Ah, yeah, taking Witch Hunter later makes sense, I agree. I'll check out those other bloodlines too. I'm not a fan of 1/day abilities, but the elemental air line up looks very much in line with this theme.
Once you're high enough level to buy a 2000 gp Handy Haversack this problem is solved.
LOL! This is One of the first things we talked about! We didn't discuss it seriously, but my comment was that barbarians, like pick up trucks in the South, often have weapon racks mounted across their shoulders instead of pauldrons
Even in a city controlled by BBEG, nobody looks up. Depending on the time of day and/or crowd level, any bad guys that notice them might not arrive on the scene until they are one the ground outside, or even until after they have fled into an alley.
If getting out of the room is a problem, one or two heroic PCs could stay behind and "hold the line" while the others climb down the rope. The same option would apply if getting away on the ground is a problem. They could agree to meet up somewhere and then scatter.
As GM, keep in mind that your prior notion of what the city "looks like" is SOMETIMES not conveyed very well to the PC's. Other times, your idea of what the street looks like isn't necessarily realistic, thus my observation that nobody ever looks up in a city.
We're starting a new campaign today, so I thought it'd be fun to try out the new "sarissa" weapon (15' reach in a cone, i.e. 3 squares) with an invulnerable rager. We're all very experienced, so I could go with a DPR build, but I want this guy to be a tank / enabler for the other players, not a solo killing machine.
* I want reach weapons and AoO's to be the theme for the lower levels.
* We use Paizo books only, but we're very strict other than that.
* We've agreed that to drop and quick draw a weapon is legal after taking an AoO.
* I'm aware that carrying a sarissa indoors or underground will be pretty much impossible (it's ridiculously long), but the Quick Draw / AoO weapon swap tactic will let me switch from Bardiche to Greatsword too.
This is my first barbarian, so I'm not sure where the balance lies in terms offensive vs defensive feats. Does this build strike a good balance between DPR and defense? Would it be more fun to pick up some intimidation abilities instead of Witch Hunter, Reckless Abandon, and Bolstered Resiliance???
You can't take a 5-foot step in the same round that you move any distance, so does that mean you can't use a Quick Runner's Shirt if you took a 5-foot step at the start of your turn?
Diego - Yeah, it's crazy. Stepping back, I wonder why they even bother writing 10% and 30% rules. It seems ridiculous. Maybe it's a nod to the old AD&D days when none of the rules were logical ;-)
What penalty are you talking about? Why do you think that penalty should be "offset"?
Interesting... custom item pricing and even allowing a given item is a GM prerogative, but what I find interesting is that we're both arriving at a similar conclusion (numerically) though we're getting there in different ways.
I'd say 2 penalties are likely: 1 for adding a dissimilar ability, 1 for adding to a slotted item.
Quote:
The reason for the penalties is to make it expensive to bypass the designed limitations on magic items produced by the standard slot allocations.
I disagree - IMO you should ONLY allow abilities that follow the theme of the slot. The penalty for adding to a slotted item is to balance an item that is overloaded with many abilities that are appropriate for the slot. In appropriate abilities generally shouldn't be allowed.
Quote:
The reason for the restrictive discount is to reflect market conditions, a concept which is inapplicable to the bonded object, and which generally doesn't have much applicability to items that a player character is intending to use.
No, I totally disagree. You can justify it that way for RP purposes, but like all rules, the rule exists to to keep the game balanced in some way and it shouldn't be applied selectively unless you as the GM think it necessary.
The funny thing is, In my case I don't have a problem with the restrictive pricing discount rule because I'm harsher on other points, but we both seem to arrive at the same end number.
The reason I wouldn't let you get the "restrictive" discount on your arcane bond is the same reason I generally wouldn't let PCs get it on anything. While it reduces the market value of the item, for a player character it's pretty much a pure win to have an item your enemies can't steal and use against you. It violates the point of the rules to let you get all your stuff 30% off.
