Penge's page

I'm just going to step out of this derail now. Especially since I didn't even talk about the arcane part the OP asked about

Carsomyr was a two-handed sword in Baldurs Gate 2 so why not

Most Holy Avengers have been Longswords but they haven't been all that consistent between editions as far as the powers they give (2nd edition HAs were beefy!)

But there is an arbiter in the sky/divine plane.

He/she/it just doesn't give a Codloose winker's arse what your intent or actions might be.

When it comes to cosmological powers, your alignment scale stops being a personal thing

Penge wrote:

Replace heal with taint and guaranteeing with damning.

Also it's devil blood :P

OT: Casting an [Evil]/[Good] is considered an [Evil]/[Good] act no matter what your PC's subjective morals might be, as far as the alignment system is concerned.

Actually, there is no such rule. Just that clerics are restricted on what spells they can cast by alignment descriptors.

It's also a really stupid way to rule things, unless you think it's fine that an evil wizard could stand in the middle of a field summoning celestial badgers to save their immortal soul. xD

Huh... you're right. I've been going by 3.5 rules all this time.

I looked into my Book of Vile Darkness and it says this about [Evil] spells: "Tapping into evil power is an evil act in and of itself, no matter what the effects or the reason for using the power might be."

It's just something that never translated into the PF rules.

As far as my group is concerned casting aligned spells will always be an alignment act even though the rules don't state it. Just like we assume an unconscious character falls prone even though the rules don't state it

Legacy is so much fun...

Edit: as for "spamming" an act to grind an alignment change. It's completely up to the GM how he would approach that... nothing stupid about that

Ashram wrote:

Actually, Infernal Healing would be bad, considering it's an [Evil] spell just like summoning an evil outsider modifies Summon Monster to have the [Evil] descriptor. An adventuring paladin who recognizes the spell definitely shouldn't go smite-happy over it, but he should be like "Bro, not cool. There are better ways to go about it than that." However, continued use might be a problem.

Heres how I hear that. "How dare you heal the weak and sick! I mean, guaranteeing their safety and life through a little wand that uses a bit of demon blood. You should feel ashamed!" the wizard then shrugs and continues to heal people...

Replace heal with taint and guaranteeing with damning.

Also it's devil blood :P

OT: Casting an [Evil]/[Good] is considered an [Evil]/[Good] act no matter what your PC's subjective morals might be, as far as the alignment system is concerned.

Vincent The Dark wrote:

OK, thank you!

Follow up. Can the magus target his melee touch attack with his arcane pool ability?

Thanks.

Anybody has an idea about this?

Are you talking about the "pool strike" ability? If so you just treat it like any other charge you gain from a spell

Tirq is banned for ambiguous reasons.

Is she new to D20? If so a Sorcerer is fairly straight forward and easy to manage then most classes.

Bow Bard perhaps. Lots of buffs.

Otherwise any range spellcaster will do

Sweet! Thanks for the quick responses. Now I can stop groping all those monsters now when my initial spellstrike misses.

Thanks for the lovely and colorful write up Grick.

I'm still a bit confused how you are able to deliver a touch spell through your normal attacks. From my interpretation of the rules (my eyes are bleeding btw), you should only be able to deliver the charge through your weapon from the free action the touch spell gives you.