Alright, thanks guys. That's about what I figured. I shall submit myself for DM judgement.

Allow me to rephrase the question…

What class are you playing and why is your intelligence modifier?

Currently Gunslinger 1/Trench Fighter 6.

Int is 14. No, I have not taken the extra skill point from skilled in my skills. I used it for the fighter's human favored class bonus.

I took the extra hp at each level as the character concept would go for toughness.

I was using taking the extra hit point, then using the skill point from skilled for the favored class bonus.

So, I've been playing a campaign for a few sessions now as a Human, and I'd been taking the extra hit point and, without even thinking about it, using the extra skill point from skilled for the human favored class option. I just now realized that this might not actually be kosher.

Is this acceptable, or do I need to offer myself up for DM discipline?

A spell cast from a wand isn't a spell cast by you, and that's what enhanced cures requires. No luck there.

Trying to make this work otherwise - there's two parts to what you're asking. The first is to make a wand use your caster level, and the second is to apply enhanced cures or intensified spell or something like that to a wand.

A wand that uses your caster level is basically a staff. The simplest way would be to, you know, use a staff instead. Wizard 11 allows the arcane discovery staff-like wand; this lets you use a wand with your caster level, feats, and intelligence modifier just like a staff. But not class abilities so you can't sneak enhanced cures in either way.

Making a wand of intensified CLW would technically work for you but it's seriously impractical.

I'll think about it but nothing's coming to me right now.

Yeah, that's about what I expected. And I'd investigated staff like wand, but that's an 11 level dip into an arcane class for a healer. Not really good. Staffs are good, but the wandslinger does not work with them.

Thanks for your thoughts.

It seems that everyone is focusing on the Arcane vs. Divine aspects of this. But it seems to me that, if the divine caster does not actually cast the spell, and is granted it by his deity, then whether he uses prayers or not supplicate his deity in return for the spells is quite irrelevant.

All of that has been done already. The divine caster may not know how the magic works, but then, he doesn't have to. He just gets it from his deity, like a boon. And we can assume said deity does know how this all works. So could they have not put down the actual magic? I mean, the spell is already cast technically. The costs are paid for.

Since deciphering Arcane writings specifically states that divine writings can be deciphered in this way, it seems that maybe the wizard can glean the inner workings of the spell from the scroll, even if the divine caster that made it doesn't understand them himself.

I would have to say yes it would. If you read the 'Performing a Combat Maneuver' section of the combat page here: https://www.d20pfsrd.com/Gamemastering/combat/#TOC-Combat-Maneuvers

You will see that all combat maneuvers require an attack roll, adding your CMB instead of your normal bonuses. Since it is an attack roll, it would proc anything that benefits attacks.

I'm fiddling with the idea of making a Wandslinger healer, dipping into Oracle for the channels and the enhanced cures abilities of the Life Mystery.

I found a post on Stack Exchange which stated that enhanced cures would proc on a wand of Cure, but that seems wrong to me. I was under the impression that the details of the spell in a wand were locked in at time of creation. And really, who would want to spend the money for a CL 10 wand of CLW?

If it is wrong, is there any way of getting that ability to work with a wand? If it is not wrong, could anyone explain why?

Based on what you guys have said, if you aren't actually treated as holding a weapon, I'd say you can use somatic components. That's how I'd rule it. And that's how the DM for this campaign has. I was just hoping for some specific ruling I could point to one way or another.

Thanks.

Was checking this thread for one thing specifically and decided to thread necro because everyone seemed to be missing relevant points visa vi AoMF vs Handrwaps.

AoMF benefits any body part/natural attack used. However, it maxes out at a +5 bonus and costs twice as much to enhance as a weapon.
+5 weapon cost: +5^2 x 2,000 = 50,000
+5 AoMF = 100,000
Now, few would dispute this increased cost as unnecessary considering it affects the entire body.

Now come the Handwraps. They count as two but cost as one, meaning they technically cost half as much to enhance as any other dual wielding. And they can be enhanced to +10
2 +10 weapons cost: +10^2 x 2,000 x 2= 400,000
+10 Handwraps cost: +10^2 x 2,000 = 200,000

So, for twice the cost of a maxed out AoMF you get two +10 enhanced weapons. In other words, these are amazing for anyone who isn't planning to make every attack with something other than fists.
-People continually bring up flying kick. Yeah, its great when that can hit, but the true advantage to flying kick is the ability to move mid flurry. So what if you miss? You've got x more attacks that will benefit.
-No, spin kick wouldn't benefit. But you're only using that against characters with significantly lower flat footed AC compared to their regular.
-Getting that AOO from improved trip/vicious stomp? Well, you're getting a +4 just for them being prone.
-Elbow smash is a weird one. It states you're hitting with an elbow, but it then states you have to use a fist to utilize that style strike. I think they meant your previous attack had to be with a fist.

