Patrick Gurdgiel's page

While I can see the argument for it as written it looks as if the intent is very clear that they are separate. Also if you could use them for both powers what would be the point of draining points from the sword in the first place.

Spell recall. The only thing this interpretation would give you is the ability to use the blade's own pool to enchant itself and give itself weapon enhancements.

Hmmm.....

Actually, it's all a moot point. Even if you read it as Xum intended, the only thing it could do is give itself a +1 (which it already has).

A +2 or higher enhancement and weapon properties all require 5th level or higher. Even if the blade gets its own arcane pool class feature, it definitely never gets class levels of any sort.

Problem solved. (Edit: I guess you could have that +1 stack with the existing bonus, but that's still pretty weak at the cost of 1 point once you hit 5th or higher.)

I think it's a fairly reasonable assumption that the refill for the blade occurs when its wielder's pool also refills BUT I'll concede one could make an argument or two against that assumption. It never hurts to have clarification.

Problem with that is it plays into the original argument - that it is not a standalone ability and that it's more like Sneak Attack where you reference the primary class feature as it is presented elsewhere.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think that was intended and if you errata in a recharge, I completely disagree with the Xum's argument as then I see no need to even know how a Magus' arcane pool works for the blade to function - the rules are all self-contained.

On the flip side, I think the blade should be able to enchant itself. It seems like a reasonable and logical option - though it might have made the black blade archetype a no-brainer for any magus who plans to use APs to enchant their blade regularly. (Only a magus who wants to hold back all points for spell recall most of the time would see the tradeoffs as a disadvantage.)

Xum wrote:

LazarX wrote:

Froze_man wrote:

Xum wrote:

The way I read it, the weapon's arcane pool can be used normally to enhance the weapon. Who thinks I'm wrong?

My first instinct was to say no, but looking more closely the ability to enhance your weapon falls under the Arcane Pool feature, so it would be good to get clarification on whether the Blade gets Arcane Pool (the feature) or an arcane pool (just the points to be used for it's abilities like Black Blade Strike).

The Blade's arcane pool is only for use for the blade's particular abilities. It's not a pretty deep pool so you really don't want to use it for abilities you can fuel yourself. If you're really desperate you can suck out your blade's arcane points at a 50 percent loss.

What u said is not true, I understand why you would think that. But it's not clear AT ALL. You can assume that, but it doesn't make it so.

When they say you gain Sneak attack, it's the same as rogue, Rage, it's the same as Barbarian, this is an ability like any other, why should it follow different rules?

It is clear if you get your head around the intelligent item rules. for all intensive purposes and intelligent item is a monstrous creature more importantly its treated as a separate character. More like a familiar in this case. Has its own stats, saves and abilities

Just like any other familiar it does NOT share its masters class abilities unless stated. For example even though a familiar can gain some spells when its advanced enough does not mean it can then have access to its master entire spell list.

If the pools are interchangeable then they would have written it that way, You and your Blade share an arcane pool etc. If they are written separate they are meant to be separate.

Just because it dosen't say you can't doesn't mean you can.

Show me where it says the black blade is NOT allowed to memorise spells from the Magus spell list ? It has an INT score so by your logic because its not...

I think you are missing the original poster's point. He's contending the Blade gets the Arcane Pool class feature. It's not that they share a pool, it's that it has it's own pool, just like the magus does - the key point being "just like the magus does". If it gets its own Arcane pool class feature with the only difference being the number of points it gets, then it also gets all the other things listed under Arcane Pool - like enhancing weapons and such.

Whether the blade could consider it self a weapon it is holding is a whole other argument...

Xum wrote:

What u said is not true, I understand why you would think that. But it's not clear AT ALL. You can assume that, but it doesn't make it so.

When they say you gain Sneak attack, it's the same as rogue, Rage, it's the same as Barbarian, this is an ability like any other, why should it follow different rules?

When you get the same ability, it's specifically called out.

By that reasoning, a barbarian and a monk would have the same ability because both are called 'fast movement'.
Also, the magus ability would be pretty useless for the black blade anyway. How is a blade supposed to hold a weapon?

By that logic, the arcane pool also has a truly finite pool of points.

If we're not referencing the Magus ability at all, then there is no refill condition on the Black Blade's points as far as I can see. As soon as you use one it is gone forever.

Like a lot of stuff in this book it needs errata. If the blade entry had the replenishment wording from arcane pool, then I think you could quite reasonably contend that you could hand the black blade rules to any other class and everything within works as a self contained whole except for the callouts to the Magus' arcane pool. Arcane pool in black blade would not need to reference the magus version because the archetype tells you everything you need to know about the arcane pool in the abilities that follow it.

