OneSoulLegion's page

Since I'm getting tired of arguing this point, I figured I'd post it and see if I can get a consensus and/or official ruling.

Aspect of the Falcon (or the bracers with the same effect) gives crossbows and bows a crit range of 19-20 and a crit multiplier of x3, and specifically states that the effects of the spell will not stack with effects that increase your crit range, like Improved Critical.

However, a friend keeps arguing that if you have a crossbow, you can still use Improved Critical, because it's not STACKING, it's OVERLAPPING.

His argument is that the crossbow will have two crit ranges, 17-20 x2 and 19-20 x3, both active at the same time. So that if you crit on a 19-20 it'll give you x3, and if you crit on a 17-18 it'll give you a x2.

My argument is that a) the spell specifically states that it doesn't stack, and b) there's no provision in the Pathfinder rules anywhere for a single attack roll to have more than one crit range.

Opinions?

I've seen a fair bit of discussion on this, and even talk back and forth with both sides claiming RAI, so I'm hoping to get some clarification.

The current PFS guide (4.1 at the time of writing), on page 20, states the following:

"Any spell cast by a PC during the course of a scenario
that is still active at the end of a scenario ends when
the scenario does."

I'm assuming that the main reason for this is because otherwise a player wizard with such spells could cast them on other pathfinders for just the material cost (or on his own gear), and thereby saving a (possibly unfair) amount of gold.

I actually didn't give this any real thought until I was working on a new player character - as a flavour item, this character wants an item with a continual flame spell cast on it. Would the "by a PC" in the above rule mean that I could pay for the normal NPC spellcasting services once to get this item done (since it's not torch-shaped and as such cannot legally be an ever-burning torch, nor is it in orbit, so it can't be an ioun stone), or would I essentially be forced to pay the 110gp to have the spell cast at the start of each and every scenario that I play?

If it's the latter, I think the guide needs to update its wording since the rule specifically calls out spells cast by player characters (something that I only noticed today when double checking it for my new character).

One of the best examples of appropriate tools to damage objects I've read was from an article about armour for a completely different game. It gave the following scenario:

Imagine you have a tree, about a foot in diameter (it's not a very old tree, but yeah). If a strong warrior with a greatsword took a swing at it, he could probably fell the tree in a few swings, at most.

Now, take the exact same kind of wood, and build a sturdy fence/wall from planks. Then take a swing at it with the same greatsword... more likely than not, you've put a couple of small chips into it, despite the fact that the wall is in fact thinner than the tree was.

This is because of the relative shapes of a tree vs a wall - with a sword, you have a lot more difficulty getting a useful angle of attack attacking a flat surface, compared to a cylindrical pillar.

I also see this as the main reason some large monsters (like say, a dragon) can have such high armour class - the difficulty isn't in HITTING the damn thing, but rather to hit it in such a way that it does something meaningful and doesn't just glance off. With the D&D/Pathfinder version of armour class (where armour makes it harder to hit rather than reducing damage) it's even more so, but even in systems where hitting and getting through armour are separate mechanics it's valid - a "miss" isn't necessarily a complete whiff, it can connect. It just can't connect meaningfully...