And, you could chuck on a +5 AoMF and still be coming in 100,000 gold cheaper than that two weapon fighter for those special use abilities.

Now, on to costs. The wording suggests you could easily wrap different materials into each fist's wrap. Honestly, since we're talking about small bits woven in I'd just charge for the more expensive one and call it done. This also isn't relevant in higher levels, as enhancement bonuses overcome all material DR. Hell, since these are modifying unarmed strikes, the monk's Ki Strike ability does that anyway.

When it comes to abilities, it seems clear that you are enchanting both of the hand wraps. So, as long as the player doesn't want different abilities on each, they are good to go. As a DM, if they did want different weapon abilities on each, I'd make them pay separately for each different ability.

And, ironically, the ruling I was looking for never showed up here. Are you considered armed? Being that the handwraps are in the weapon category it seems you would be. But things like the cestus specify you are considered armed, and as such don't provoke AOO's.
Can you cast spells with somatic/material components while wielding these? My interpretation says yes, but there is nothing specifically written about it.

It seems to me that people in this thread are confusing MTG rules with Pathfinder rules. In MTG immunity to red makes you immune to all effects of red cards whether they deal damage or not.

But in Pathfinder it states:

Energy Immunity and Vulnerability
A creature with energy immunity never takes damage from that energy type. Vulnerability means the creature takes half again as much (+50%) damage as normal from that energy type, regardless of whether a saving throw is allowed or if the save is a success or failure.

Energy Resistance
A creature with resistance to energy has the ability (usually extraordinary) to ignore some damage of a certain type per attack, but it does not have total immunity.
Each resistance ability is defined by what energy type it resists and how many points of damage are resisted. It doesn’t matter whether the damage has a mundane or magical source.
When resistance completely negates the damage from an energy attack, the attack does not disrupt a spell. This resistance does not stack with the resistance that a spell might provide.

So all fire immunity does is says you can't take damage from anything with the fire descriptor. It in no way makes you immune to any effect with the fire descriptor. Remember, the spell's damage is already 0. It can't get lower than that.

Consider Tar Pool: A creature with Immunity to fire would still have to make the reflex saves, they just wouldn't take the damage.

Or consider the Ifrit Fire in the Blood Alternate Racial Trait: It states they gain their healing even if the fire effect wouldn't get through their resistance.

Energy Resist and Energy Immunity only lower damage taken from that energy type. Since no damage is actually being dealt I'd have to say these abilities have no effect.

Also, from a speed of game consideration, taking into effect Fire Vulnerability, Fire Resist, and Fire immunity could really slow the game down. Imagine casting this over a battlefield with characters that have varying resists, immunity, weakness. That's just wasting everyone's time.

Also, as pointed out, it makes no sense for a frost giant to get more healing from this effect than an Ifrit.

Moorningstaar wrote:

willuwontu wrote:

1) Only 1 ray.

2) Increases the overall damage since it's rolled once.
3) Unsure.

First, thanks for responding so quickly. Secondly, I'm having trouble reconciling your answers in one way. The trait specifies that it is increasing the damage of the spell. Would it not make more sense to say only one ray, and only one target affected by Fireball, or conversely each ray and each target?

For clarification purposes, there is another similar trait called Draconic Infusion that specifies only 1 target of the spell.

Draconic Infusion:
Benefit(s): Choose the acid, cold, electricity, or fire spell descriptor when you take this trait. Once per day for every 2 caster levels you have (minimum once per day), when you cast a spell that has your chosen elemental descriptor, you can deal an additional 1d4 points of damage of that energy type to one target of that spell.

That would suggest, but certainly not prove, that since Volatile Conduit does not require 'to one target' that it could be more. Thank you again.

It increases the damage of the spell by 1d4, if you increase the damage of multiple rays by 1d4, you are increasing the damage of the spell by more than 1d4.

The reason it increases all fireball damage is that there is only one damage roll for fireball (which is then applied against multiple targets).

This is why I find it hard to rule on wall of fire, because you would only roll once per instance it gets triggered, but it also can be triggered multiple times. This means if you increase each roll by 1d4, the overall spell damage is increased by more than 1d4.

I think I see where your coming from, but it still seems that the fireball should only deal 1D4 extra damage to one person in its effect. Otherwise the fireball would also be getting more than 1D4 extra damage. The question now is whether firewall would deal an additional 1D4 to one character once or every round.

Thanks

Empowered Spell:
Benefit: All variable, numeric effects of an empowered spell are increased by half including bonuses to those dice rolls.

Saving throws and opposed rolls are not affected, nor are spells without random variables.

Solar Bloodline Arcana:
Bloodline Arcana: Whenever you cast a spell with the fire descriptor, if it deals damage, it deals +1 point of damage per die rolled.