As it is though, the only way to have the blade refill its pool is if you assume it works exactly the same as the magus one - so I can see why the OP is saying it is ambiguous.

Well I'd hope it's the original body. True Mind Switch (which I'm using as a basis for powe level) was a Telepath 9 power that no matter how many times you jumped you were still limited to negative effects if the previous body was killed. (So stashing it in a demiplane, or petrifying it or something so it couldn't be easily killed was a good idea). And if it got killed you gained a negative level.

I read it as you can transfer to a clone and have it be your new permanent body, but if you transfer to another person, you're following the rules for magic jar. At no point is the possessed body in magic jar your home body.

Magic Jar also has a duration. Nothing says that your magic jar jumps are permenant. Returning to your body or a clone, yes, but nothing says you get a permanent version of magic jar.

Theoretically you could keep both you and your familiar hopscotching so that magic jar durations don't both expire at the same time - ASSUMING - that a magic jar'd body counts as your "real body" for purposes of twin soul. I'm not sure that's a clear certainty. It could be construed that if the witch dies, hops into the familiar, and then into someone else with the magic jar effect if the familiar dies it has no where to go (the witch's body is dead) and dies for real.

The problem isn't with the staff magus and the ability, the problem is the staff magus is the ONLY type that can actually use the ability at all. You can't use a staff with spell combat unless you have Quarterstaff Mastery, since spell combat requires a free hand, and you'd need your other hand to be holding a weapon to attack with, unless you're a Monk/Magus. You can't do it at all with a wand, since there's no feat that allows you to use the wand as a weapon.

What this needs is an errata'd sentence at the end:
"When wielding a staff or wand in your off-hand, that hand counts as if it were empty for the purpose of Spell Combat."

While a clarification would be good, I think I'd go with the "specific trumps general rule" and say it's allowed as is:

Spell Combat (Ex): At 1st level, a magus learns to cast spells and wield his weapons at the same time. This functions much like two-weapon fighting, but the off-hand weapon is a spell that is being cast. To use this ability, the magus must have one hand free (even if the spell being cast does not have somatic components), while wielding a light or one-handed melee weapon in the other hand.

Wand Wielder (Su): The magus can activate a wand or staff
in place of casting a spell when using spell combat.

Again, while it would be nice if it was clearer, I would contend that the Wand Wielder Arcana modifies the 2nd bolded sentence to effectively become:

As soon as the wand/staff becomes your off-hand weapon it seems obvious that you also have to replace

"To use this ability, the magus must have one hand free (even if the spell being cast does not have somatic components), while wielding a light or one-handed melee weapon in the other hand."

with

"To use this ability, the magus must have a wand or staff in one hand, while wielding a light or one-handed melee weapon in the other hand."

The arcana modifies spell combat and we can reasonably assume that it is intended to modify it in a functional fashion. Would have been nice if it was clearer, but its not surprising that they didn't explain it all out (just like the "Close Range" ability didn't call out multiple rays until someone pointed out Scorching Ray).

Not to dredge up an old issue - but was there ever a firm ruling/errata about using double weapons one-handed.

The double weapon rules say you use a double weapon either as a 1h/light or as a 2h (choosing only one end), but the double trait says:

Double: You can use a double weapon to fight as if fighting with two weapons, but if you do, you incur all the normal attack penalties associated with fighting with two weapons, just as if you were using a one-handed weapon and a light weapon. A double weapon can be wielded as a one-handed weapon, but it cannot be used as a double weapon when wielded in this way—only one end of the weapon can be used in any given round.

I can't seem to find anything official that changes that, but isn't that bolded section exactly what Quarterstaff Mastery does?

I'm assuming that the secion I bolded was supposed to say two-handed, not one handed, and then Quarterstaff mastery is basically allowing you to use the "2-handed quarterstaff" one handed similar to how some can use a Bastard sword one-handed.

Any insight is appreciated.

Another issue is this scenario obviously is relevant to people`s concerns about `fragile familiars floating around the battlefield`. If a familiar dies and transfers to the master`s body, can the master still commune with it to prepare spells? (or vice versa, if caster dies and goes into familiar`s body, but lets familiar retain control)

I have to say it's definitely nice to be able to use your familiar without the horrible death penalty and "scribed" scroll loss associated with witch familiars.

Even if you can't have the familiar give you spells while it's in you, presumably you could let it "magic jar" out to something else and you commune with it then.