So what about the other pricing rules? Do you add the 50% dissimilar penalty when players want put a non-utility / non-spellcasting ability on a bonded object, and do you add the 50% slotted item penalty when adding to a bonded object?
If the answer is no, then I can see why you'd never give the "restrictive" benefit... but then you're not really using the rules, are you.
I'm sorry if that sounds harsh. Your view is completely valid, but I want to be sure you see my perspective as well. I consider a 30% (or even 50%) restrictive discount quite reasonable, because it offsets what is typically a 50% or 100% penalty.
Hmm... since an arcane bonded object starts off having an ability, adding even a single ability to it would qualify as a "second" ability and incur the +50% surcharge for adding to a specifically slotted item.
I would never give you the "restrictive" discount on an item, since for player characters, that's a bonus.
Also, the wording on the arcane bond thing is ambiguous, and some people read it as meaning "as if he had the feats and were of sufficient level", while other people read it as "as if he had the feats, but only if he is of sufficient level".
The example, in the ability itself, of needing to be fifth level to enchant a dagger pretty much indicates which interpretation is the correct one.
MorganS, making anything that is not a "pure out of the book item" is a custom item, which needs GM approval. Adding a "restriction" to your item makes it a custom item. Most experienced GMs will not let you get "something for nothing" by making your own magic items restricted to yourself. The favored way to interpret that section of the item creation guidelines seems to be that restrictions affect only the sale price(it's tougher to find a buyer), not the cost to create.
So for your 30% discount, a base 10000gp item costs 5000gp to create and can now be sold for 3500gp.
Basically, adding restrictions to a homemade item is a bonus for the creator, and if anything should require a price increase not a discount. Those guidelines are intended for GMs to design items for use as treasure, not for PCs to use to design perfect toys. In fact very often the "math" version of the guidelines is the worst place to be, which is why it's a last resort when designing items.
Ryric... your opinion is no doubt based on years of gaming experience, but with all due respect, I didn't find anything rules-based in your post based to back up your opinion.
I have no doubt that your opinion is founded on years of experience (only experienced players appreciate the extent to which item creation can skew the balance of the game), but I don't agree with your analysis. Please note that I'm focusing on "RAI" now, and whether or not the "restrictive" discount fits in with "game balance" below. You didn't cite or interpret any specific rule, and when it comes to RAW, the rule states pretty clearly you'd get (at least) a 30% discount, so I don't see anything to argue when it comes to RAW.
But in terms of game balance (i.e. RAI interpretation), giving the player some kind of "cost" discount for "restrictive" seems reasonable for bonded objects because:
the gold put into crafting the item can never be recovered by the player
the object's abilities can never be used by anyone else (friend, familiar, or hireling)
subesequent additions (if allowed by the GM) all have a 150% ability cost multiplier
adding even slightly dissimilar abilities (if allowed) also has a cost multiplier
if a player changes bonded objects (i.e. to a staff at level 12) the player has to pay 200 gold per level in addition to losing the old object's abilities
To recap, I appreciate that you are extremely cautious of the item creation feats, but with an experienced GM who enforces all the item creation rules, following the rule that allows a restrictive bonus fits in perfectly and only goes to balance the game.
You should probably run this by your GM before trying this, OP. It's shady and exploits the GM Guidelines for pricing magic items.
Since I was quoting the guidelines themselves, I'm curious as to what you're talking about? But as for running it by the GM, wouldn't that always be case for crafting?
Of course, that really just offsets the 50% you have to add to the cost when adding a second or later ability to an item, assuming your item isn't a weapon (i.e. it takes up a specific slot).
Don't forget to take the "restrictive" discount when crafting your bonded object! By RAW, you should get a 30% discount, but considering that no one else can ever use it and you can't reclaim any of the investment by selling it later, IMO you should get 50% off.
Magic Item Gold Piece Values:
Other Considerations:
Once you have a cost figure, reduce that number if either of the following conditions applies:
Item Requires Skill to Use: Some items require a specific skill to get them to function. This factor should reduce the cost about 10%.