This came up in a game I'm running some time ago. The Sorcerer claimed that empower spell would increase the extra damage from his bloodline arcana. I argued that it wasn't a variable of the spell, and so not subject to the enhancement. He accepted my ruling and we moved on. (As a gestalt sorcerer/oracle/mystic theurge he really doesn't have much to complain about lol)

However, today I was going through some rules questions on empower, and I think I've made a mistake. Since the bonus damage from weapon focus (ray) does get enhanced should I have allowed this increase?

I also took another look at the arcana's wording. It states 'if it deals damage' suggesting that this effect is not added until after the spell is completed. I assume this is to keep it from helping to overcome resistances, but would that suggest that its not actually bonus damage to the spell? If that's the case how does empower effect the orc or draconic bloodline arcana that lack this line? Thanks for your time.

1) Only 1 ray.

2) Increases the overall damage since it's rolled once.
3) Unsure.

First, thanks for responding so quickly. Secondly, I'm having trouble reconciling your answers in one way. The trait specifies that it is increasing the damage of the spell. Would it not make more sense to say only one ray, and only one target affected by Fireball, or conversely each ray and each target?

For clarification purposes, there is another similar trait called Draconic Infusion that specifies only 1 target of the spell.

Draconic Infusion:
Benefit(s): Choose the acid, cold, electricity, or fire spell descriptor when you take this trait. Once per day for every 2 caster levels you have (minimum once per day), when you cast a spell that has your chosen elemental descriptor, you can deal an additional 1d4 points of damage of that energy type to one target of that spell.

That would suggest, but certainly not prove, that since Volatile Conduit does not require 'to one target' that it could be more. Thank you again.

Moorningstaar wrote:

Goblin_Priest wrote:

You can't add your cha bonus twice to the same thing. Which makes undead antipaladins underwhelming, because, as you say, they aren't getting it twice for the same reason and thus their saves will be lower than a non-undead version. But that's the way the rules intend it.

Do you have some link to what the writer's intended? I'm using RAW. Unless they've already ruled on this, and I'd like to know if they have, I'm afraid I'd still have to disagree.

You mean like this FAQ that was posted earlier?

FAQ wrote:

Do ability modifiers from the same ability stack? For instance, can you add the same ability bonus on the same roll twice using two different effects that each add that same ability modifier?

No. An ability bonus, such as "Strength bonus", is considered to be the same source for the purpose of bonuses from the same source not stacking. However, you can still add, for instance “a deflection bonus equal to your Charisma modifier” and your Charisma modifier. For this purpose, however, the paladin's untyped "bonus equal to her Charisma bonus (if any) on all saving throws" from divine grace is considered to be the same as "Charisma bonus (if any)", and the same would be true for any other untyped "bonus equal to her [ability score] bonus" constructions.

I admit I skimmed that, and I'll admit that it applies to the second point. It does not negate my first point that it is not a 'bonus equal to your charisma' but a straight transposition.

First let's get this out of the way:
Volatile Conduit: You discovered a secret that enhances the energy of some spells.

Benefit: Once per day as a free action, when you cast a spell that deals acid, cold, electricity, or fire damage, you can enhance that spell with volatile energy. When you do, it deals 1d4 points of extra damage of the same energy type.

1) How this effects spells like Scorching Ray. Does this increase each ray (assuming you get more than one) by 1D4, or just the first?

2)What about the damage dealt by a fireball? One target or all, since you only roll damage once?

3) How about a flame wall? Would it work for one target, all targets for one round, or the entire duration of the spell?

Thanks for your input.

Cheaper in the long run to just enchant the bow.

Oh at the end of the day I agree, if a player builds a halfling to be able to grapple a t-rex they should be able to.

but I do have a hard time wrapping my mind around how, from a thematic standpoint over a mechanical one, they would grapple a t-rex.

If it's a home game and the GM tells me a creature just does not have the ability to hinder a creature 4 sizes bigger than it by means of grappling I definitely would understand.

You think that's bad? I had a halfling gunslinger knock a T-Rex prone with a gunshot. I mean, the bullet's the size of my pinkie finger, maybe! How the hell could he have knocked it prone? But by the rules he did.

I did get him to agree to going against CMD instead of touch ac for future attempts, as that was ridiculous.

As to this, no there's nothing wrong with building mighty mouse if you can make it work.

I completely ignored this in my campaign. Instead I built . . .

Magic*Mart!

A single massive workshop with outlets in every major town. They used permanencied circles of teleportation to move merchandise around (at a small fee). I ruled that any basic item could be found, but if the group wanted to start stacking wierd abilities they had to put in a ticket. They then had the option to surrender their item for enhancement, or commission a new one to be built. Once completed they could sell their old whatever to help pay for the new thingamabob.

For instance: They would have no problems finding a weapon with just about any combination of elemental damage abilities on it. But if they wanted a Keen, Brilliant Energy Rapier that would not be. They had armor with enhancement bonuses on it up to +5 with up to one ability in stock. Start stacking and its going to take time. I also allowed them to pay more for rush orders. (This built off of the collaborative crafting mechanics).