As I think of it, this is definitely prone to abuse. It seems like the intent was to make a familiar more like in 4E - "death" isn't as catastrophic an issue.

I could see some min-max players intentionally kill their familiar and keep it as a twin soul by default. Then in combat you try to have your familiar posses each enemy until it gets one. At that point your familiar has basically dominated one of the enemies (probably creating a dramatic swing in the battle) until the enemy is killed - then it pops back to you and you can repeat.

If I were to change it, I think I would have said that once per "death"/soul jump the partner can attempt to use the magic jar ability (with the same duration). If the soul is supposed to jump back into its own body or the recepticle as part of the magic jar spell, it jumps back to the living partner's body. I would also have said that if you have the dead partner's dead body and have repaired any fatal damage (or mabye just X gold), you can perform a 1 hour ritual when you would prepare spells to restore the dead partner to it's appropriate body (or summon up/create a new one).

It seems like it's meant to be a "get out of death free" card like the reincarnated druid, but there are some serious offensive aplications too. (Oh, and on the DC, I would have figured it would use the scaling hex dc as that's the prevaling setup for the witch abilities - which makes it even worse.)

Ok, to this ability seems a bit vague and confusing. Wondering if anyone had any thoughts or if we could get some official answers. The ability says:

Twin Soul (Su): At 10th-level, if the witch or her familiar
is gravely injured or about to die, the soul of the dying one
immediately transfers to the other’s body. The two souls
share the surviving body peaceably, can communicate
freely, and both retain their ability to think and reason.
The host may allow the guest soul to take over the body
temporarily or reclaim it as a move action. They can
persist in this state indefinitely, or the guest can return
to its own body (if available) by touch, transfer into a
suitable vessel (such as a clone), or take over another body
as if using magic jar (with no receptacle). This replaces the
witch’s major hex at 10th-level.

Ok, so the questions...

Now the harder ones...

2 - The guest can return to it's own body by touch - does the body need a raise dead or does it just need to be healed back to a non-dead condition?

3 - The guest can take over another body as if using magaic jar with no receptacle - what does that mean?
a - If you successfully take over another body, what is the duration? Does it mirror the magic jar spell?
b - If not permanent, what happens to your soul at the end? There is no recepticle or original live body - do you bounce back to your partner's body?
c - What happens if the attempt fails? There is no recepticle, so do you go back to your partner's body?
d - Can you voluntarily go back to your partner's body (technically its not the recepticle).

4 - Can the witch die, go into it's familiar, magic jar a target, the familiar dies and joins the witch in the magic jar body, then the familiar can possess a body, etc... or does this only work if one of the two original bodies are alive?

As I read the magic jar part it seems to work like this to me:
1 - You can take a full round action per magic jar to try and possess a body
2 - The duration is the same as magic jar (hours per level)
3 - You cannot go back to your partner's body voluntarily, but if any reason you were a "soul without a home", you "die" - which sends you right back to your familiar's body.

Not that most witches are going to want to kill themselves of familiars voluntarily, but when it happens, this seems to be a really confusing effect.

Adding the blade and the magus arcane pool, makes it 2 higher than a normal magus would have, and with several restrictions. It's not really THAT bad, but I think there should be more options for the blade's advancement and all...

Well, I still can't believe they didn't make an option for an armorless Magus except for the Staff one... oh well... gonna wallow alone here...

The only big gaffe I see is that the weapon enchantment ability of the magus should be something the blade can spend points on. I think that alone would be a huge improvement.

B0sh1 wrote:

Drizzt1080 wrote:

The first set concern the Bladebound Archetype. Can you add the black blade template to an existing magical weapon? How does the black blade template affect how magical weapons are upgraded through paying for permanent enchantments vs the temporary improvements made from the Arcane Pool rules?

I don't think this is a template. Due to the sentient/intelligent nature of the weapon, a black blade should be considered unique, not something acquired/applied like an enchantment.

As far as the cost/abilitiy to apply permanent enchantments on a black blade, I am not sure the best way to handle that. My personal opinion would be that the black blade cannot be enchanted on top of its inherit progression/abilities due to its very unique nature. Just an opinion though.

It can be enchanted like anyother inteligent item, no biggie.

But aside from that, don't you guys think this archetype is weak? Or that this blade, specially it's arcane pool is to low? It says the blade has 1+Int BONUS (not modifier, must be a typo) anyway, it's going to be 5 arcane point on 17th level... looks like those neat abilities the blade has won't come into play most of the time, or am I missing something?

Let's look at level 18 because it divides easier.

So overall the Bladebound has 2 more than a normal magus (though 5 have some expenditure restrictions) and an intelligent magical blade that costs nothing more than a single arcana at level 3.

