Omelite's page

Ghost Syrup is a poison which turns you permanently incorporeal if it causes enough Str damage to drop your effective Str to 0.

Normally, Undead are immune to Ghost Syrup, because it's a poison, it requires a fort save and doesn't affect objects, and it inflicts ability damage to Str. Undead are immune to those effects due to the Undead Traits (Ex) ability.

However, there are various ways to use Ghost Syrup to become incorporeal while undead, or to become undead while already incorporeal, and I'm wondering if there's a clear cut answer on how these effects would overlap in such cases.

Case 1. A corporeal undead (doesn't matter what kind, but we'll say a Juju Zombie since that's a relatively easy template for a PC to get, via an Onyx Spear) polymorphs into a human using alter self. As a spell from the polymorph subschool, Alter Self causes the undead to lose all extraordinary and supernatural abilities that depend on [its] original form, which would include Undead Traits (Ex). While polymorphed, the undead creature is susceptible to poison, ability damage, and effects requiring fort saves. It drinks the Ghost Syrup, intentionally failing its saves until its effective Str is 0. It becomes incorporeal due to the Ghost Syrup's permanent effect. Later, Alter Self wears off, and the creature regains its Undead Traits (Ex) ability, including the immunity to poison.

There are two rulings I can see for this, and I don't know which is right (or if some other ruling is better).

Possible Ruling 1: When a creature has immunity to poison (such as from undead traits), it becomes immune to the permanent incorporeal effect from Ghost Syrup. This would also imply that for a non-undead character, Delay Poison would grant corporeality in addition to the listed spells like Wish (although the ability drain would still need to be dealt with separately).

Possible Ruling 2: The poison itself only has a duration of 6 rounds, and if the permanent incorporeality was a poison effect, it could be healed with Neutralize Poison instead of Remove Curse. The permanent effect of Ghost Syrup is not itself a poison and immunity to poison has no effect on it once the permanent effect is active. This ruling would allow a polymorphed undead to gain incorporeality via Ghost Syrup and keep it when returning to normal form.

Case 2: Very similar to case 1 as far as rulings, so see above for the possible rulings. A character who is already incorporeal due to Ghost Syrup could undergo the Eternal Apotheosis ritual to become a Lich (or any other method of gaining an undead template that isn't limited to corporeal creatures). After achieving Lichdom, would the incorporeal quality be lost due to Ruling 1, or would it be retained due to Ruling 2? I'm guessing most people would rule similarly for both cases.

Personally I think Ruling 2 is correct. Given that remove curse and not neutralize poison is listed as able to cure the incorporeality, I would rule that the permanent effect from Ghost Syrup is a curse effect and the poison effect is only the 6 rounds of poison.

Here's the rules text in question:

Sometimes, lack of funds or time make it impossible for a magic item crafter to create the desired item from scratch. Fortunately, it is possible to enhance or build upon an existing magic item. Only time, gold, and the various prerequisites required of the new ability to be added to the magic item restrict the type of additional powers one can place.

The cost to add additional abilities to an item is the same as if the item was not magical, less the value of the original item. Thus, a +1 longsword can be made into a +2 vorpal longsword, with the cost to create it being equal to that of a +2 vorpal sword minus the cost of a +1 longsword.

I'm not sure if this allows players to, by RAW, upgrade specific magical items. For instance, a suit of mistmail costs 2250 (market price), and is a +1 chain shirt. Could one pay 3000 more to upgrade it to a +2 chain shirt (1500 more if crafting it oneself)? Or would that require a houserule?

I couldn't find another thread asking this question, so here goes:

Scenario: A druid is wildshaped into for instance a giant hippo which has grab on its bite, and he casts Magic Fang to get a +1 enhancement to his bite attack.

When you attempt to perform a combat maneuver, make an attack roll and add your CMB in place of your normal attack bonus. Add any bonuses you currently have on attack rolls due to spells, feats, and other effects. These bonuses must be applicable to the weapon or attack used to perform the maneuver.

So would magic fang:

A] Give the druid a +1 enhancement bonus on the free grapple check he gets from grab, but not on subsequent grapples? [i.e. the grab is made using the bite, but the subsequent grapples are not]

B] Give the druid a +1 enhancement bonus on all grapple checks.

C] Give the druid a +1 enhancement bonus on all grapple checks as long as he initiated the grapple using grab on his bite.

