Mystic "X"'s page

You would have to wait until 8th level, when the True Healer ability comes online. There's a FAQ for that in the Core Rulebook Frequently Asked Questions, possibly here (my apologies if the link doesn't work right).

1085: Omission Possible

Any day we get a FAQ is a good day, but does this mean I have to move tacos to Friday?

If you're the sort that works Monday to Friday, I'd say leave tacos where they are. Friday's good enough on its own, and Tuesday needs all the help it can get.

Mystic "X" wrote:

It's true that the spell level is never actually -1, but during the process, the spell level is treated as -1, which rewords the question to "can a spell level be treated as a number not between 0 and 9?".

It's the "during the process" part that I think most of us are having an issue with. You are presuming that the effects of the Trait and the Metamagic Feat are applied to the spell in some sequence. I see them taking effect simultaneously. So for a Quickened Ray of Frost using Magical Knack the original level of 0 instantly become a level 3 spell without ever taking on any other values. So at no point is the spell either level -1 or level 4.

I am curious how you would see things working on the other end of that spectrum.

Can a 20th level Wizard use Magical Lineage to cast a Quickened 6th level spell?

Quicken Spell would normally increase the spell level to 10 which is outside the bounds that are allowed, but Magical Lineage tells us that when we perform the final calculation we should treat the actual spell level as one lower. This would make the final adjusted level be 9. For me there is no problem with this situation since the spell never has a level of 5 or 10. The Trait and the Feat instantly change the spell from level 6 to level 9, both of which are allowed levels.

But using your reasoning, the spell can or cannot be cast depending on the order of operations that you apply.

(1) If you apply the Metamagic feat first, then the spell became 10th level "during the process" and therefore the Wizard can't cast the spell.

(2) If you apply the Trait first, then the spell becomes 5th level, and the Feat raises it to 9th level. There are no violations "during the process" and the Wizard can cast the spell.

How do you decide whether the Wizard can cast the spell or not?

I would say number 2, for the same reasons. Magical Lineage says to treat it (which to me implies the actual level of the spell, before modifications) as one level lower, making the calculation (6-1=5)+4=9.

Mystic "X" wrote:

It's true that the spell level is never actually -1, but during the process, the spell level is treated as -1, which rewords the question to "can a spell level be treated as a number not between 0 and 9?". The scimitar, in your example, is being treated as another valid weapon type, but the -1 spell level is potentially invalid.

It is being treated that way for a specific purpose, that being a calculation of the final level of the spell.

Are there any rules that apply to that calculation that provide us with further information on the values of spell level? In fact there are, the final level can't be lower than the initial level.

That's it.

Since the spell level actually isn't -1, none of the main rules regarding spell levels apply. Again, the spell level isn't actually -1.

I disagree that the specific purpose changes the limitations on the values, or that the main rules don't apply. It's still a value for a Spell Level, even if it's a transient value.

I do agree that there are no additional rules or clarifications regarding how the calculation is performed, which is why I think the question is a valid question.

Joshua9093 wrote:

I never commit to a decision on a post until AM BARBARIAN settles it for all.

Though, thinking about it, I think the result will just be caster smash, problem solved, no further inquiry needed.

AM BARBARIAN is awesome. Everything is so simple with him.

Mystic "X" wrote:

_Ozy_ wrote:

Mystic "X" wrote:

I think that the question of whether or not a floor exists absolutely matters to the OP's question. That the calculation only happens during the act of adding a metamagic feat doesn't change the fact that the existence of a floor creates two very different equations for calculating the spell's final level.

Using the original example, with no floor:
(0 - 1) + 1 = 0 (which would have the effect of unlimited metamagiced uses of the spell)
With a floor:
Max(0-1, 0) + 1 = 1 (which negates the effect of Magical Lineage for 0-level) spells.

I'm personally of the belief that a floor is intentional, but I didn't write the rules. I'd rule for the floor, personally, but that doesn't help answer for PFS.

