Garbage-Tier Waifu wrote:
Speech and Humans are refereed to in the definition because we are most familiar with it and so it's used as an example. This does not make them the same thing. The definition of voice in the English language includes sounds made by animals
It seems they went out of their way to NOT include speech/spoken when describing this ability. They used syllables as one example which while this is distinctive to speech makes it seem like the sound matters more than the words, then they use shout as another example which can be words but doesn't have to be, finally the actual ability itself refers to a requirement of sound. They had AMPLE opportunity to write spoken or speech or verbal anywhere in these paragraphs yet they didn't once do so.
It seems fully intentional to me that this was written this way.
Compelling Voice (Su)
My contention is that these are no where near the same thing.
From sibilant whispers to overwhelming imprecations that resonate with the force of pure will, a vox unleashes the power of his mind with every silken syllable and shattering shout.
Compelling voice: sound of his voice
sounds, syllables and shouts
I know I'm going to face some push back on this (which is why I came here to argue instead of doing it at a table) but I do not see anything RAW that prevents this.
Wounding Word isn't a light weapon, so Piranah Strike doesn't work. Deadly aim doesn't work because it prohibits touch attacks.
Wounding word: Alternatively, he can make a single attack with a melee weapon as a standard action, adding the listed sonic damage to the damage dealt by his weapon on a successful attack
It's adding dmg to the bite attack which counts as a light weapon
So I'm posting this because I stated it out while trying to decide if I want to go
Must be PFS legal - Still trying to figure out what kind of table variation I will encounter.
Level 5 example:
Stats (as Fox)
From here on most levels will be in mesmer with the ability to pick up the second barb level if you feel it necessary. An alternative is to take Defensive Strategist trait.
So lets look at an easy example of Undercasting:
With undercasting this means you can Cast Mind Thrust III as Mind Thrust II and in doing so they use a 2nd level spell slot and do damage as Mind Thrust II. You can also cast Mind Thrust III as Mind Thrust I and use a level 1 spell slot.
So here's where the question comes in, I have Magical Lineage on Mind Thrust III. I undercast Mindthrust III as Mind thrust II and apply Disruptive Meta Magic. Dose lineage still affect this cast?
I imagine the answer is NO but I wanted to ask to be sure.
Some psychic spells can be undercast. This means that
the spellcaster can cast the spell at the level that he
knows, or as any lower-level version of that spell, using
the appropriate spell slot. When a spellcaster undercasts
a spell, it is treated exactly like the lower-level version,
including when determining its effect, saving throw, and
other variables. For example, a psychic spellcaster who
adds ego whip III to his list of spells known can cast it as
ego whip I, II, or III. If he casts it as ego whip I, it is treated
in all ways as that spell; it uses the text and the saving
throw DC for that spell, and requires him to expend a
3rd-level spell slot.
Whenever a spontaneous spellcaster adds a spell to
his list of spells known that can be undercast, he can
immediately learn a spell in place of each lower-level
version of that spell he knows. In essence, he loses each
earlier version and can replace it with another spell of the
same level that is on his spell list.
Robert Hetherington wrote:
It's working fine for me this morning. If you were trying to login I hadn't approved your registration until just now.
I created a new account for a different reason. I had forgotten my username and was unable to login. ever sense I get this instead of the website even if I navigate directly to the login screen
(In chrome and FF blank page, in IE the error above)
AkA: exceed the number of tries to login and the site bans your IP permanently (had this issue in excess of a month now). I can access the site just fine from my phone.
Keep getting this:
The website declined to show this webpage
Most likely causes:
This error (HTTP 403 Forbidden) means that Internet Explorer was able to connect to the website, but it does not have permission to view the webpage.
For more information about HTTP errors, see Help.
99% of items on chronicle sheets are a [censored] waste of ink as you can buy them anyway. For flavor reasons it's neat to see the items you found written out but for mechanical PFS reasons they are useless the vast majority of the time.
In any situation where the items/boons are sometime unique I would say you should always err on the side of players if in doubt since scenarios can only ever be played once. This doesn;t mean always give them everythign all the time. In Z...D...'s example above where it is specifically calling for a check to find X. Failing that check should defiantly not give whatever it is.
This is my take on it. So for the specific season 4 scenario in question here short of them fleeing from that room I see absolutely no reason they wouldn't find the items. No perception check means even a blind character would trip over it.
dumping con is choice so I don't consider that a valid point [not trying to be a dick just don't see that as relevant].