For the cost of funneling some pool points into some specific uses and your third level arcana, what you get seems pretty good to me.

Patrick Gurdgiel wrote:

I think you bolded the wrong part:
"Evil Subtype: This subtype is usually applied to outsiders native to the evil-aligned outer planes."

All that means is that some creatures from the evil-aligned planes don't have the evil descriptor. That means a golem crafted in an evil-aligned plane wouldn't automatically have an evil descriptor.

Eh, I'd disagree with that a little, but it's a moot point as we seem to agree that the Evil descriptor should work under the same principle of the Evil subtype - meaning it doesn't force alignment of a specific type and is more a mechanical indicator that is applied.

I think you put it best in your post where you quoted the PRD.
A good aligned creature can have the evil subtype (because it comes from an evil aligned plane). That subtype does not force an evil alignment on a creature, but applies mechanically for effects.

I agree we should assume the same principle applies for the spell descritor - ergo, spells with the evil descriptor aren't "inherently evil", but do function mechanically as if they were for the purpose of descriptor interactions (much like the outsider with a good alignment but the evil subtype is treated as evil mechanically).

BYC wrote:

There are definitely degrees of evil. Depending on how one looks at it, Detect Evil even says so when the caster can tell how strong the evil is.

Detect evil cares about the monster's power level and his alignment or subtype. The actual degree of evil -- how many evil actions committed by a creature or the severity of those actions (how *evil* they are) is subjective. The game doesn't associate rules with how evil an action is. It gives the GM the power to make that determination. But the game itself only cares whether a person/place/thing is evil or not. Sometimes a GM can make that determination. Sometimes the game has rules for that -- like when a spell is labeled an evil spell. Or when a creature is labeled an evil creature. . .

PRD wrote:

Evil Subtype: This subtype is usually applied to outsiders native to the evil-aligned outer planes. Evil outsiders are also called fiends. Most creatures that have this subtype also have evil alignments; however, if their alignments change, they still retain the subtype. Any effect that depends on alignment affects a creature with this subtype as if the creature has an evil alignment, no matter what its alignment actually is. The creature also suffers effects according to its actual alignment. A creature with the evil subtype overcomes damage reduction as if its natural weapons and any weapons it wields are evil-aligned (see Damage Reduction, page 299).

The same principle above should apply to evil spells.

I think you bolded the wrong part:

If I apply that principle to a spell with the evil descriptor I get:

Evil Spell Descriptor: This descriptor is usually applied to spell associated with the evil-aligned outer planes. Most spells that have this subtype are also evil acts; however, if the nature of the act is different, they still retain the subtype. Any effect that depends on alignment affects a spell with this subtype as if the spell has an evil alignment, no matter what the caster's alignment actually is.

What I get from the section you quoted is that a creature with the evil subtype is treated as evil for the purposes of mechanical effects even if their alignment is different. They are not forced to be an evil alignment based on the subtype, but they suffer the mechanical penalties of it. So I guess I agree with you - we should let the same principle apply to evil spells - so evil spells (like the evil subtype) are not automatically evil aligned, but they do suffer the mechanical penalties as if they were.

Patrick Gurdgiel wrote:

It's not exactly a balance sheet.

EXACTLY! Some people try to make aligment a numbers game and it just can't be done. If morality and ethics just aren't that simple and never can be. We are not binary machines acting on rigid action codes.

Another challenge is that the d20 system in general did not set down that magic works X way.

If in your game casting protection from good actually takes a good soul out of the heavenly realms and desecrates/destroys it to create an area of wrongness that repels moral creatures, I'd guess that's an evil act.

On the other hand, if it just channels some energy from a lower plane commonly associated with evil creatures, maybe not (though I can understand why a god from those higher planes may not be willing or able to let their followers utilize that energy).

If the core rules explained magical theory and exactly how things work (like Ars Magica or Mage do), it would be much easier to choose to quantify things - but considering that the system was intentionally designed to be flexible enough to run in a variety of settings or worlds, being left of to the DM in general is a good thing.

Ambrus wrote:

Gilfalas wrote:

Use the dark side of the force and it will eventually turn you, etc.

Conversely, would using the 'light' side of magic (say by repeatedly casting protection from evil while lounging around the house) help counteract evil deeds (say for instance, the occasional murder of innocents)?

Casting protection from Evil is a Good aligned act... The consequences of casting repeatedly a Good aligned spell are in the hands of the DM... ;)

So an evil creature casting a Protection from Evil spell to protect itself from another evil creature (which has a legitimate reason to want to kill the evil caster) is a good aligned act?

