Sylph

Nafairy's page

11 posts. Alias of Anna Johnson.


RSS


Actually I think Iomedae would be one of the more accepting gods(perhaps THE most accepting, excluding Seranae) of ANY creature, fiend, fiend-spawn, darklands-spawn, ect wanting to rise above their heritage and join her church. though as Kalindlara said they would probably be pressed even harder then the normal prospect if only to test their resolve and to insure no treachery.

Also just found this in my research:(aka a google search that lead to the "Ask James Jacobs" thread)

James Jacobs wrote:
xavier c wrote:

1)How would Iomedae feel or react to a Cleric or other type of worshiper spreading her faith on the planet of Triaxus or Castrovel?

2)Would a kasatha or an android ever worship Iomedae?

1) She would support it. Again, spreading the faith is kind of the cleric or other worshiper's job.

2) Why wouldn't they? Iomedae isn't a racist, and neither is her faith.

His later reply to someone bringing up the ISG entry:

James Jacobs wrote:
Fiendspawn does include tieflings and half-fiends and so on. Of course, those who are non-evil (as in the case of good-aligned or even neutral aligned) and thus are not evil are not loathed by her. The ISG book isn't in error—she does hate demons and their spawn... but the ISG book also maybe phrased that a bit too hyperbolic.

She hates evil things yes, but she does look at the bigger picture. She looks past birth to the person inside(This is why I HATE people trying to say she's a Lawful stupid stuck up b%*!!.) Her church SHOULD do the same, though in practice it likely has those who do and those who don't.


Well he would be mighty uncomfortable. after all it says armor not clothing or outfits(and some spells and abilities specify to "Treat clothing as armor with a 0 AC bonus for the purpose of this ability" meaning by strict raw clothing and outfits are not considered armor till told to consider them as such for an ability) so by your rules he can't have anything on under that chainmail/leather and that stuff chafes like hell without stuff under it. also the breastplate and chain shirt only cover the torso.^_^


that's fine. it is a difference of you treating paralyzed as differing from other things while I treat it as being the same as an "ability penalty for a limited amount of time." as written in the second sentence of the rules I quoted. no big deal, and I would respect that decision at your table as I would hope you would respect my decision at mine.^_^

but I do have a slight counter for armor only:

fly spell wrote:
it cannot carry aloft more weight than its maximum load, plus any armor it wears.

so by a strict as written reading the fly spell separates and then discounts armor. note I do NOT feel this is what it means, but it is a correct way to interpret that sentence.


ok now first things first my interpretation of what was intended to happen when someone is paralyzed while under the effects of a fly spell is:

"They stay hovering in place unable to move but do NOT fall."

That is what I think the D&D designers felt would happen. It is also what I think the FAQ will come back with as a ruling.

That does not mean I agree with it, though if we get FAQed I will abide by whatever the ruling is. After reading the fly spell for the whateverth time. I kind of agree with Alexd1976 on most points and disagree on a minor one.

I agree that "The subject can fly at a speed of 60 feet" means that the spell is providing all locomotion on its own and thus acts more like a mount or TK.

I agree "Using a fly spell requires only as much concentration as walking" means she uses a mental action of concentration which costs the same action economy as things classified as a move action in order to direct the spell to move her what ever distance she wishes within the spells defined speed.

Those are the major points I agree with.

I do not agree that paralyzed's STR penalty would drop ones CC as I believe it is considered a temporary penalty and it should be treated as ability damage:

PF core pg 555 wrote:

For every 2 points of damage you take to a single ability, apply a –1 penalty to skills and statistics listed with the relevant ability.(removed as irrelevant)

Some spells and abilities cause you to take an ability penalty for a limited amount of time. While in effect, these penalties function just like ability damage,(removed as irrelevant)

Strength: Damage to your Strength score causes you to take penalties on Strength-based skill checks, melee attack rolls, and weapon damage rolls (if they rely on Strength). The penalty also applies to your Combat Maneuver Bonus (if you are Small or larger) and your Combat Maneuver Defense.

str ability damage either doesn't effect CC(it is not a skill or statistic listed with the STR paragraph on pg 555) or it lowers all weights by 1 pound per 2 points of str damage(it is a statistic listed with STR period) NOTE this only applies to ability damage. ability drain is actually a true reduction and would force recalculation of CC.


regardless of the instantaneous thing(which is a discussion for another thread) we agree that the answer to the op's question is:

No, detect magic does not detect anything after someone has used change shape(su).

and THAT is the important part.^_^


During the standard/move/swift action the change is happening: yes

After the change has taken place: no

Change shape is treated as a spell with a duration of instantaneous.

the casting of the "spell" makes an aura just as casting CLW on yourself would. NOTE: this does include a lingering aura as talked about in, i believe, the detect magic spell entry. However, said aura lingers where the spell's effect takes place(in this case the square that the kitsune changed into human form.)