Again, point to the rules that enforce a floor for determining the spell's final adjusted level.

It does not exist.

It might exist:

Chapter 9, Magic wrote:

The next line of a spell description gives the spell's level, a number between 0 and 9 that defines the spell's relative power.

If a spell level must be between 0 and 9, then the value of -1, however temporary, does not exist.

But it could be true that this doesn't apply during the final level calculation.

Just as a scimitar does not become a piercing weapon, the spell level isn't actually -1. Therefore that rule doesn't apply.

It's true that the spell level is never actually -1, but during the process, the spell level is treated as -1, which rewords the question to "can a spell level be treated as a number not between 0 and 9?". The scimitar, in your example, is being treated as another valid weapon type, but the -1 spell level is potentially invalid.

Mystic "X" wrote:

I think that the question of whether or not a floor exists absolutely matters to the OP's question. That the calculation only happens during the act of adding a metamagic feat doesn't change the fact that the existence of a floor creates two very different equations for calculating the spell's final level.

Using the original example, with no floor:
(0 - 1) + 1 = 0 (which would have the effect of unlimited metamagiced uses of the spell)
With a floor:
Max(0-1, 0) + 1 = 1 (which negates the effect of Magical Lineage for 0-level) spells.

I'm personally of the belief that a floor is intentional, but I didn't write the rules. I'd rule for the floor, personally, but that doesn't help answer for PFS.

Again, point to the rules that enforce a floor for determining the spell's final adjusted level.

It does not exist.

It might exist:

The next line of a spell description gives the spell's level, a number between 0 and 9 that defines the spell's relative power.

If a spell level must be between 0 and 9, then the value of -1, however temporary, does not exist.

I think that the question of whether or not a floor exists absolutely matters to the OP's question. That the calculation only happens during the act of adding a metamagic feat doesn't change the fact that the existence of a floor creates two very different equations for calculating the spell's final level.

Using the original example, with no floor:
(0 - 1) + 1 = 0 (which would have the effect of unlimited metamagiced uses of the spell)
With a floor:
Max(0-1, 0) + 1 = 1 (which negates the effect of Magical Lineage for 0-level) spells.

I'm personally of the belief that a floor is intentional, but I didn't write the rules. I'd rule for the floor, personally, but that doesn't help answer for PFS.

All I know is I can't wait for a competent captain to take over this ship.

1074 - Turning Back

I don't know if it's RAW, but the FAQ has this:

Intelligence: If my Intelligence modifier increases, can I select another bonus language?

Yes. For example, if your Int is 13 and you reach level 4 and apply your ability score increase to Int, this increases your Int bonus from +1 to +2, which grants you another bonus language.
Technically, Int-enhancing items such as a headband of vast intelligence should grant a specific language (in the same way they do for skill ranks).

Not that it might be relevant to the OP anymore, but doesn't Martial Focus allow a path to the Weapon Mastery feat line, and from there (I think I remember) a feat that gives them their choice of an Advanced Weapon Training aspect?

EDIT

Ah, yes...he did mention Martial Focus in his original post...but what about the second part, or am I misremembering that?

SPF 10,000,000,000?

Assuming that "he" refers to the elven wizard, I believe that Magic Missile would hit 100% of the time, with or without See Invisibility:

Force effects and abjurations affect you normally. Their effects extend onto the Ethereal Plane from the Material Plane, but not vice versa.

I suppose that comes up then on just how RAW one decides to interpret it. A robot parsing the text of Command Undead and the Power over Undead ability would answer that the Necromancer can't use it, because while the ability provides an alternate save, it never mentions using one's wizard level as one's cleric level. That, then, would make that option useless, which makes no logical sense.
I suppose, though, to answer your original question, there hasn't been a rule update on it (or one I can recall that would apply to it), so it's up to the GM to determine the intent. I'd say I'd be amazed to see any GMs rule otherwise...but I've seen a lot on these boards.