Item Requires Specific Class or Alignment to Use: Even more restrictive than requiring a skill, this limitation cuts the price by 30%.
If you used any of these methods, though, because they increase effective caster level this is across the board - with spells, with feats, the works. So if you had Practised Caster (Wizard) then you'd still be a Wizard 2/Bard 1, but you would cast your wizard spells as a 3rd level caster and be eligible for the Brew Potion feat, use Arcane Strike as a 3rd level caster etc.
Wiz2/Brd1 alone doesn't meet the "caster level 3" prerequisite, but RAW, I don't see where "caster level 3" is defined to mean "caster level 3 across the board". For example, if a Wiz2 dipped into sorcerer and took varisian tatoo for +1 caster level on evocation spells, he'd be Wiz2/Sor1 but he'd qualify for the caster level 3 prerequisite because he can cast evocation spells at caster level 3.
The GM might "house rule" otherwise, but I don't see why. Even if you wanted to leverage a narrowly defined CL boosting feet like Spell Specialization to get into a crafting feat TWO levels early, I really don't see how it'd unbalance the game.
But I could be missing something... opposing views anyone?
I'm just a little fuzzy on whether an alarm spell can alert someone inside a rope trick.
The "rope" of a rope trick is at most 30 feet long and it ends inside the rope trick. So on the one hand you must be within 30 feet. On the other hand, a rope trick is in an extradimensional space, which most would consider farther away than a mile... but some dimensions "overlap" the prime material. But then again, spells effect can't cross the rope trick's "window", but that could be seen as having the radius of the alert area not crossing the window.
I'm inclined to think you can't be alerted inside a rope trick, but RAW it just isn't clear, and RAI I have no idea ;-)
They are however only usable by someone capable of divine casting.
They're usable by anyone capable of making a DC20 UMD check. What makes Prayer Beads of Karma reasonable, is that activating them requires a standard action!
Quote:
Command Word: If the activation is on command or if no activation method is suggested either in the magic item description or by the nature of the item, assume that a command word is needed to activate it.... Activating a command word magic item is a standard action ....
As the OP, I just want to say thanks for the unbelievably thorough shakedown of this spell. Personally, I'm now fully persuaded by the Fabricate spell text as illuminated here, that the spell (RAW) only works for things that can be crafted, and using RAW again, that doesn't include diamonds.
Thanks again, for taking the question seriously and fleshing it out so thoroughly!!
Oh please. Cut the accusations, exaggerated analogies, and frankly, the insults. It's poor form, completely uncalled for, and counterproductive. This is a rules forum, and I'd appreciate it if you'd keep your responses in line with the forum.
As for why I'm asking, I'm trying to understand how this spell (fabricate) should be allowed. Personally, I think whipping out a 1500g suit of armor in a matter of minutes is stupid, Whether you have skill or not, as a GM it shouldn't be allowed, and as a player it shouldn't be tried. So let's drop the personal judgements / accusations, and stick to looking at the spell... please.
What are the reasonable uses for this spell that are in line with the rules (both ROI & RAW)? Or is it so broken that everything about it has to be a GM call? Why shouldn't a caster be able to turn a stacks of gold coins into gold bars? Why shouldn't a caster be able to turn a pile of diamonds into a few big diamonds? They're not making money from it as far as I can see... but making money or not is off topic / not the point. What is it about the spell that makes this not allowed by it?
[edited] Ah.. but the rules say you put together material of the same value... i.e. it would require 25000gp worth of diamond dust. Simple. Even if you exclude diamond dust, you can't exclude making a 25000gp diamond out of 5x5000gp diamonds. I appreciate the resistance to using fabricate like this, but thus far the arguments against using Fabricate to turn diamond dust into an equivalently valued diamond just don't seem to hold water.