D] Not affect his grapple checks whatsoever.

B looks most correct to me (as long as he is 'using the bite' to perform the grapple, which he obviously can since he has grab). What do you guys think?

Some spells have a duration of concentration or concentration + X. If used from a wand, can the wand user maintain the spell via concentration, even though he was using a spell trigger item rather than casting the spell himself?

I've got a few questions relating to bloodlines and eldritch heritage.

First, the 1st level power of the Sylvan bloodline (wildblooded alternate of the Fey bloodline). This power is Animal Companion (Ex), and provides an animal companion at [sorcerer level - 3]. This is more powerful than other 1st level powers, and for this reason it also counts as the Sylvan sorcerer's bloodline arcana.

Eldritch Heritage, as I read it, allows you to take this suped-up first-level power just as well as you could take any other bloodline's first-level power. This becomes especially overpowered when combined with Boon Companion; for three feats, any character with 13 CHA can have an animal companion at [character level - 1] no matter what classes they take.

So my first questions are: am I reading this correctly? Should an exception be made for this power (and added to the rules via errata), since it's not balanced against other 1st-level powers?

Second, and in the same vein, if this is allowed, how does one deal with a Druid who takes Eldritch Heritage Sylvan (with no boon companion)? Boon companion specifically says it won't raise the animal companion's statistics above that of a druid with your HD in levels, but the normal stacking rules don't mention any such HD-based restriction (used to be unnecessary since only class levels granted animal companions). All it says is that "The druid’s class levels stack with levels of any other classes that are entitled to an animal companion for the purpose of determining the companion’s statistics."

A level 12 druid with Eldritch Heritage Sylvan counts as a druid 12 and a sylvan sorcerer 10 (who gets an animal companion at level-3), which would grant him an animal companion of a level 19 druid even though he's only level 12. Obviously that's overpowered, but it looks like by RAW it's completely legal.

Again, am I reading RAW incorrectly on this issue?

Third, the Fey/Sylvan 9th level power Fleeting Glance, and other powers with similar (lack of) wording. "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." It doesn't say what kind of action it is to activate - does that mean it's a standard action? That's what I'm assuming. Is this correct?

There were some other posts on this a month or two ago, but I'm making a new thread since I'm taking this on a bit differently than they did in the other threads. I saw a thread in another subforum earlier about how the Ring of Revelations + UMD can give any character access to oracle revelations, and I just wanted to make sure that the way I see the rules on this is accurate.

Ring of Revelations lists several requirements for using the item. As an example, I'll use a Greater Ring of Revelation [Wings of Darkness].

Here are the requirements, listed in the item's description, for using this item:

1. Must have the Dark Tapestry mystery.
2. Must be a 7th level oracle.

If these requirements are met, then the user gains the Wings of Darkness revelation while the ring is worn.

Let's pretend we have three characters:
A. A bard 20 with a +40 on UMD.
B. A Dark Tapestry Oracle 1/Synthesist 9 with a +29 on UMD.
C. A Lore Oracle 7 with a +15 on UMD.

A tries using the item. He rolls UMD to emulate a class feature, and successfully convinces the item to think he has that class feature. Sadly, the item still requires him to be an oracle, and one of 7th level at that, and he cannot emulate that, so he fails to use the item.

B tries using the item. He does meet the Dark Tapestry Mystery class feature requirement, but he does not meet the Oracle 7 requirement. Since this cannot be emulated, he fails to use the item.

C tries using the item. He rolls UMD to emulate the Dark Tapestry Mystery class feature, and gets a 23 on his roll. He has successfully emulated that class feature, and since he is also an oracle 7, the item gives him its effect: access to the Wings of Darkness class feature. Since he is a 7th level oracle, he is able to fly at 60 (good) for up to 7 minutes per day in 1-minute increments. This is not dependent on what his roll on UMD was, since the revelation depends on oracle level and not the effective level of his Dark Tapestry Mystery class feature.

Sadly for him, since he is trying to emulate that class feature constantly, he will have to make a new check every hour to continue having access to the Wings of Darkness revelation. If he fails, he can immediately try again, but if he rolls a 1 he will have to wait 24 hours before trying again. If he had a +20 in UMD or better, he would not have a chance of failing, and even rolling a 1 would be a success.

Does that sound right to everyone?