Necromancer wizards can gain the Command Undead feat as one of their first level options. The description doesn't explicitly say so, but the implication is that they use their wizard level rather than their cleric level.

Kilrex wrote:

Worship Erastil! His holy water has a gamey taste to it. Not like Desnan holy water, which tastes like pupa.

I just couldn't resist...

Lies. Erastil's holy water tastes like farmer sweat. Desna's holy water tastes like raspberry cider with a dash of freedom.

What does freedom taste like?

except there are countless other instances where flurrying does not equal TWF.

The FAQ says "his improved flurrying BAB". The table that shows his improved flurrying BAB actually calls the "adjusted" BAB, his "flurry of blows attack bonus."

So there is a chance the Designers were referring to that number.

At 4th level the monks flurrying attack bonus is only +2/+2 on that table - so don't be surprised if you experience table variance.

I'm not saying this is how it works - I'm not even saying this is how I'd run it. I'm just saying I see ambiguity in this situation.

I believe that part of the Monk table is a handy reference to the Monk's BAB + TWF for each level (with an emphasis for showing when the Monk gets extra attacks for high BAB, and when they get extras at the spelled out Monk levels. Their BAB while flurrying is equal to their level (the TWF penalty doesn't apply for purposes of feats being used).

How much energy do you need to pump into a typical living room at room temperature/sea level, at what frequency or harmonic, and what type, to induce and maintain some form of nuclear magnetic resonance in an isotope comprising a sufficient proportion of typical atmospheric composition? (Detection is unnecessary for deployment so things like relaxation times can be disregarded.)

What feature are you trying to add to Paizo Game Space?

Quick question: for the Counterspell exploit, does that happen the same way as a standard counterspell (ready an action for the spellcaster to cast a spell), or is it an immediate action (or some other mechanic)?

I have a question (or perhaps a set of questions) that doesn't seem to fit in with the existing messageboards; it's based on observation, not playtesting, and relates to all of the classes). Are racial favored class options being considered as a part of the playtest, and if so, what assumptions should we use:
-Should we assume that no races currently have favored class options for the new classes, or
-Should the two "base" classes be used (either combined, or by requiring a character to choose one) to determine favored class options, or
-Will the final product have new options for favored class bonuses?

Also... when you hit him, candy doesn't come out. Only gall bladders and punches do. So it's not as fun.

Ummm...has this been tested, or is it just speculation? Because it sounds like voice of experience.

What causes the squeak in a door hinge?

I'd guess a sleeping child in the connecting room, based on my personal experience.

Who has better spam filters, Google or the NSA?

I'd say Google, as the NSA doesn't apparently filter anything.

Here's the benefit of cosplay/LARP, and what-not.

When you've actually performed a charge you realize that you cannot concentrate on powerfully rushing a single target and still expect to be light on your feet versus the people in the way, and vice-versa.

Likewise, it actually makes LESS sense to have the -2 AC apply after your attack since the move has ended and the dangerous part is over.

I know the wording is weird and needs to be fixed. But we've always played that the -2 AC begins at the beginning of the charge, and I'd wager 90 - 99% of the players out there are doing the same, since it's one of those things where you pretty much intuitively know what's going on.

But mice will hunt cheese, I guess.

We've always been in the 90-99% as well; the question never came up before that game session (or perhaps maybe such a situation just never came up). We played it out with the penalty happening from the start of the action, but between the organization of the paragraphs in the Charge action and the question of whether it's reckless movement that triggers the penalty or a loss of balance from the momentum after the attack, I wasn't able to parse out a clear and definitive answer.

