as useful, but I am interested in whether I'm overlooking something interesting.

wraithstrike wrote:

The reason for the second sentence is this. If the caster were to try to cast a spell with a target of you on the Eidolon, that could not target outsiders the spell would fail since there is no clause allowing an exception to the rule. With the second sentence a spell with a target of "you" can affect the outsider/animal companion/familiar, even if it normally could not do so.

Looking at the 3.5 version it can be seen that the only purpose of share spell is to allow the "you" spells to be transferable. It was never intended to get around the creature type for any other spell.

While this analysis is all well and good, why do you think they changed the language from 3.5 SRD to PF? Is it a typo, or is it a deeper mechanical change. If the intent was to keep things as 3.5, then the language change was not necessary. If the language change was not meant to alter the intent, it was a mistake to change the language.

It's too bad we cannot divine the designers intent on this. As written, you can cast spells on the AC or Familiar or Eidolon that bypass the "Type: Outsider" restriction (which, as I posted above, does NOT mean anything goes).

It was my post which wraithstrike quoted, so I'll jump in and give you my opinion. I've seen a couple of places where the PF rules seem to have copied over pieces of the 3.5 wording when it is no longer needed due to the changes made in the PF rules. This is one of them. I don't think that there are any Target:you spells which specify anything about what the target must be. I think the only remaining reason to have left this in is to end arguments when someone wants to cast spells which could be interpreted as requiring a humanoid target (like Alter Self) on his familiar.

Ideally, I think they should have changed the name of the ability from Shared Spells to something else. I can see the backwards compatibility argument, but this does not now allow spells to be shared. It simply allows you to cast personalized spells on your pet instead of yourself.

There are actually very few spells which fall into this category. Looking at d20pfsrd spell database, the only spells which seems to be at issue are Enlarge and Reduce Person. (There may be others, but these were the only ones I saw that seemed relevant without getting silly.)There simply aren't many buffing spells which care about whether the target is humanoid or not. (There are offensive spells like Charm Person that do, but why would a wizard want to charm his familiar?)

As I read the rules, it seems like you cannot cast a spell while wielding your arcane bonded item (weapon, wand, staff). I'm not talking about the case where you have your other hand free, but where the hand holding the bonded item is the one considered as being used for the casting.

It seems like it should. You have bonded the item and should be able to incorporate it in your somatic casting patterns. Think of Harry Potter waving his wand, Gandalf raising his staff and casting, or a wizard with his athame moving it as he draws the patterns for his spell. It's traditional.

Have I missed something in the rules? Does it say somewhere that the bonded item can be in hand when casting?

The reason I ask, is I'm considering what my bonded item should be. When I think about using a weapon (dagger), I imagine what happens when I want to cast a spell. I have to put away the wand in my right hand since I have to have my dagger in my left hand to cast effectively. So unlike casting without a bonded item (where I can hold the wand and still cast), this becomes more difficult when the wizard chooses a bonded item in the weapon/wand/staff categories

(I have a different concern with the amulet and ring items. They take up a body slot even if they have no abilities. So if I choose an amulet and later find an amulet I like, I can't wear it. I can sell it and add the ability to my bonded amulet. But if I have two different amulets which I want to switch between situationally, I'm really stuck. So I ruled out ring and amulet, which raised the issue of casting while holding the item.)

So back to my question, do the rules allow a wizard to cast a spell using the hand holding his bonded item?

The more I think about it, the more I agree that "the two sentences are separate" is the grammatically correct interpretation. I'm still unsure as to the intent, because allowing spells to ignore target restrictions is a huge benefit.

Share Spells: The wizard may cast a spell with a target of “You” on his familiar (as a touch spell) instead of on himself. A wizard may cast spells on his familiar even if the spells do not normally affect creatures of the familiar's type (magical beast).

Share Spells (Ex): The druid may cast a spell with a target of “You” on her animal companion (as a spell with a range of touch) instead of on herself. A druid may cast spells on her animal companion even if the spells normally do not affect creatures of the companion's type (animal).