Relevant rules text:

The oracle must have the appropriate mystery to use the ring, and must meet the level requirements (if any) of the revelation itself; for example, a ring of revelation (combat healer) is only usable by an oracle of at least 7th level with the battle mystery.

Emulate a Class Feature: Sometimes you need to use a class feature to activate a magic item. In this case, your effective level in the emulated class equals your Use Magic Device check result minus 20. This skill does not let you actually use the class feature of another class. It just lets you activate items as if you had that class feature. If the class whose feature you are emulating has an alignment requirement, you must meet it, either honestly or by emulating an appropriate alignment with a separate Use Magic Device check (see above).

I was going to post in the rules section, but then I realized that pretty much all the answers to my question would have been "GM discretion," since there are no solid rules for what's evil, what's dishonorable, etc.

So here I am asking for some sort of consensus, or perhaps even an official ruling, on what is and isn't permissible for a paladin to do in PFS. In a normal game I'd just ask my GM for his opinion, but that's not something I can do in PFS as there isn't a single GM.

1. A paladin cannot commit an evil act. But who's definition of evil? The GMs? That may be different every time. Often the very missions pathfinders are sent on could be interpreted as evil by morally stringent GMs. Do ends justify means? What values are more important than others? For instance, if freeing a village from an oppressive ruler would also result in economic instability, is it really good? Is it evil? Neutral?

On this point I think players should be able to use their own character's moral code. As long as there is a reasonable moral framework by which they could consider an action to be non-evil, and they consistently follow that same moral framework, I think they should be in the green as far as this first clause is concerned.

2. A paladin must act with honor (i.e. cannot act dishonorably). Poison use, lying, and cheating are called out as dishonorable, but then we're left with a GM-fiat-providing "and so on" clause. Is setting an ambush dishonorable? Hiring an assassin to take out a dangerous villain who for practical reasons you can't reach? Using a ranged weapon (attacking enemies from a location where they can't attack you)? Attacking a flat-footed foe? Sneaking past guards? Stealing good from someone who has obtained them through legitimate (see #3) legal means? Through illegitimate means?

On this point, I try not to put the paladin into too much of a straight jacket. I've seen some very restrictive definitions of honor applied in games, and frankly it just makes the paladins look like they have no brains, and it makes them an absolute bore to play: with a restrictive definition of honor, instead of role-playing, your code of conduct essentially role plays for you. You're told to infiltrate a hideout? Better let the guards know you'll be entering, offer them the chance to surrender, and challenge them to a fight if they refuse, knocking them out nonlethally and bringing no further harm to them if they do not surrender. I personally prefer a much looser definition of honor. Of the things I listed in the previous paragraph, I would only necessarily consider stealing legitimately-gained goods to be dishonorable (again, see #3 for clarification on "legitimate"). I think this loose definition is the best way to do it for PFS, because it prevents the specifics of the code from changing from GM to GM while also making paladin an actually viable class that doesn't screw over the rest of the party (unless the player wants to play him with a restrictive code of honor).

3. The paladin must respect legitimate authorities. What does that mean? If a governor was elected, does that make his authority legitimate, even if he is abusing his power? What about if a paladin has reason to suspect that he's collaborating with an evil force, but doesn't know for sure? Is the paladin required to stupidly question him about it upfront, or can he subvert the governor's authority while he investigates? What if the paladin simply has deep philosophical disagreements with how a certain political system works (let's say, a monarchy that passes on kingship by blood), or with its practices (say, forcing farmers to provide food for an army for no compensation)? Can I consider it illegitimate?

I think the answer is that the paladin should be able to consider any authority to be either legitimate or illegitimate based on his own moral and philosophical code. What the paladin can't do is consider an authority to be illegitimate just because it's inconveniencing him. If according to his views the authority is a legitimate one, then he must respect it. If a player can give a convincing argument for considering an authority to be illegitimate, then he can go ahead and ignore that authority.

It's even possible to consider all authorities illegitimate. Lawful good does not necessarily mean you agree that some people have authority over other people. You can instead simply believe that there are certain moral imperatives that people ought to follow, and that's what the "lawful" is dedicated to, the adherence to the moral authority of a moral code. In any case, I once again think the loosest plausible interpretation should be PFS canon here, that way as long as a character can justify to his GM that he's being consistent with his character's values, he doesn't arbitrarily lose class features because he differs in philosophy with the GM.