I suppose I should take some time next weekend to charge at people, not having the LARP experience myself. :-)

The thread title really describes the question, but just to clarify, if a character charges at a creature, provoking AoOs from the attacked creature (because it has reach) and other creatures (from moving through their squares), does the -2 AC penalty apply?
For reference, in the PRD, the penalty is listed in the Attacking on a Charge section (which should come after the charge's movement)

Movement During a Charge: You must move before your attack, not after

and

Attacking on a Charge: After moving, you may make a single melee attack. You get a +2 bonus on the attack roll and take a –2 penalty to your AC until the start of your next turn.

That implies (to me) that the penalty doesn't apply until after the charge attack is made, but I'd like clarification.

Thanks in advance.

scifan888 wrote:

What other methods does Quadira use to pay for their troops?

It varies. I don't want to say TOO much about how nations pay their troops, since I'm not ready and don't have rules to build off of... but they (and other nations) would keep their troops via a combination of money, pride, patriotisim, fear, religion, promises, guilt, favors, magic, insurance, and more. Same as in this world.

Which nations in this world keep their troops by magic? I'd like to look into moving there.

So now material components are irrelvant completely, and now being grappled doesn't do anything to somatic components. Way to make the casters even better. Now you can't even grapple the damn caster to prevent him from casting.

I personally think this sucks.

Sure, you can. Grappling doesn't make casting impossible, but the "+ grappler's CMB" is nothing to sneeze at.

No, the destined sorcerer has Leadership on a list of bonus feats that he may select from when he gets his bonus feats. The first level that a sorcerer gets one of those bonus feats at is 7th level.

At 7th level, and every six levels thereafter, a sorcerer receives one bonus feat, chosen from a list specific to each bloodline. The sorcerer must meet the prerequisites for these bonus feats.

Plus, the rules for cohorts state that the cohort must be at least 2 levels lower than the PC at all times.

Cohort Level: You can attract a cohort of up to this level. Regardless of your Leadership score, you can only recruit a cohort who is two or more levels lower than yourself.

Edit: Or, you know, what Sol Kurpt said while I was typing :-)

Where can the answer to this be found? I checked the errata for the Advanced Player's Guide (based on the question being labeled as "Answered in the errata"), but I can't find an official answer anywhere.

I was wondering if it was considered for the Cavalier's Oaths to be bonuses that are applied while attempting to keep the oath, rather than a bonus for completing the oath (or perhaps a combination of the two). Given that the cavalier class seems to describe the "honor-based" warrior, it would seem to me more appropriate that he makes a "Thou shalt not pass" or "i will protect you from harm" oath, get some kind of bonus that allows him or her to keep the oath, then get a morale-based bonus for succeeding (or a morale-based penalty for failing).

But maybe that's just me.

What if the difference was not +3, but something else. +4? +5? While that might make lower levels seem unbalanced, it also might help in demonstrating some difference at higher levels.

If there's to be a difference (which I do think could be a good idea), perhaps it should be 1/2 the class levels (for those classes providing the class skill), minimum 1? Granted, it seems a little complicated, but it does provide a significant difference at higher levels.

Personally, I'd have to vote for Int. It's not so much because those powers will be naturally that much more powerful, but from where in-game the powers are supposed to come from. I'm currently operating under the assumption that the powers that the specialist schools gain are a result of the intense learning (Intelligence) that the specialist goes through rather than the powers manifesting themselves through force of will (Charisma) as the specialist gains levels.

I'd like to suggest the following changes to the specialists' (and the generalist's) spell-like abilities, to prevent cookie-cutter-ism:
At each level that a wizard would gain a spell-like ability, he may select one spell from his school (that he has the ability to cast). The wizard gains the ability to memorize this spell without a spellbook (as the Spell Mastery feat) and may cast it spontaneously once per day (XP costs and expensive spell components are still required). When selecting the spell, the specialist may select a metamagic feat that applies to the daily casting of the spell, reducing the cost of the metamagic feat by one level.
A generalist wizard may select a spell from any school (of a level he is able to cast), but does not apply metamagic to the daily casting.