I think the simple answer is that if the spell works on familiars and animal companions, it should work on an eidolon.

I have always assumed that Share Spell ability applied solely to spells with 'you' as the target. But if anyone can find a different answer for familiars and animal companions, I would consider that a reasonably definitive answer for eidolons as well.

It is useful to see where this came from.

Share Spells

At the master’s option, he may have any spell (but not any spell-like ability) he casts on himself also affect his familiar. The familiar must be within 5 feet at the time of casting to receive the benefit.

If the spell or effect has a duration other than instantaneous, it stops affecting the familiar if it moves farther than 5 feet away and will not affect the familiar again even if it returns to the master before the duration expires. Additionally, the master may cast a spell with a target of "You" on his familiar (as a touch range spell) instead of on himself.

A master and his familiar can share spells even if the spells normally do not affect creatures of the familiar’s type (magical beast).

we see that the Share Spells definition had two pieces. The first said that spells could be shared, then when the wizard cast the spell on himself, it could also apply to his familiar. It also said that spells with a target of 'You' could be cast on your familiar instead of the wizard (i.e. not shared). It then added the clarification that in either of these cases the spells could be used even if they would not normally apply to a target of that type. So in that world, if the Wizard cast Enlarge Person on himself, he could choose to Enlarge his familiar as well. Or he could cast a spell on his familiar with target 'you' even if that normally required the target to be a humanoid. But only spells with target 'you' could be cast on his familiar through the Share Spells ability.

Pathfinder removed the first aspect of Share Spells, leaving only the second one. I think given this historical context, the sentence in question makes more sense if it applies only to spells with target 'you'.

xiN. wrote:

I don't see why teleporting would provoke a second time. It's not movement, so why would it?

To be honest I'm not entirely sure.

Go back and read this bit and it's replies maybe I'm misunderstanding what was being debated.

Let me try, since I'm the one who started the ruckus. When I read the description of the Conjuror's Dimensional Steps ability, I was confused by the wording. The statement that using the ability does not cause an AoO seemed strange, since it is a form of teleportation and I have always played it such that teleporting does not provoke an AoO. So I interpreted it as meaning that the act of casting it did not provoke the attack. (Otherwise it seemed like a useless bit of stuff to add in the description.) I was wrong about this.

At the time his was discussed there were some who argued that the action of moving out of the threatened space caused an AoO even if you cast the teleport type spell defensively or as a quickened spell (since you were 'moving' out of a threatened space). I did not believe that to be true and tried to find a definitive answer. My post above was just reporting what I found; no clear answer but sufficient evidence (for me at least), that the action does not provoke an attack. (This was answered definitively for the Dimensional Step ability by the clear wording of the ability, the question arose for Dimension Door and Teleport spells.)

As far as whether you can cast a SLA defensively, you can. The advice on spell levels is to treat it like a similar spell if you can find one (probably Dimension Door in this case) or the spell level of the highest level you can cast at the time you acquire it (4th level).

Miralus wrote:

At this point, we've moved into the realm of a rules question and further discussion here won't help. I should raise the issue of Teleport and AoO on the Rules forum and see if there is a definitive answer.

Thanks! If you get a definitive answer on the question, I would appreciate it if you could reply back here with what you found out. I'm certainly not anywhere near 100% on my interpretation.

Oh dread god-wizard Treantmonk,

As you requested I have journeyed long and far in search of the answer to this question. I sailed to the city of Paizo, where the gods who rule these worlds can be found and sometimes petitioned for answers to the questions that mortals pose. In the Forum of Rules, I shouted out my question along with all the other seekers of knowledge. Does The Act Of Teleporting Cause An Attack Of Opportunity?. But the gods did not answer my plea for enlightenment. I queried others amongst the mortals in the forum and their opinions match my own. But such is not proof. What mortal can claim to know the mind of a god?