This way my group wasn't constantly being thwarted in their attempts to find better gear by their pesky dice. . .

You can't add your cha bonus twice to the same thing. Which makes undead antipaladins underwhelming, because, as you say, they aren't getting it twice for the same reason and thus their saves will be lower than a non-undead version. But that's the way the rules intend it.

Do you have some link to what the writer's intended? I'm using RAW. Unless they've already ruled on this, and I'd like to know if they have, I'm afraid I'd still have to disagree.

First, to anyone claiming an undead can't be a paladin:
YOU DON'T KNOW HIS LIFE!

But seriously, this is a matter between the player and the DM. Clearly they are both okay with it, so move on.

Second, its not a matter of stacking.

Now Fuzzy Wuzzy claimed that:
So, when you plug your Con/Cha into your Fort save, is it a bonus, or just part of the definition of Fort saves? It's the former.

Now, this interpretation suggests that since Con is a bonus to Fort we cannot add Cha. Which would mean that no Paladin could ever add Cha to his fort save, as it has a bonus. Remember, the undead trait says you use Cha in place of Con. Think of it as a pointer sitting in Con, that redirects to Cha for the score.

But even if I'm wrong here, I still don't see the problem. I remind you that the rules dealing with stacking bonuses state that you cannot stack typed bonuses, or bonuses from the same source.

These are both untyped bonuses, so no issue there.

As to sources, I refer you to the relevant wording of 'from the same source'. The source is not whatever is used to determine the relevant number. The source is the ability. In this case, one is racial, the other is a class ability. Neither is named the same. They are not even the same type of ability. One is untyped and the other is supernatural. This rule is designed to keep people from stacking Belt of Mighty Strength (which uses Bull's Strength in crafting) and Bull's Strength, not to mitigate a class ability. The fact that two separate abilities reference a specific score on your sheet is irrelevant.

I'd most certainly allow this in my campaigns. But, unless all your players are playing monstrous races I'd impose a 2 level penalty on your undead paladin. Otherwise your character will quickly outshine everyone in the party.

Moorningstaar wrote:

In other words if a specific effect (ability, feat, etc.) overrides the general rules then you use the specific effect.
...
Lastly, I ask you, what game imbalance would occur with this use? You can't even get spell perfection until level 15, and this requires an investment of 4 feats. That's a serious investment for one spell.

Yes specific overrides general. The specifics of how heightened spell work override the more general spell perfection.

Most metamagic feats don't change the effective spell level. They add to the spell slot. Heightened spell is specifically different.

This FAQ: https://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fm
is more in line with my interpretation than yours.

game imbalance? Do you seriously not see the problem??
All 16+ daily fireballs a sorcerer (Lv 15) can cast now have a save DC of easily 25+ (10+9+CHA+ other modsx2), bypass all kinds of magical protection (spell immunity, spell turning (mostly)) and get a +8 to penetrate spell resistance. Requiring only a few feats the sorcerer would likely already pick-up: (greater) spell penetration, Spell focus.

Feel free to eat your own cake your own way, and pathfinder your own way. However, you asked your people's opinions and I respectfully gave one to you.

I'm afraid I have to disagree. Heighten spell does not override spell perfection in any way. In fact it separates effective spell level with spell level quite clearly. If you interpret the level increase in your manner then it clearly overrides any other increases via other metamagic feats. That's the straight wording, and that's why I have an issue with that interpretation.

As to that faq, I actually found it yesterday after posting my response. It specifically states that the odd wording is actually a hold over from 3.5 and that it should have indicated a one level increase per enhanced level.

Lastly, when you consider that at level 15 a character's wealth should be ~240,000 Gold, its not hard for any of them to make a DC 25 save easily. Being that Dex is the most important stat (It helps ac, touch ac, reflex saves, CMD, and can be used for melee or ranged combat) its not any stretch of the imagination to expect a player to have a +8 in dex, and a +5 cloak of resists. Even with a class that has a bad dex progression that's another +5. That's a roll of 5 to make the save of your fireball.

But wait, there's more; when you consider the plethora of classes, archetypes, prestige classes, and wonderous items granting evasion you could easily expect a character to make that save to take no damage at all. I'm sorry but I don't see a 25% chance that your one spell that turn will have any effect as overpowered. Even with spell perfection and adding quicken that's a 50% chance to have done anything.

I appreciate your input, but I don't find your arguments convincing. Could be that by allowing my players to do as such I'll end up being sorry, but I don't see how. One of my players is a gestalted Mystic Theurge who is currently relegated to healing because any spell with a save is worthless. And I've checked his build. It's solid.

I've also discussed this with my group (that's 4 dms). None of us can understand what seems to be the prevailing attitude. I still don't understand it. Guess we'll see.