My supposition is that a craft roll is NOT required to "fabricate" a diamond because there's no "craftmanship" involved at all, via RAW or RAI, there's no craft skill involved. A profession might be involved, but definitely not a "craft" skill.
1. Fabricate: "You must make an appropriate Craft check to fabricate articles requiring a high degree of craftsmanship."
2. From the gamemastering section, diamonds are gemstones, and as such are NOT crafted. Particularly they are "grand jewels". There's no material you can "make" a gem from (via crafting). Here's a quote from that section: ... Unlike gemstones, many of these objects have set values, but you can always increase an object's value by having it be bejeweled or of particularly fine craftsmanship.
3. In the real world we might consider gem cutting a craft, but at BEST pathfinder would consider it a profession. Craft: "You are skilled in the creation of a specific group of items, such as armor or weapons.... A Craft skill is specifically focused on creating something. If nothing is created by the endeavor, it probably falls under the heading of a Profession skill."
4. You don't CRAFT gems. That's why there's no craft (gem) skill. DnD / Pathfinder have never considered gems to be "crafted". From the RAW perspective, it makes no sense that a craft check would be needed to make a diamond. There is no craft (gem cutting) skill, nor has there ever been. Even in the real world, gem cutting involves removing the excess from around the "gem" you want to keep, "creating" something, not putting materials together into something else. You don't "work" coal to make a gem. You don't combine fragments to make a diamond. You FIND diamonds, and then a gemcutter or lapidary cuts, shapes, and polishes natural and synthetic gemstones.
Fabricate: You convert material of ONE SORT [i.e. any sort] into a product that is of the SAME MATERIAL.
Clearly, "diamond dust" qualifies as ONE SORT of diamond material, albeit perhaps a product, and clearly a 25,000gp diamond is of the SAME MATERIAL (diamond). So why shouldn't this work?
FWIW - I read some similar posts related to this, but none on this topic in particular, and having just read them all over I thought this warranted it's own post because my take on Fabricate is that it does NOT say that it converts NON-products into products. It's NOT specific about the source, so therefore it SHOULD be possible to convert diamond dust and/or lesser diamonds into a bigger diamond, i.e. for a wish spell.
I just noticed the odd material components for Gaseous Form, and I think it's awesome!
Has it always been S, M/DF? M/DF is short hand for wizards only, so for a wizard to cast this spell, they have to hold a piece of gauze in one hand, gesture with the other hand, and the only reasonable source for a "wisp of smoke" would be a pipe stuck in their mouth. Which explains:
why wizards smoke
why this spell has no verbal component
I'm sure this is old hat to some, but I think it's awesome!
You dont have to expend material components to recharge a staff, unless Im remembering incorrectly.
Right. There is a possible exploit here, but it's pretty minor, requires custom staves, and should be obvious to any GM running an 11th level+ game. For example, who would allow a custom staff like this?
Magic Missile (1 charge)
...
Stoneskin (X charges)
1500gp fabricate (Y charges)
When it comes to custom items, the GM just has to have a little common sense.
Bingo! Is there any chance a developer could weigh in on this thread?
I found this rule in the PRD Magic section to explain why Philter of Love would not allow save or spell resistance. Though the context is "Casting Spells", I think it should apply to self targeting spell effects as well. This could also explain why Philter of Love does not mention a saving throw or spell resistance.
Quote:
Aiming a Spell: If the target of a spell is yourself (the Target line of the spell description includes “You”), you do not receive a saving throw, and spell resistance does not apply. The saving throw and spell resistance lines are omitted from such spells.
Your argument that the PRD rule only applies to wands and scrolls because they mimic a specific spell seems wrong to me. The PRD says the save DC applies to both spells and spell like effects. It also says staves are an exception, not wondrous items like POL.
It goes on to say that when it's not clear what spell should be used for the save (like POL) the item will usually say what save to use. E.g. dimensional shackles say "no save like dimensional anchor". It never implies that there should be no save if the spell to base the save on is not an exact match. The implication is that for spell like effects you should compute the save DC using the level of a best matching spell.