Unwilling to return without a definitive answer, I searched through many a dusty tome hoping to find that the sages of other lands had addressed this issue. Even amongst the multitude of writings from the ancestral lands of Wotc (as you well know the ancestors were famous for the great volume of works they produced) I could find no answer. I was able to find evidence that indirectly may help answer this conundrum.

In the ancient tome, Players Handbook 2, I found reference to a spell called Dimension Step. You can imagine my excitement when I found it. I believed that at long last my search was nearing an end. But my hopes were soon dashed. This was not the same spell. It was similar and perhaps we can still glean some value from the writings of the ancients.

This spell allows your allies to make a short teleport. All creatures targeted by this spell can teleport a distance equal to their base land speed. A target can teleport to any square within its line of sight. This movement does not provoke attacks of opportunity. A creature can teleport up to a ledge, down to the base of a flight of stairs, and so forth as long as it observes the restrictions and limits given above."

While not the same effect, this at least answered one of my questions. When the gods created the Conjuror's Dimensional Steps ability, the sage who wrote the description was clearly familiar with this spell and included the description that so confused me earlier. In the context of the spell, I could understand why the ancients added this information. The targets were acting out of sequence, when normally they could not act. Being so different an action, the additional clarification was worth noting.

But still this was not proof and I have been unable to find that definitive answer I sought. Searching among the newer writings of Wotc, I found signs that their savants have considered the issue. In the Players Handbook 4.0, they provide the clarification that teleportation out of a threatened space does not provoke an Attack of Opportunity. While the laws in Wotc have changed greatly since the revolution, we still trace our heritage back to the same ancient roots and we can occasionally glean useful information from even a disputed tome like this.

Lastly, I would point to the PF Core Rulebook, where it states that moving out of a threatened square usually provokes an attack. The tome then mentions two common ways to avoid it, but does not claim that these are the only ways.

So alas, I have failed my commission. I have been unable to answer conclusively whether teleporting does or does not provoke an Attack of Opportunity. I believe the evidence strongly supports the conclusion that such movement does not provoke an attack. I was wrong in thinking that the Conjuror's Dimensional Steps ability did not provoke an attack when casting it. In that at least, this long journey has been enlightening.

I most humbly beg your forgiveness for having failed in the quest you set upon me.

Miralus of the Rainbow Halls

This came up in Treantmonk's Wizard optimization thread. Since I was a prime instigator in the discussion, I figured I should try to get this answered officially.

The basic question is whether the act of teleporting (not the casting of the spell, but the action) causes an AoO when you are leaving a threatened space. The argument in favor of this is that you are moving out of a threatened space and RAW, this provokes an AoO. The argument against is that the movement is instantaneous and isn't a move in the same sense as intended by the AoO rules.

Just to be clear when discussing this further. Let's use a simple scenario. A wizard has a Quickened Dimension Door spell. A fighter moves next to him. The wizard casts the spell (a swift action) and moves 50' away from the fighter. Is the wizard subject to an AoO?

I would say not. The quickened spell does not provoke an AoO and the movement is not really movement, but an instantaneous transition from one location to another. In support of this I offer two pieces of evidence. In D&D 4, this is clearly stated, teleporting out of a thretened space does not provoke. In the PHB2, the Dimensional Steps spell allows you to target several others and allows them to make a short range teleport. It has the exact same statement with respect to this ability as in the Conjuror's 8th level ability "... and such movement does not provoke an attack of opportunity." In this context, the statement makes sense, making it clear that the targets can make the jump without provoking an AoO.

Parenthetically, the statement about not provoking AoO in the Conjuror ability is confusing (IMHO). It led me to believe that there was something special about the ability since it made specific reference to AoO, while Dimension Door and Teleport don't. So I assumed it was referring to the triggering of the ability (since I believe teleports don't provoke AoOs).

Miralus: What Lathiira said (much better than I did) I think the "this movement does not provoke an attack of opportunity" is a clarification, not candy. I could be wrong.

Well, I now understand why we had a different perspective. I assumed teleport avoided AoO, so the words in the Dimensional Steps ability had to apply to the activation (or they would have been meaningless).