So, as examples, an evoker at 6th level could select a Fireball (alone or with Still Spell), an Empowered Scorching Ray, or a Maximized Magic Missile. He gains the ability to cast the enhanced spell once per day, and the ability to memorize the selected spell without a spellbook (and without metamagic, unless he has metamagic feats and spends the normal slot cost to use them.
I think that such a method helps remove the cookie-cutter-ism inherent in the current ability processes, and provides a balanced approach to flexibility vs. specilization power. It also eliminates the problems inherent in providing Wish and Limited Wish without costs, by retaining the costs, and reduces the length of the specialist powers" section, allowing Jason and company a couple extra pages to fill with something special.
(Of course, I'd still prefer if the spell-like abilities were replaced with special abilities like at levels 1, 8 and 20...but that's just me.)

Well I think they should be better blaster so keep the versatility and make it 1d6 yet again.or make the conjurer 1d4 .
as it stands now only the conjurer has a ranged damage dealing power that does 1d6 so at lest make them D4 if the invoker is to stay at d4.

If the evoker's power is doing the same amount of damage as the conjurer's, and has the flexibility, then the evoker has a general advantage over the conjurer. I think the balance as it is is okay, but I think I'd rather see the evoker have the extra damage, have the versatility, and then replace the conjurer's power with something more conjurey (yes, I'm making up words) and less evoky-feeling.

Exotic Weapons aren't that powerful. The only exotic weapons that I ever saw being used in games were spiked chains and dwarven waraxes (because of weapon familiarity). The main difference between martial and exotic weapons is usually one point of average damage. I kind of like the new rule as it encourages characters to take exotic weapons.

But I agree that now halfelves are a bit on the weak side. They should either get their skill bonuses back or gain the elven weapon familiarity (or maybe get to choose between them, for half-elven bards, the weapon familiarity is rather useless, but the diplomacy bonus would be really useful.)

I'm not so sure about the diplomacy bonus (although I don't necessarily agree with it for the elves, either), but I think that a half-elf character should be able to choose between the elven weapon familiarity or the human weapon proficiency, which I see as the difference between being raised more elf-like or more human-like.

As it stands currently, the specialists do not gain any bonus to being a specialist other than the powers given for everyone (including generalists). Thus, as it stands, there is no reason to play a specialist.

Changes I would make: 1) Make the prohibited schools for specialists really prohibited. Losing resistance 5 v. an element to be an abjurer may not be all that great compared to casting 7th level spells of a prohibited class - and thus, not a deterrant.

2) Give the specialists something to justify the the sacrifice and the title "specialist". I liked the extra spell / day, but a bonus to CL wouldn't be a bad option either.

As for the scaling of abilities... I was thinking of the level 1 power of generalists, not the bonus ability. The Hand of the Apprentice improves with BAB and Int., where the abjurer's resistance to 1 energy type improves once, about halfway up. The bonus metamagic feat may not "scale" but it can be more valuable as you level up.

I agree with both changes. The idea behind specialization was that a wizard studies so hard to master a particular area of magic that other areas were sorely neglected, which is best reflected by outright prohibiting the neglected schools (which can be fixed by feats I've seen in at least 1 WotC source) to get extra spells, and extra power with those spells (it really should be both).

I see what you mean about the abjurer's resistance. I imagine they're trying to scale it like some of the other specialist abilities. One wonders how well energy resistance scales to skill bonuses, armor class, and spell damage (is energy resistance 10 of equal value to a +3 AC bonus), but perhaps it would be better to have the resistance equal to the caster level?

If each set of powers is equal, then what benefit does the specialist gain for giving up 2 schools? Generalists, by virtue of not giving up 2 schools are already better off. In addition, their special ability scales (where the abjurer's doesn't).