Gilarius wrote:

Nafairy, as far as I can see, the main reason to insist that spellcasters expend an appropriate spell slot when scribing is to prevent them even trying to scribe spells they can't cast yet.

Otherwise, there is nothing to prevent a wizard who has eg Time Stop in his spellbook making scrolls of it from level 1 (except money and time).
There are a lot of problems GMs can have once wizards get high level spells and allowing this to happen at lower levels makes it even harder to balance adventures.

core pg.549 wrote:
In addition, you cannot create spelltrigger and spell-completion magic items without meeting their spell prerequisites.

O_O well... that's... I WAS going to site this line as saying that you couldn't make a scroll without meeting all requirements. however it specifically says you ONLY need the spell.

This would allow for things like a level 1 aasimar wizard who COULD scribe a scroll of Daylight. FAQ specifically states you can use SLA to meat the spell reqs. the spellcraft check would be DC 15 (5+5(minimum caster level of daylight)+5(is not a 5th level wizard)) and she would use her SLA for the day. note she would STILL need to make a caster level check(this risking a mishap) to cast the scroll she made like this.

-_- this happens to me more then I like. I can get a bit overzealous trying to cut off said exploiter before he can become a problem. but hey I learned new things so nothing was wasted to me.^_^

That being said my vary first post is still correct. and as others have said you simply do not have access to your bonus spells by attribute in ANY way until you are proper level.


Java Man wrote:

From the CRB, magic item chapter, magic item creation, scrolls section:

The creator must have prepared the spell to be scribed (or must know the spell, in the case of a sorcerer or bard) and must provide any material component or focus the spell requires. A material component is consumed when she begins writing, but a focus is not. (A focus used in scribing a scroll can be reused.) The act of writing triggers the prepared spell, making it unavailable for casting until the character has rested and regained spells. (That is, that spell slot is expended from the caster's currently prepared spells, just as if it had been cast.)

That is fine. Though to ME that creates two problems:

One is a slight mechanical exploitation with scribing spells that take at least 2 days to make in that you could set the spell and start work on day 1, cast said spell during day 1, wake up on day 2 and set the spell, and then finish work on the scroll. This is NOT that big of an exploit and is CLEARLY not RAI. (by the way consistent play with a power gamey Rules exploiter makes me look for inconsistencies like this to nip in the bud) this is such a corner case I would not errata it if I was Paizo(and indeed they have not.)

The second is thematic in that a wizard(Arcanist, ect.) could vary well have written that same spell into 100(though a more likely number is at least 3) spellbooks but in spite of that must set it if he wants scribe a scroll of a spell he's other wise written so many times. I would agree that writing a scroll is slightly different then writing it to a spellbook. However, thematically, I personally don't see why a Wizard couldn't simply spend his time scribing with his spellbook right next to him as reference.


Because the requirements I've seen do not say it has to be PREPARED only that the spell is IN the spellbook. However I did find out upon reading farther into the rules that you can NOT increase the DC for scrolls(among other things) thus you could not create a scroll that is to high to cast. so sorry no 1st level wizards creating time stop. ;p


Ok I DID find a horribly roundabout, expensive, and time intensive way to cast spells of a higher level. of course it requires a high spellcraft and scribe scroll. nothing prevents you from creating a scroll of a higher level then you can cast. In fact the Spellcraft check would just be ((5+minimum CL of the spell)+5for not meeting one of the requirements of creating the scroll).

Using time stop as and example again a spellcraft check of 27, at a cost of 1912.5gp and 3(or 4 if you round up)days time, fail and it's ALL wasted, fail by 5 or more and you just made a cursed scroll. After creating the scroll of time stop a successful caster level check vs DC 19(scroll's caster level+1) would allow said first level wizard to cast time stop. of course she's likely to fail and then have to make a DC 5 wisdom check failure of THAT check results in a mishap.


A Wizard, Arcanist, Alchemist, ect. can WRITE spells of a higher level then she can cast into her spell/formula book, she needs only meet the casting stat requirements, have the spell on her class list, make the appropriate spellcraft check, and have the proper amount of gold. That does NOT mean she can SET them. she can not SET spells that her class level is not able to use yet.

For example, a 1st level wizard who somehow gets a scroll of Time Stop and has at least a 19 INT could indeed write Time Stop into her spellbook as long as she makes a DC 24 spellcraft check and spends the 810gp to write it. However it does not matter if her INT is 19 or 119 she would not be able to SET it till 17th wizard level.

Also note you can NOT use spells from level up to write spells that are too high of a level but the spellbook sectiond of the classes specifically call that out and say: "At each new _____ level, he gains two new spells of any spell level or levels that he can cast (based on his new _____ level) for his spellbook."

But that gives me an Idea....