I built a gestalted archeologist(bard) vangaurd(slayer) duelist as an npc ally for my group. They loved just how adaptable it was. Just be aware that this combination provides you with a multitude of abilities to keep track of.

I would disagree with your assessment. Heightened spell doesn't say you change the effective level by adding a cost. It says all effects dependent on spell level are calculated according to the heightened level. This is not a "cost" in game terms, and is not negated by spell perfection.

The spell level is given in the spell description. It remains unchanged by metamagic feats, except heightened spell.

In the shocking grasp example, Heighten isn't a 4 level increase, it is a swap to a 5th level spell. Quicken is a 4 level increase.

Heightened spell does care what slot you actually use, it changes the base slot required, and the effective (ie how the spell operates) parameters. The other feats stacked after the fact can change the spell slot level actually required.

I would agree with half of your assessment given your interpretation of the rules. But its been stated that specific overrides general. In other words if a specific effect (ability, feat, etc.) overrides the general rules then you use the specific effect.

It certainly appears to me that, given your interpretation, that shocking grasp "is as difficult to prepare as its effective level" clause most definitely overrides the general rules that increase a spells level by adding meta magic feats. The feat does not say that the spell's base level is equal to its effective level. It states that the spell is as difficult to prepare as a spell of its effective spell level.

It seems to me that you are trying to both have your cake and eat it too. You don't want to let spell perfection negate a level increase from a metamagic feat, but neither do you want to follow that logic to its conclusion. No offense.

Lastly, I ask you, what game imbalance would occur with this use? You can't even get spell perfection until level 15, and this requires an investment of 4 feats. That's a serious investment for one spell.

I realize that the last post in this thread is nearly two years old but I've noticed a discrepancy in the way you've all talked about heighten spell and its actual wording.

My thought is that they've probably adjusted the wording since, and I'd be interested in how you guys would interpret things now. Below are my thoughts on the matter.

The actual wording for heighten spell (currently) is found here:
https://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/metamagic-feats/heighten-spell-metamagic/

It states:

You can cast spells as if they were a higher level.

Benefit: A heightened spell has a higher spell level than normal (up to a maximum of 9th level). Unlike other metamagic feats, Heighten Spell actually increases the effective level of the spell that it modifies. All effects dependent on spell level (such as saving throw DCs and ability to penetrate a lesser globe of invulnerability) are calculated according to the heightened level.

Level Increase: The heightened spell is as difficult to prepare and cast as a spell of its effective level.

I've bolded the two parts of this I find to be of import, and will discuss them one at a time.

The first indicates that heighten does not care what spell slot is actually used. It increases the effective level, not the actual level of the spell. This is supported by observing what happens when one should stack metamagic feats without using spell perfection.

Ex. Say I take Shocking Grasp (Level 1 spell dealing max 5D6 electricity damage) and decide I wish to heighten it to level 5 (4 level increase) and add Quicken to it (4 level increase) thus increasing the spell's level to 9. Does heighten spell care if I'm not casting the spell with a level 5 slot? It does not.

Conclusion: Heighten spell does not care what level spell slot you actually use. Effective level and actual level are two different things.

But then there's the second line stating that the spell is as difficult to prepare as its effective level. On the surface this suggests that the spell takes a spell slot equal to its effective level no matter what.

But wouldn't that mean that the shocking grasp in the above example would only take a fifth level slot despite the fact that its total spell level was 9th? Seems a bit odd.

And to make matters even more confusing, the only time the rules suggest a greater difficulty in casting a spell based upon its level is in concentration checks. Yet the sideboard in metamagic feats on d20pfsrd specifically states that the spell is as difficult to cast as its total level, not its effective level.

The only other way to interpret this is to say this spell's level increase is equal to the amount you've heightened it. Perhaps they were simply looking for a less wordy way to say it?

And if that's the case I personally see no problem with spell perfection. Heighten spell increases the effective level of the spell for a cost of an equal increase in spell slots. Spell perfection merely negates that cost.

Okay thanks for the info. I have to agree with you that it seems ridiculous. I do like the idea of simply requiring therm to have grit and go against cmd but sadly that's not how it's written

Incidentally I've been toying with using the spell scales of deflection to create an armor special ability that allows the armor bonus to be applied to touch. I'm just not sure if that should be a +1 or +2 enhancement bonus.

I've got a gnome gunslinger in three party that's been using targeting on legs regularly. Our has repeatedly turned the course of battles. Since its basically a touch attack to trip it never fails. I haven't questioned it until this little 3 foot shrimp with his small size gun managed to knock a T Rex prone. This to me would be like expecting a BB gun to do the same to a person which is unlikely. Are we resolving this correctly?

Those rules are for enchanting weapons not weapon abilities. It's all in the wording. So unless you have something that specifically negates stacking them I'll allow it formy players. I'll grant that you are probably correct in interpretation but not raw.