3d8+3 is just too much damage from a single attack to throw at a lvl 1. The character had at lest 10 hp which is pretty good for a lvl 1 (d8 with 12con) and i still knocked him to negative 4 with inflict moderate wounds. The average damage on 2d8+3 is 12. Unless your playing a con based character this will nuke any lvl 1 character but wont kill them (most of the time). The potential for a oneshot kill is just to high on 3d8+3.
one thing i did forget was the doll would have to move into the targets square but they had already taken an AoO when the doll cast and missed so it would not have mattered.
Jim Groves wrote:
I know this thread is old but I just ran this and was one of my favorite ones so far. (ran at tier 1-2)
My only gripe is the doll. This could have been an awsome encounter and instead I had to fudge the one attack and then as written the doll basically does nothing else. I dumbed down the inflict serius wounds to inflict moderate (2d8 vs 3d8). I don't give a [censored] what the PFS rules are in this case if I rolled the extra d8 it would have been a player death (and they were at full health). As it is inflict moderate was enough to take them into the negative in one shot forcing stabilize rolls and the party to immediately respond to prevent that player from dying. Oh sh!t moment was fully accomplished without a needless player death.
Despite the doll being rather dull the spellcaster in the group succeeded the spellcraft check and identified the first spell spell the doll cast after it was floating around in the air. The total look of confusion after they had just seen the doll take out the one character with inflict wounds and start "flying" around the battlefield only to be followed by casting a prestidigitation was priceless.
For anyone running this I strongly recommend using inflict moderate if the target is lvl 1 and only using the inflict serious wounds if they are level 2. Again I know this is contrary to PFS rules but oneshotting a lvl 1 character at full health is just bad GMing PFS or not. Now if that same level 1 didn't heal in-between encounters and the inflict moderate kills them when combined with previous damage, well then they learned a valuable lesson about healing after every encounter and that's fair game in my book.
Ranting aside this is an excellent one to run and if the doll encounter had been more exciting this would be rated #1 for me. (as a side note the higher tier defiantly looks like it does this. I may have to run it again when I get a GM star or even run it without credit because it was that good.)
Michael Eshleman wrote:
So came to see about trying to get this done tonight and alas you already completed it. Damn you for being too helpful.
Joking aside this is amazingly helpful, for those that don't own every map and scenario ever (I know, Blasphemy!).
@slothsy Thanks haven't ever actually been waiting for a scenario before. Usually other PDF stuff I have looked for on day one (Ex: player companions) releases early to mid day (thus would be out by now). So it is good to know this "delay" on scenarios is normal.
That said my original comment was mostly tongue in cheek
@valantrix I could be wrong but I think controversial items appear more often.
Example an item that "always" gets upvoted shows up less because they know its good
and item that always gets downvoted shows up less because they know it sucks
an item that constantly gets upvoted and downvoted needs to be pared against as many things as possible to determine where it lies
This would be my guess as to how the items are comming up
I'm seeing a large number of repeats
[Redacted] Blade - 6 times
With less than 100 votes
in 5 more votes 2 of the above items repeated again and a 2 new items repeated
[Redacted] Blade - 6 times
Mage Evolving wrote:
good to see I'm not the only one that thinks this
if your weapon has something along the lines of:
This mechanic this useless overpriced item instantly becomes the godly item of @$$ kickery only when X class uses it and for no other reason is being WAY over used.
I've now seen the same piece of armor 5 timesThe same weapon 6 times
The same ring 5 times
This is stupid
The lack of Favored Class Bonuses for ARG is rather disappointing.
They easily could have used a different format in ACG where they listed them for core races only saved a ton of space and added them in the original book, but they had a second book coming so I just assumed it would be in ACO. Well ya it's not there either.
Are there any plans at all to add these at some point?
David knott 242 wrote:
Extra hex was a bad example but as worded this archtype doesn't qualify for any feats that require hex or any items or spells.
The difference is this isn't a similarly named ability its a situation where it directly conflicts.
"This ability replaces spirit and hex"
There are other classes/archetypes that have this same thing and when this happens it does indeed cut them off from that class feature. When they still want them to qualify they have specifically added lines like "X still qualifies as Y for the purpose of selecting feats" when such a line does not appear then you can't.
RAI - it seems pretty damn obvious that simply forgot to include a line: "Minor spirit qualifies as Hex for the purpose of meeting prerequisites" There is a precedent for this in other archetypes.
In case it's not clear, Unsworn Shaman gets witch hexes from the first line in Minor Spirit, and regular Shaman gets it because of the "Witch Hex" hex that Anzyr quoted.