In this case, any best matching spell could not possibly be lower than SL4 (charm monster). Another way to look at this would be that the item has CL15, which implies that its effect lines up with an 8th level spell, making the DC 22.
Man... I can see why no developer has chimed in. This stuff gets complicated! We really could use a ruling or clarification though. Anyone?
There is lot of rules where is not specifically said that you don't get a save. If your reasoning was correct one should get save against everything and everytime.
Can you give an example or PRD reference to back this up? It seems lots of experienced people have differing views on this, and the PRD seems to disagree with you on this.
Don't get me wrong. I've always played the "no save" way, and personally, I like it. But this is an official rules question, not a question about what one person or another prefers.
Note: I didn't mean to sound like "DC17 will save" is the right answer here. My point is that the rules don't seem to support any answer definitively (it's too late to edit my previous post).
Would a clarification here or perhaps even an errata be in order for Philter of Love?
I read ' Saving Throws Against Magic Item Powers' and it looks to me like the save should be DC17. It does NOT say to assume "no save". It does not say to only consider spells that have a save DC listed (i.e. ignore permanency).
Consider too that it's documented effects exceed those allowed by either charm monster or permanency. I.e. madly in love > charmed, and no spell like charm monster is on the permanency list.
I also agree that it's a bit unreasonable to have a 3,000 gp item that turns a suggestion into something like a permanent dominate monster.
The text does not indicate whether a savings throw is allowed, or how to calculate it for this unusual effect, so this seems like an errata candidate.
Magic items produce spells or spell-like effects. For a saving throw against a spell or spell-like effect from a magic item, the DC is 10 + the level of the spell or effect + the ability modifier of the minimum ability score needed to cast that level of spell.
Staves are an exception to the rule. Treat the saving throw as if the wielder cast the spell, including caster level and all modifiers to save DCs.
Most item descriptions give saving throw DCs for various effects, particularly when the effect has no exact spell equivalent (making its level otherwise difficult to determine quickly).
The "Philter of Love" wondrous item from the APG has no save info one way or the other.
Does this mean no save is allowed, or does this mean the save should calculated based on the highest level spell in the requirements? I.e. should the be save: none, or save: DC 17 will (permanency is a 5th level spell)?
If no save is allowed, the price seems a bit low, no?
A chastity belt - ZOMG I love it! For price, the heart shield is better, but for RP the belt wins hands down. It could be use activated to break enchantment ;)
How much should a single use item cost that completely protects the user from charm effects for a few hours, and what would the creation requirements be? I can't seem to find anything like this in the PRD?
What I really want is specific immunity from the "Philter of Love", but I can't figure out where to start on an anti-charm item like this.
....
I haven't actually used the spell since 2nd edition, which may be why I was a bit confused in my first post.
Though your info was off, LazarX agrees with your original conclusion, as do I. It does read as though lifeless "means" dead, but that would introduce a lot of bizarre possibilities. Imagine casting a shrink item in your body, then walking around as a monster with a "sorcerer handkerchief".
Thanks... she's not too bright, so magical hand cream (disguise self) will suffice until someone sees through it and calls her "granny" (she just hit 40).
The duration is only 10 minutes per level, if I'm not mistaken. So even if she's high level what will require her to recast the spell every 2-3 hours (which is quite expensive given the material component.)
As a GM, I would rule that the body is quite clearly still alive throughout the spell and is simply comatose. Note in the spell description what happens if your body dies during the spell that alone means the caster's body doesn't die. Which means the body does need to breath, however slightly, and thus could definitely drown and the body does age over the duration of the spell.
Again, though, we're only taking a few hours duration even for a 20th level caster.
Sorry, I don't know whether your conclusion is correct, but your recollection of the spell is not correct. The duration is 1 hour/level, there is no expensive material component (just a 100gp focus), and there is nothing in the description about youy body dying - to the contrary, it uses the word "destroyed" not "killed", which implies that lifeless = dead.