Moorningstaar - You described it as flavor text in a previous post, so I thought it fair to assume we were on the same page in that regard.

Moorningstaar wrote:

I think I have to disagree here. That flavor text pretty much states that it comes from your hand. Now obviously this isn't an issue normally because a creature can reach the edge of their square. And while they can reach into a square one space over they cannot reach through it to its opposite edge short of something like the above spell or having a ten foot reach.

In order to be rules text, it needs to reference an actual rule. That sentence does not reference any rules. It does not explain what it means in terms of the rules of the game. Does it mean if you have 5 foot reach, you can have it emanate from a corner of an adjacent square? You say no, but why? Why not? Nothing in reach says you can't reach the corners of the adjacent square. You can reach anything in the adjacent square, and the corners and edges are included in the square. There is nowhere in the square that a creature can get to that you can't reach. So why can't a creature with 5-foot reach have the spell originate at another corner?

Because there is no rules specific language telling us that they can in the description of burning hands. How do you determine where a spell starts? You look at the range and the area. In this case, Area tells us it's a 15' cone shaped burst. How do you determine where that can start? You look at the rules for cones. The rules for cones do not mention reach. It's also a burst. The rules for bursts do not mention reach. The rules for bursts from large creatures also do not mention reach. And the spell description does not mention reach. Reach does not factor into the rules for determining where the spell can originate.

All of the potential rules that people are coming up with are guesses as to how it might work if it were allowed. There is no rules text to support the idea, because there is no rules text there.

Contrast...

You're correct, I should have put qoutations around 'flavor text'. My apologies.

As to why a character taking a 5ft step can't cast 5ft away I went over that specifically. A five foot reach allows you to make attacks within a square but would not let you reach the other side. As such you could not cast this from the edge of another square. This is why I said a ten foot reach would let you cast one square over, not two. That is why the dragon with 15 foot reach could cast from 2 squares away instead of three. Remember a human has an arm reach of only ~2'6". 5ft reach means you can attack enemies 5ft away not that you have a 5' arm.

As to feather step, why are you referencing the name? I'm not. I'm referencing what the spell states its doing. Nor does feather step invoke any rules. It does not say you ignore difficult terrain as per rule x on page y. That's referencing a rule. And I'd state caltrops would be effected only if they were considered difficult terrain, as the text of the spell.

Lastly it has been stated by the developers that the rules for this game are inclusive, meaning that unless the rules state you can't do something, you can. Since as you stated yourself these rules do not mention reach, there is nothing barring what is happening here. Would you not allow the delivery of touch spells to a character 10ft away when the caster has reach?

Amulet of Mighty Fists states:
This amulet grants an enhancement bonus of +1 to +5 on attack and damage rolls with unarmed attacks and natural weapons.

Alternatively, this amulet can grant melee weapon special abilities, so long as they can be applied to unarmed attacks. See Table: Melee Weapon Special Abilities for a list of abilities. Special abilities count as additional bonuses for determining the market value of the item, but do not modify attack or damage bonuses. An amulet of mighty fists cannot have a modified bonus (enhancement bonus plus special ability bonus equivalents) higher than +5. An amulet of mighty fists does not need to have a +1 enhancement bonus to grant a melee weapon special ability.

Now nothing here states you are enchanting it AS a weapon, but that you are enchanting it with weapon special abilities. There is also the limitations that state it can't go past +5 (instead of +10).

Is your interpretation that because you are using melee weapon abilities that the amulet is being enchanted as a melee weapon?

I can't find that faq.
But Wild Shape Specifically states:
Her options for new forms include all creatures with the animal type.

I submit that animal companions are animals and as such would qualify.

P.S. I would also like to point out that the FAQ that he copies speaks towards applying templates to animals and does not mention animal companions. There are several reasons for this. Perhaps whomever wrote that response did not consider ACs. Perhaps they didn't consider them because they assumed they were not applicable when they are. Perhaps they forgot about them. Perhaps they didn't consider it because ACs shouldn't be used.

Since there are two entries in two different areas discussing the same effect I'd say its up to the DM to decide which to use.

Personally it seems a little unfair to make quicken worthless for spontaneous casters (who, especially at high level, is going to only be applying one MM feat) so I'd allow the addition without the increased time as long as you are applying quicken to the spell with either method.

There are medium size T-Rexs under animal companions so you could become one of those.

I'm getting alot of good stuff for question 2. I'm considering saying they can't go past 6 until level 20. But I'm not getting much feedback on question 1. If there is no precedent then I'll probably allow it. The way I see it, this gives the player options without making themselves super. If they choose to stack an element they run the risk of immunity canceling all their extra damage, but they could get past that particular resistance (though it could take alot). If they choose to spread their elements out they run the risk of losing their extra damage to creatures with small resistances for everything (they are fighting alot of demons in this campaign) but would only lose 1d6 damage to something that had limited resistances or immunity.