At this point, we've moved into the realm of a rules question and further discussion here won't help. I should raise the issue of Teleport and AoO on the Rules forum and see if there is a definitive answer.

Thanks for the feedback. I'm finding your guides very useful and interesting.

How so? The movement does not provoke attacks of opportunity. If you cast a spell (not on the defensive) and move out of a threatened square you provoke 2 attacks of opportunity.

I don't mean to go on and on about this ability. But now you're confusing me. (If I could ask this question directly I would. But I haven't found that ability, so I'll ask in the forum.)

Are you saying that if I successfully cast a Dimension Door spell defensively when next to an opponent, that this provokes an AoO because you moved out of a threatened square? That doesn't make sense to me, although reading the words in the rulebook literally it might be implied depending on how you interpret the word move. I've always assumed that DDoor and Teleport remove you instantaneously, so you don't actually move in a sense that applies to an AoO. This is made explicit in the 4.0 rules; teleporting out of a threatened square does not provoke an AoO. I could not find anything that explicitly stated this in the 3.5 or PF rules, but it seems like a reasonable interpretation.

Am I missing something? Do people interpret the 3.5 and PF rules such that the action of teleporting provokes an AoO? (For the sake of example, assume a Quickened DDoor, so there in no AoO for casting the spell.)

Miralus wrote:

This is a SLA, and you can use it in places a DDoor would be difficult to cast. It does not provoke an AoO or require V, S, or M components.

Actually, Miralus, according to page 183 of the Core Rulebook, using a spell-like ability DOES provoke AOO (see Table 8-2, Actions in Combat, Standard Action). This has not changed from 3.5 (see DMG, table 8-1).

Normally true, but the Dimensional Steps ability does not. The description (page 80 of the Core Rulebook) explicitly states "This teleportation must be used in 5-foot increments and such movement does not provoke an attack of opportunity.

Now maybe one could interpret that statement to mean that using the ability provokes an AoO but the movement does not, but I find that interpretation to be a stretch. (If I wanted to argue for that interpretation, I'd say that the caster has left a threatened square, thus triggering an AoO and the text is explicitly stating that this doesn't occur in this case. But if I make that argument, then I'd also have to argue that casting DDoor or Teleport does trigger an AoO when cast next to an opponent, since they do not have this exception in their description.)

One last comment. While reading the spell description for DDoor I noticed that it states "After using this spell, you can't take any other actions until your next turn." The Dimensional Steps ability does not have this limitation, so one could do a move or swift action after triggering it. I'm not sure why DDoor in 3.5 & PF has this restriction for the spell. There is probably some way to abuse this that I'm not thinking of right now.

As for taking your 5 allies over a pit trap...that's just not going to work. Every person you add requires an extra 5 feet of your 30 foot move - so you are only moving one square.

No, it is 30' x Wizard level, 240 feet at 8th level. In my example (you and 5 friends), you can move the group 40' at 8th level. If it was just 30' total, I'd definitely agree with you.

Dimension Door is verbal only, so you can use it to escape grapples too - although you need a concentration check admittedly.

DDoor could be a difficult Concentration Check (14 + grappler's CMB). Assume a black bear grabs you (CMB+11 for grapple), this is a DC 25 Check. At 10th level, Int 22, you have a 45% chance of failing the check (20% with Defensive Combat Training). The Dimensional Steps ability is not interruptible and also good against feats like Step Up or Spellbreaker.

In the end, I think this is a nicer 8th level benefit than most of the other schools. More versatile and useful in a wider variety of situations. But I haven't played with it in a real game to prove out whether this is true or not.

As for Weapon Finesse, it's not something I would take until you decide what are these touch spells you are planning on using all the time?

My original thought was Touch of Idiocy for dealing with casters in the back row (no save and might really limit their casting). I realize there aren't a lot of great spells and this is a fairly limited application, so I've moved onto other concepts. (We're testing the PF rules with a party of 6th level characters, so I'm focused on useful ideas for mid-levels at the moment.)