FWIW, I'm asking because I have a narcissistic human female sorcerer in Kingmaker, who would rather be reincarted as a young bugbear than become "all gross and wrinkly". Magic Jar just might let her delay that decision, if the body doesn't age during the spell's duration.
Magic Jar says it leaves your body lifeless, but it also says that it is "as near as anyone can tell, dead", implying it's not really dead. The spell also says you can't return your body if it's been "destroyed", as opposed to "killed", implying that it really is dead.
The following are all pretty much the same question. While Magic Jar is in effect:
1. is your body alive or dead?
2. does your body age?
3. does it need air to breath and can it drown?
4. does it need to make poison saves, or are they delayed?
5. can hit point damage be healed?
6. can str/dex/con ability loss be restored?
7. is it a valid target for "animate dead" (never mind whether you can return to it later)?
Okay, so the fleeting glance ability is correct as written. It takes a standard action to activate and deactivate, making it effectively like being able to cast GI, self-only, once a day.
This is fine by me. I was just confused by the post related to hero labs, and the similarity to the illusionist ability. Thanks for answering!
Fleeting Glance (Sp): At 9th level, you can turn invisible for a number of rounds per day equal to your sorcerer level. This ability functions as greater invisibility. These rounds need not be consecutive.
This is arguably weaker than Greater Invisibility which sorcerers can already cast at 8th level, because it affects the sorcerer only; it is far weaker than the 8th level illusionist ability, Invisibility Field, because it is a standard action to activate (and deactivate); and this previous thread implies that it should be a swift action.
Should Fleeting Glance be a swift action, and if so, is an errata coming?
The Suggestion Spell has verbal and material components. Since sorcerers get Eschew Materials at first level, they only have the verbal component to deal with. Since Verbal Components are the spoken incantation, it seems that wording for the suggested course of action would have to be separate from the verbal component (otherwise how could a wand of suggestion operate), but there is nothing in the spell to restrict how the wording must be delivered - except that the language must be understood.
So if a sorcerer uses Silent Spell to avoid having to speak the incantation "in a strong voice", what restrictions are there on how the course of action is delivered?
Allowing the caster to pass a slip of paper to the victim would seem out of bounds, but how about whispered messages, the message spell, telepathy, and sign language (assuming it's understood)? Along the same lines, what if someone notices (spellcraft) a "suggestion" spell being cast on their buddy, but doesn't have a counter-spell ready. Could they scream in their buddy's ear to prevent the suggested course of action from being understood?
I have an idea that involves an intelligent construct swarm, and I'm wondering how to calculate the CR in this case, because it seems to me that adding swarm traits to construct traits could be particularly nasty.
This is just an idea I'm toying with, so I didn't want to clutter the rules forum with it. The idea is a set of intelligent silverware whose "special purpose" is to feed guests. If you touch the silverware, you are compelled to eat (ego save). If you oppose the purpose (by not eating) you become its "enemy" and the silverware attacks as a medium swarm (CR ?).
One robe or suit of armor on the body (over a vest, vestment, or shirt).
I just want to be sure I have this right... and thank you so much for this info!
The prd (which and needs errata) says:
15 items can be worn at once
Armor is one slot (armor)
Robes or Vestments is one slot (body)
Mantle or Shirt or Vest is one slot (chest)
The prd SHOULD say:
14 items can be worn at once
Armor or Robes or Vestments is one slot (body)
Mantle or Shirt or Vest is one slot (chest)
Because the 3.5 srd says:
Robe or Armor is one slot
Vest or Vestment or Shirt is one slot
There is absolutely nothing preventing you from crafting a masterwork t-shirt and using Craft Magic Arms & Armor to make a +5 t-shirt of invulnerability or whatever you fancy. There are a few robes that are designed to be used in the "armor" slot for spellcasters, but there's no reason why you can't enhance clothing in the same way.
I found no robes (wondrous items) designed to be used in the "armor" slot.