As has been mentioned a few times, the benefit gained in being a specialist should be an improvement in the specialist's abilities with spells in his craft; i.e., extra spells of the specialized school and an increase in caster level or DC (preferably caster level, especially if the DC formula is modified to include caster level as a variable). No generalist wizard should be better at, say, evoking, than an evoker of the same level with the same feats. (Granted, this requires Paizo to bring back the basic specialist bonuses; otherwise, the specialists might as well have extra-special powers, but...see the next argument.)

By the way, how does the generalist's ability scale, and the abjurer's not? It looks to me like it's the other way around for both the granted power and the 1st level power.

That said, I think universalists should be given the "weakest" chain of school abilities.

I can't agree with this; I don't think that a universalist should be punished for being a universalist. The various special abilities of all of the groups should have the same relative power level (The Wish and Limited Wish really are too much), and make each area of specialization (or lack thereof) just as desirable as any other.

etrigan wrote:

I agree with the OP on this one.

Appraise should be use to evalute the gold value of an item but not it's fonction.
Appraising the cost of a catapult won't give the character any knowledge on how to build one or how to operate it... so I don't see how appraise can be relevant in finding the properties of magical items.
Knowledge (Arcana) or Spellcraft are already use to identify spells effects that are cast or in already in place... And magical items are permanent spells cast on a items...

But the problem with this is that then only spellcasters can figure out what a magic item is. That makes no sense.

A bard should be able to...he hears so many tales of wonderous items. A rogue should be able to...he fences items, sees and hears descriptions of what an item is and does.
A fighter....um, should not. Unless he can heft the sword, swing it about and get a "feel" that this sword is magic and beholds greater precision (i.e. +1)
A cleric...maybe, if it is a divine item (Lo! The holy hand-grenade of Antioch!)

The issue is each class would require a different skill to Identify, and that would just be messy. By putting it down under ONE skill, Appraise, it eases the rules up a bit. I could see throwing in some more Synergy between skills, though. (i.e., 5 ranks in Spellcraft gives a +2 bonus to Appraise when used to ID magic items).

It might be a bit messy, but would having different classes identifying different types of items be a bad thing? Fighters should be able to tell the added precision of a weapon by taking a few minutes to exercise with it, or tell the balance and benefit of a suit of armor or a shield by putting it on and getting a feel for it. A bard should know (or be able to dig up) stories to get the purpose of extremely rare (and somewhat famous) items. Clerics have their religious knowledge (their own, their allies, and to some small extent their enemies), rogues stumble their way into command words, and then the wizards with Identify take care of everything else.

I suppose a skill-based identification method could work, but Knowledge (Arcana) seems like a better fit. (I like the catapult example with Appraise.) I still think, with or without the above methods provided to each class, that keeping Identify is a better choice, without the expensive spell component, with a longer casting time (less than an hour, but more than a minute), and with a limit on the knowledge that can be gained (either placed within the spell or using the lesser, normal, and "greater" versions already mentioned).

First, I'd like to add my agreement that specialists should get the extra spell as they did before. I personally also like not completely restricting cross-class schools, though I think that a specialist should have something like a +1 to save DC or caster level for their specialized school, and -1 for the restricted schools (to represent the additional study that went into the specialized school, at the expense of other studies).
I'd personally like to see more special abilities replace the spell-like abilities given to the various wizard specializations, if at all possible. The spell-like abilities just feel so generic, even if one were to also give the wizard "Spell Mastery" with each one.
I don't necessarily think the Universalist is overpowered, but it does seem to have a static flavor. Personally, I would think a universalist should be able to select any spell currently in their spell book to cast as a spell-like ability, to represent the wide variety of study that goes into their profession (unless someone comes up with better special abilities). Similarly, if the spell-like abilities aren't replaced for the specialists, they should get the chance to select a spell rather than be stuck with the "cookie cutter" spells.
And on one final note, I think the evoker's "Fire Ray" at 1st level should instead be an "Energy Ray". When the 1st evoker level is taken, the player chooses the type of energy done by the way. (I think someone else may have suggested this.)