Thanks, I've heard about epic characters being able to wield +20 weapons, but i can't find that. I'm thinking about staying no item can give more than a +10 unless they are epic, which might actually happen. I'll provably build epic feats for that

I have 2.

1) Can you stack an element ability such as frost on an amulet of mighty fists? While on the magic weapons page it specifically states that you can't have a weapon ability on a weapon more than once, I found no such restriction on the wonderous item page.

2) Is it understood that you can continue creating more powerful versions of existing wonderous items? For example, Belt of strength clearly levels in expense per the equation for armor enhancements. In other words you square the enhancement bonus and multiply by 1,000G. So is it understood within the rules that you can make a Belt of Giant Strength +8 that costs 64k Gold? Or were these items capped for a reason.

Because you are arguing that it is the rule, not that you think it makes sense and would allow it. There's a difference between flavor text and mechanical rules text. If all Feather Step said was that it lets you move faster in difficult terrain, we'd have no idea what it meant by that. That's flavor text. It includes rules text to back it up.

Burning hands has flavor text that says "A cone of searing flame shoots from your fingertips." It then goes on to give us the rules for what the cone does. Nowhere does it say unlike a normal cone effect, you can begin the cone up to your reach number of squares away. That would be a rule overriding the general rule. A description of what the spell looks like is not a rule that overrides the general rule of how you determine the squares affected by a cone.

I personally don't read that as flavor text. This is describing what the spell does. In this case it states the cone comes from your hand. It does not say your hand must be next to you.

Oh I'm not saying that the rules are at fault, I just wanted to have a clear cut reference for the ruling which Tri just gave me. I hadn't read superscript 1 because it didn't show on that line. Thank you.

And a cone "starts from any corner of your square and widens as it goes." If you don't want to apply the rules from emanations, then you are left with that statement and that limitation. Choosing to allow it to emanate from reach is a house rule that is not supported by anything in the books. You are welcome to do that, but it is not the rule presented by the game. So again, as has been the pattern in all of the threads going right now, if you choose to rule that way at your table, you are within your right to do so, and a player should respect that. If you are sitting at someone else's table, and they do not agree with your interpretation (as most here seem not to), then you should also respect their decision.

Yes you have a general blanket rule. I have a specific effect from these spells. Specific over-rules general. Or would you suggest that Feather Step does not allow you to make 5ft steps in difficult terrain?

And I believe I specified 'as a dm' up at the top. Not sure why your trying to act like I'm arguing with my DM. I'm just saying I'd allow it in my game.

The Pathfinder ruleset has a lot of things that are not absolutely defined. It is the role of the GM to interpret what is there to the best of their abilities. There is a large amount of circumstantial evidence that the act of charging and the movement during a charge can have separate rules for provoking, including an FAQ explaining how a single action (casting a spell with a ranged touch attack) can provoke from two separate parts of that action.

If your player insists that you rule their way or they walk, then they really aren't participating the the social contract of what a Roleplaying Game is. You sit down at a table as a player agreeing for someone to act as the GM. You might disagree with how they interpret something, but you go with what their interpretation is. All you can do is state your case.

If you as a GM feel that the rules are not specific enough, and you don't want to have movement from a charge provoke, then you don't have to do that. It's your game. If you are a player sitting at someone else's table, where they are spending their time and effort to provide a fun experience for you, then you should respect the decisions they make in the process of doing so....

I agree and I do. I've had disagreements and if they didn't see my point I've said 'I disagree but this is your campaign' and moved on. The problem here is this guy is one of my room mates.

The rules are not written only with PCs in mind. Just look at the cover section. It goes into extreme detail about the differences for larger creatures and medium sized creatures (with actual, very welcome, examples!). Also, enlarge person is a 1st level spell that is in the core rulebook. PCs have been able to be large while casting a spell since the beginning of Pathfinder and before.

Cones wrote:

A cone-shaped spell shoots away from you in a quarter-circle in the direction you designate. It starts from any corner of your square and widens out as it goes. Most cones are either bursts or emanations (see above), and thus won’t go around corners.

And, there are published rules on Bursts and Emanations for larger creatures. (Though they might come from an Adventure Path? I'm unclear on the citation on PFSRD, and I haven't tracked them down in the book yet.)

Bursts and Emanations and Larger Creatures wrote:

Source AP91

The rules often assume that creatures are Medium or Small. In the case of a handful of spells or effects with areas that feature a “radius emanation centered on you” such as antimagic field, aura of doom, and zone of silence, as well as some of the spells presented in this section, this can result in an area that is effectively useless when coming from a Large or larger caster. As an optional rule, when a creature casts an emanation or burst spell with the text “centered on you,” treat the creature’s entire space as the spell’s point of origin, and measure the spell’s area or effect from the edge of the creature’s space. For instance, an antimagic field cast by a fire giant would extend 10 feet beyond his space (effectively increasing the emanation’s radius by 5 feet).