Really?

See to me the problem is that traditionally (in a story sense), good and evil don't have to play by the same rules. To try and codify alignment in both directions is a fools errand as most would agree that it is much easier to commit an evil act and even acts that could be considered good in one context could be considered evil in another. "Good" requires context - "Evil", not so much. It's not exactly a balance sheet.

Gilfalas wrote:

Use the dark side of the force and it will eventually turn you, etc.

Conversely, would using the 'light' side of magic (say by repeatedly casting protection from evil while lounging around the house) help counteract evil deeds (say for instance, the occasional murder of innocents)?

Haven't seen anyone on the "casting the spell is an aligned act" weigh in on several people who have pointed this out.

Let's throw in another example - I have a chaotic evil drow wizard traveling for weeks from one drow city to another. He casts protection from evil every day while traveling to fend off other assorted evil creatures. Is he in danger of turning good or neutral simply by using the spell? (For arguements sake lets assume he killed a few puppies before he left on his trip, but along the way had no opportunity to commit an overt evil act - all his acts were movitated by trying to get from point A to point B and survive the various creatures along the way.)

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

There is some resistance to adding new 0-level spells to the game because it means wizards get all of them automatically, which is a little unfair to classes with a limited number of spells known (bard, oracle, sorc, etc.).

Well, apparently, they do not : "A standard spellbook includes all cantrips from the Core Rulebook except those in the wizard’s oppositional schools. Books containing cantrips from additional sources are noted in the content description." (Ultimate Magic, p 121)

Ergo, the way I read it, all cantrips from additional sources would not be known by any and all level 1 wizards. They would have to find them and add them to their spellbook, same as any other spell.

To be consistent with Ultimate Magic, the CRB should be given an errata in the Spellbook part of the Wizard class (page 79), such as "A wizard begins play with a spellbook containing all 0-level wizard spells in this book (except those from his prohibited schools, if any; see Arcane Schools) plus three 1st-level spells of his choice."

Am I the only one who finds the "every cantrip" logic absurd in the first place?

What is this amazing magical force that populates every wizard's spell book across every continent and every dimension with a new cantrip automatically just because Tim the Enchanter developed a custom cantrip to wash the party's laundry?

Patrick Gurdgiel wrote:

BS. This is NOT a computer game - and that so called logical argument "the oberoni fallacy" is BS too.

You are ignoring a very important fact - pen and paper RPGs are build at the core with the concept a thinking human being is needed to adjudicate the rules.

While the rules are there to provide a strong framework and guidance - I have NEVER seen an RPG that was not quick to point out that a GM is meant to be a stabilizing force to address minutia that the rules could not accomodate in a concise fashion and unintended interactions or abuse not intended by the designers.

If as a player (or worse yet GM), you want to rules to be the end all be all arbiter with no option for rational human decision-making, go play an MMO.

Unfortunately, PFS is much closer to the computer game analogy. Players run by RAW and GMs must accommodate them regardless of absurdity so long as their nonsense is rules-legal.

That is true - as it was with Living City and Greyhawk. And look what it got us - the 4th Edition D&D rules. (Don't get me wrong, I like them, but it is obvious organized play and its pitfalls was a serious driver of it.)

The reality is that a shared world organized play campaign can't use basic RPG rules as exactly written as you are missing that key GM continuity and stability.

Organized play is wonderful as many players have little other outlet to enjoy this hobby we all love - but lets at least be honest that we're trying to fit a round peg in a square hole out of neccesity and not get all up on our high horse.

magnuskn wrote:

Exactly. God forbid we evil, bad GM's don't want to deal with twinked out characters and impossibly high save DC's for SOD spells. It's not as if that would unbalance the game and force us to throw things at the party which the normally sanely built characters are not ready to deal with, right? RIGHT?!?

God forbid I pay $50 so I don't have to make my own rules for the game to work regardless of player options, wait that's exactly why I pay that....

BS. This is NOT a computer game - and that so called logical argument "the oberoni fallacy" is BS too.

You are ignoring a very important fact - pen and paper RPGs are build at the core with the concept a thinking human being is needed to adjudicate the rules.

While the rules are there to provide a strong framework and guidance - I have NEVER seen an RPG that was not quick to point out that a GM is meant to be a stabilizing force to address minutia that the rules could not accomodate in a concise fashion and unintended interactions or abuse not intended by the designers.

If as a player (or worse yet GM), you want to rules to be the end all be all arbiter with no option for rational human decision-making, go play an MMO.