This discussion isn't if unsworn can use witch hexes.This is obvious of course they can use witch hexes.
They however don't have HEX as a class feature as HEX is replaced by the class ability Minor Spirit.
Minor spirit does not meet the Prerequisites for feats, spells, and items, that require HEX.
At 1st level, the unsworn shaman also forms a temporary bond with a minor spirit each day, granting her access to a witch hex of her choosing
This is no different from the Warpriest using the Clerics spell list. This doesn't magically make the Warpriest a cleric for the purpose of Prerequisites on feats and items. This is a bad example because I don;t know if items or feats the have Prerequisites: Cleric even exists but you get the point. Just because the word hex appears in Minor Spirit, does not make you qualify for feats that require Hex.
@Anzyr: The entire point of this thread is discussing if the archtype qualifies for FEATS, SPELLS, and ITEMS that have requirement HEX.
I assumed that your original response was in the context of the discussion and that you are claiming the archetype does have access to these in which case I am pointing out this is wrong per RAW.
RAW in this case is completely stupid but that's why this is an FAQ because it's my opinion that this is a mistake not an intended penalty for the archtype.
Onyxlion: They are not intended to be hexless, as to use a Witch hex you must have Hex as a class feature, it's an catch-22 error within the text. You can't giveth and then taketh away...For correction, they should either say, "You can use all hexes" or "You may only select Witch hexes" and stop screwing around.
You're just making s+$@ up because RAI is so obvious:
Witches are granted hexes by the class ability HEX.
In contrast the unsworn are granted hexs by the class ability Minor Spirit.
Minor Spirit /= Hex and does not not fulfill Hex requirements.
No they dont as they do not meet the Prerequisites:Hex class feature; shaman level 6th or witch level 6th.
Unworn DO NOT HAVE Hex per RAW.
This is the entire reason for this thread being an FAQ.
The raw is obvius: no HEX
The RAI is equally obvius: they should have some line that basically says, "This ability counts as having HEX for the purposes of meeting prerequisites".
This seems like a mistake and not an intentional decision to cut them off from all of the feats and items that this class needs. But even if we all agree this is a mistake it doesnt change the way it works until it gets addressed (at least for PFS)
You are completely wrong:
Minor Spirit (Su)
At 1st level, the unsworn shaman also forms a temporary bond with a minor spirit each day, granting her access to a witch hex of her choosing, but not a major hex or a grand hex. She must make this selection each day when she prepares her spells for the day. Until she changes the minor spirit, she continues to have access to the witch hex. At 2nd level, she can instead select a hex from one of her wandering spirits selected for that day. If she selects a witch hex, she treats her shaman level as her witch level, and uses her Wisdom in place of her Intelligence for the purpose of that hex.
She can make temporary bonds with two minor spirits (thus gaining two hexes) at 4th level, and with one additional minor spirit (and hex) every 4 levels thereafter.
This ability replaces spirit and hex.
Wandering Spirit (Su)
At 2nd level, the unsworn shaman gains access to the wandering spirit class feature. At 10th level, she gains the abilities listed in the greater version of her wandering spirit. At 18th level, she gains the abilities listed in the true version of her wandering spirit.
Additionally, at 6th level, she also gains a second wandering spirit, gaining the abilities listed in the greater version of that spirit at 14th level, and the abilities listed in the true version at 20th level.
This ability alters wandering spirit and replaces wandering hex.
Unsword Shaman Loses Hex as a class feature. They still have hexs but do not have the HEX ability for the purposes of meeting requirements for feats, items, etc.
Ex: An unsworn shaman can not take the feat [Extra Hex] by RAW and thus by PFS rules.
Now I still maintain that this is completly stupid and most likely a mistake but that is how it is written.
David Bowles wrote:
You are claiming they used "(as protection from evil)"
To only reference the BOLD section:
When "Immunity from possession and mental control created by evil creatures or objects" would have accomplished the same exact goal without referencing one of the longest spells in the rule book.
For those that don't think it requires a roll why do you get to flat out ignore the first line of the ability and if it was meant to be immunity as an always on effect why does the resonate ability not say:
"Immunity from possession and mental control created by evil creatures or objects"
The fact I was able to sum up exactly how some people are claiming this item works in almost the same number of words as saying (as protection from evil) is yet another reason why I think they meant for this to be a re-roll ability. Otherwise there was no need to sya as protection from evil if they ONLY mechanic they wanted was the immunity.
There are absolutely merits to both arguments. I can very easily see why people can think it's just meant to be an always on immunity. But this isn't the one and only way to interpret how this thing works.