Measure from the edge of the creature's space. Notice that reach is not mentioned in there anywhere.

The rule you just quoted specifies emanations centered on you. This is an emanation from your hand. It is not centered on you, nor does it spread in all directions. It is a cone.

Moorningstaar wrote:

Perhaps but I can already here the argument. Charge specifically states it does not provoke AOO. This could be interpreted to suggest it is canceling the AOOs normally provoked from movement. Thus I need a ruling.

I don't get to just say 'Look I'm the DM and this is how I've ruled'. There will be an argument. People will get pissed. In an attempt to prevent this I'd like to be able to point him to a specific source.

Yes, you do get to say that. You get to say that you've gone to the boards, asked around, and that based on what you've seen there, and the way that you read the rules, this is how you are going to rule it. That is the role of the GM when the rules aren't clear.

This will not prevent a 30 minute argument.

where is this superscript? I just read charge and found none. I just read actions in combat and it only points out that charge can be taken as a move action.

Link is a 1st level ability for animal companions. Unless there's something that delays that?

Ah yes your correct. So yes it would have link. Unfortunately link specifies your still using handle animal and it is still 1 action, albeit a free one.

On another note I've ruled in my campaigns that if your animal companion understands a language, you can speak to it to tell it what to do which is a free action and is not a skill check. This is of course a house rule

Perhaps but I can already here the argument. Charge specifically states it does not provoke AOO. This could be interpreted to suggest it is canceling the AOOs normally provoked from movement. Thus I need a ruling.

I don't get to just say 'Look I'm the DM and this is how I've ruled'. There will be an argument. People will get pissed. In an attempt to prevent this I'd like to be able to point him to a specific source.

Large creatures with spells or spell-like abilities are pretty common. An Adult Red Dragon, for example, has a 15 foot reach with its bite. I would think that if cone effects were meant to work differently for creatures with reach, then that would be addressed in the rules.

Otherwise are we saying a dragon can start their breath weapon cone up to three squares away?

The rules for placing the cone templates are pretty specific. You pick a corner or edge of your space, and you use the appropriate template. This is a game of abstractions, not trying to completely mirror the "reality" of the situation. You do what is in the rules to determine the area of the cone, and that starts from a corner or edge of your space.

It's a fine house rule to allow reach with it, if that's something that is appealing. But I don't think it's supported in the rules, despite the flavor text.

Remember the rules are built with pcs in mind, but that's a good point. I'd say that a dragon with a 15 foot reach could issue its breath weapon up to 10 ft from the front of its body if it chose to as that specifies coming from the head.

Isn't directing an animal companion usually a free action?

Would this only apply when either pushing an AC, or when trying to direct an animal that is not an animal companion, like a trained dog you bought that is not a class ability?

Directing them becomes a free action when they level enough to gain the Link animal companion ability. And technically a free action is still an action, so it would still provoke, but I might modify the defensive spellcasting option for ACs in that case.

I believe a push is a full round action.

Finally (for now, I think), BNW quoted another piece of relevant rules text in his second message, but did not mark it as a quote.

Grapple wrote:

Damage

You can inflict damage to your target equal to your unarmed strike, a natural attack, or an attack made with armor spikes or a light or one-handed weapon. This damage can be either lethal or nonlethal.

Is that a restatement of the rule in the armor spikes description, clarifying that they can only replace the weapon damage? Or is it a separate option to use the armor spikes when you don't have another good option for damage. Like, if you don't have Improved Unarmed Strike, but you need to deal lethal damage (like to a construct or undead immune to non-lethal).

If you grapple and deal the armor spikes as additional damage, all your other damage would be non-lethal, including strength and power attack and whatever other static bonuses. But if you elect to forego the unarmed strike damage and use the armor spikes as your main weapon, you don't deal any extra damage, but all of the damage you do deal, including static modifiers, would be lethal.

Which is right? I have no idea.

Since armor spikes specify adding damage to a grapple attack I'd suggest that you are not making an attack with armor spikes so much as making an attack boosted by armor spikes. It is definitely worded weirdly though

Murdock Mudeater wrote:

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Some other combination ?

"Round 2) Simmons Gene rolls to maintain the grapple and chooses to damage. His *oversized* Armor spikes deal 1d8+3 damage and takes no oversized attack penalty because this attack automatically hits."

I don't agree with this one, but it came up in that other thread on the same topic and is difficult to disprove due to the vagueness of the rules on armor spikes.

Personally, I think Option 1 is correct.

Are there rules for wearing oversized armor? I think there's a pretty good case to be made that you can't put large armor spikes on medium armor.

As a GM I'd have to rule that a grapple attack was any attempt to damage the person you were grappling or that was grappling you. I specify this because the grappler can choose to maintain the grapple and then choose to automatically do damage to their victim whereas the grapplee can take a full attack on anyone in reach including the grappler.