So what do you guys think? Should paladins be as straightjacketed as most people seem to want them? Should the tightness of their straightjacket change with the GM's views? Or should we allow for reasonably justified actions as long as the player can explain why he thinks it's justified and doesn't violate his code?

Can natural attacks be used to touch opponents for the purposes of casting a touch spell in combat? I don't see anywhere where it's specifically laid out in the text.

I would think that, just as a level 12 sorcerer with Chill Touch could make melee touches at BAB +6/+1 just as he could with his unarmed strike, a 6 BAB creature with two claws and a tail slap and holding chill touch would make touches at BAB +6/+6/+1 just as he could with those natural limbs.

Is there text specifically saying that it is or is not allowed? If there is no such text, what's your take on it and why?

When dispel magic says that you make "one dispel check (1d20 + your caster level)," is the caster level the caster level of dispel magic, or is it the general caster level of the caster?

Usually these two values will be identical, but with feats or traits like Varisian Tattoo or Precocious Spellcaster the caster level of the spell can be higher than the general caster level.

My gut tells me that the caster level of the spell should be used, but I just wanted to confirm that that's how it actually works.

This comes from the book Seeker of Secrets.

The Dusty Rose Prism Ioun stone provides the user with a +1 insight bonus on AC. When slotted into a Wayfinder, Ioun stones provide another bonus in addition to their normal bonus. For the Dusty Rose Prism, this additional bonus is a +2 insight bonus on CMB and CMD.

I'm not completely sure whether the combined effect of this is +2 or +3 to CMD. Both the +1 and +2 are insight bonuses, but they are not insight bonuses to the same thing, even though they both get applied to CMD.

At first I thought that they would not stack, and only the highest would apply as they're both insight bonuses. However, I think I've changed my mind after thinking about how enhancement bonuses work.

Amulet of Natural AC: +1 enhancement bonus to natural armor.
+1 Full Plate: +9 armor AC, +1 enhancement bonus to armor AC
+1 light wooden shield: +1 shield AC, +1 enhancement bonus to shield AC.

Each of these three enhancement bonuses apply to the character's AC, because they are not strictly speaking enhancement bonuses to the same thing (though there are statistics that all of them apply to; normal AC and flat-footed AC).

Likewise, while a +1 insight on AC and a +2 insight on CMD both are insight bonuses which apply to CMD, they are not strictly speaking insight bonuses to the same raw statistic, so do they both apply when determining total CMD? I'm still unsure due to the fact that while the enhancement bonuses apply indirectly (AC does not directly include the enhancement bonuses, but rather the Nat, Armor, and Shield bonuses they enhance) while the insight bonuses both apply directly to CMD.

Thoughts?

For effects related to type, a synthesist counts as both a humanoid and an outsider, whichever is worse.

Does that mean that a Synthesist cannot use spells like Enlarge Person on herself? It says that she counts as both, which would allow it, but then it specifies "whichever is worse," as if for any effect she either counts as one or the other and not both.

Ordinarily, a summoner is allowed to cast such spells on the Eidolon thanks to share spells; I can't imagine why the Synthesist would be MORE restrictive on that issue.

This would also affect other useful humanoid only spells, though I am having trouble thinking of many others.

Reading the RAW it looks to me like one can get 2x damage with lance attacks on a full attack. That seems too OP, which is why I'm clarifying the rules here.

By my reading of the RAW, it seems that only a few things are required.

1. Rider is on a mount.
2. Rider is wielding a lance.
3. Rider has the Mounted Skirmisher feat.
4. Mount is charging, but moving no faster than 1x its speed.
5. Rider is full-attacking as per mounted skirmisher.

Lance: "A lance deals double damage when used from the back of a charging mount."

Mounted Skirmisher: "If your mount moves its speed or less, you can still take a full-attack action."

Mounted Skirmisher allows for the rider to full attack while the mount charges, so long as the mount does not exceed 1x speed. The text description for the lance says that lance attacks while riding a charging mount do 2x damage, with no requirement that the rider is also making a charge attack.

It's true that elsewhere in the rules it's noted that charging with a lance while mounted does 2x damage, but that does not contradict the Lance weapon description - it merely provides another slightly different means of doing 2x damage with a lance.

What do you guys think?