I think you miss what makes Conjuror's Dimensional Steps Ability interesting.

The Dimensional Step is so-so, but would occasionally save you a dimension door.

This is a SLA, and you can use it in places a DDoor would be difficult to cast. It does not provoke an AoO or require V, S, or M components. It is a Get Out of Grapple free card. It will get you away from a Silenced area. It also can be used in small increments, so it can be used many times a day in small chunks, saving spell slots. And one thing I just noticed. A DDoor allows one extra being per 3 caster levels. The ability has no such limit. So even at 8th level you could use it to take a party of 5 into the next room without opening the door first (or past the pit trap). All in all, this seems like a really handy utility belt ability.

It feels to me like you place a lot of emphasis on spells cast in melee instead of just before melee. Maybe it is just the way our games work, but it seems like we fairly often get a chance to prepare before starting a combat. In these cases, minute/level spells are perfect as you can cast them before starting the fight.

I mention this in the context of your comment

2) Speak with animals takes a round to cast - you are already casting a 1 round spell with the summon spell...

My thinking was to use Speak with Animals before melee (minute/level) and even if I missed my UMD check once it is roughly the same cost as a scroll. (Your other points make sense to me.)

This is me just wondering how much you include the ability of min/level spells to be cast as battle prep in your weightings.

One feat I've considered is Weapon Finesse. While melee touch spells are definitely not something to aspire to, there may be times you need that touch attack. And replacing your Strength Bonus with your Dex bonus should increase your attack bonus by 3-4 points. At one point I was considering using Spectral Hand (minute/level spell cast before battle) to deliver touch spells during melee. With that approach, Weapon Finesse seems like a really useful feat. (I know Touch AC is pretty low, but Wizard attack bonuses suck.)

In the Pathfinder Bestiary, there is a significant change to the Celestial and Fiendish templates. In 3.5, this template raised Intelligence to at least 3, in Pathfinder the Intelligence is not raised. Assuming that is intentional, a summoned animal will not speak a language. It isn't clear to me that you can communicate with and control the summoned creature to do things like fly you around, or guard you or anything more than attack the most obvious of your enemies.

From the description for Summon Monster.
It appears where you designate and acts immediately, on your turn. It attacks your opponents to the best of its ability. If you can communicate with the creature, you can direct it not to attack, to attack particular enemies, or to perform other actions.

If this is true, it seems to significantly lessen the value of summoning at low levels (at higher levels, you're likely to summon creatures with intelligence). I'm considering the value of UMD for Speak With Animal wands so that the summoned creature can be controlled more intelligently.

I understand the rules in general for reading a scroll (I think). There is one case I'm not sure about. Some spells are on different spell lists at different levels (e.g. Hideous Laughter is a 1st level Bard and 2nd level Wizard spell).

So when a wizard finds a Hideous Laughter scroll written by a Bard, does he need the Intelligence to match the spell where it is on the Wizard list (level 2, Int 12) or where it is on the Bard list (level 1, Int11)?

And if he needs to consider it at its position on the Wizard list (3rd level) what is the DC of the spell when cast (i.e. does it count as a 1st or 2nd level spell)?

The question comes up when one finds or buys a scroll of a spell like this. Now you need to be aware of not just whether it is arcane or divine, but which class actually scribed it.

I'm not sure if there are any real exploits, but if we ignore by whom it was scribed, then a Wizard can buy scrolls of HL scribed by a Bard at CL1/1st level and cast them as CL1/ 2nd level (so a higher DC). The same issue arises with Wands.

My feeling is that we'll need to track both the type (Arcane/Divine) and who crafted it. So a Hideous Laugh scroll scribed by a Bard will have a lower DC than one scribed by a Wizard regardless of who reads the scroll.

Is this the correct interpretation? I skimmed the 3.5 FAQ and the PF rules and didn't see this discussed, but I probably just overlooked something.

Thanks.