David Bowles wrote:
The FAQ is likely we are going to get. It's just a strange case because the reroll language is almost certainly referring to a PC *already controlled* who gets prot evil cast on them. This situation is IMPOSSIBLE with the clear spindle resonance, as the spell is always functional.
The opposing school of thought is failing the first will save basically triggers the resonate ability which functions as if protection from evil had been cast on you. So you would indeed then trigger a second save. If successful you trigger immunity against that one source of the spell/ability. The main supporting factor for this is a spindle stone that grants only a +1 to will saves (you can select any one save but for arguments sake you selected will) costs 3,400. So for 4,000 you get a reroll and a +2 but it's only on some will saves. This seems way more in line with the costs of the other ioun stone.
Both interpretation have their merits and neither party is technically right or wrong to say it works they way they think it does. This is the entire reason the FAQ exists. It's not like this was some one off question that came up in a single game ever. This has been an ongoing recurring debate, is an item used by many players, and they need to finally answer how this stupid thing works, or ban it from PFS.
The Human Diversion wrote:
Actually this ruling is more commonly being ignored.
The most common ruling is:
However you should expect to see some table variation because of the fact this is still a debated issue without any official response.
What constitutes possess or exercise mental control is loosely (I say loosely because some spells still cause debates like the one in this thread) defined in the FAQ:
This is unfortunately the only extent to which they have currently addressed this item.
however as the poster claims the writer did not intend for that restriction to carry over He merly wanted to refernce how the ability worked just like protection from chaos states it wors like protection from evil. Basically he just dropped the ball on adding a clarification the same way protection from chaos clarifies that evil sources is chaos sources.
This is by no means absolute proof it just shows the amount of confusion even by pathfinder staff (assuming you believe the poster to be genuine) on how this item works.
No I don't mean that post at all. It is a post that claims the opposite and is specifically mentioning the resonate effect and not the braod protection from evil spell.
He states in no uncertain terms that the person claimed the intent was to reference the mechanics of Protection from evil and not the restrictions of evil only.
However I fully admit to it having no credible backing to prove its legitimacy.
David Bowles wrote:
We'll have to agree to disagree on this. The people reading it that way I think are griefing the players unnecessarily. Effects that make people not be able to play are obnoxious enough.
For the record I am not saying you are wrong and I am not saying I am right. I JUST WANT CLARIFICATION.
There is yet another poster who claimed to have asked the writer of the book containing this item in person about the evil restriction to which he stated
The reference to (as protection from evil) was meant to reference the mechanics and not the restriction on evil only
1,000 internet cookies if anyone can find that damn post, been looking for over 2 hours now. This is the interwebs so it's possible said person was lying out their @$$ but if this is indeed correct I think this item is very useful as a +2 reroll against all effects that possess or exercise mental control. I would buy this item absolutely under this premise but at the same time it's not a blanket buy for every character item with these rules either.
David Bowles wrote:
Except for the people that think it does work this way by raw and keep questioning the logic you are using to say no roll is required, hence the many many threads about it.
And the fact a cracked Amber stone costs 3,400 gold and only adds +1 to a single save. Ya adding a re-roll, a +2 to will (conditional) and a secondary blocking effect seems VERY MUCH in line with a cost of 4k.
David Bowles wrote:
With his ruling it's a +2 bonus with some flavor re-roll mechanics and a block all further attempts if you pass. Perfectly in line with the cost if you take away the evil requirement.
An item that costs 4k shouldn't be a lvl 20 end gear item. It should lose utility slowly as you go up higher in level.
If spindle was to be ruled/fixed to work in the way Mike Brock ruled in his game this item would be instantly better from a non-broken and also useful prospective.
If you fail a will save against any spells or effects that possess or exercise mental control you get a bonus save at +2. If succesful negate that effect and gain immunity to all futher effects from that target.
Now since it is no longer a blanket immunity the effect can be fixed to say:
Protection from possession and mental control (as Protection from evil except ignore evil alignment requirement)
It's now an amazing item for chars with bad will saves but isn't insane broken instant buy or so OP that all the scenarios make everyone chaotic neutral instead of evil just to invalidate this item.
This makes way more sense that it was the intent of the item (matches the power level and cost of such an item).
So for you non PFS GMS you now have a great way to house rule this item.
For PFS I still want them to lay out in plain English every step of how this item works. It needs it's own damn faq entry or just ban the stupid thing so you don't have to write every scenario to counter this item after lvl 4.