Pentar's page

Hey everyone,

A situation came up in the game where the Druid in my group shaped changed into a Tiny creature (a bat in this case). The Wild Shape ability states it works like the Beast Shape spell. Upon review of that spell, it states;

If the form you assume has any of the following abilities, you gain the listed ability: climb X feet, Fly Y feet, Swim Z feet

Where X,Y,Z are numbers varying with the level of the Beast Shape spell.

The question, as you can well imagine, if the animal that the Druid selects has that ability, but at a lower listed score, does the Druid get the full benefit of the spell and can now fly/swim/climb at a rate faster than the original animal can? Conversely, if the value indicated by the Animal is better, is the Druid capped?

Example: Druid transforms into a Tiny Bat. As listed in the Beastiary, the bat has a fly speed of 30'. The Druid is level 10 and can Wild Shape as Beast Shape III which has an indicated Fly speed of 90'. Does this mean that the Druid-Bat can fly at 90' or does it simply mean that if the creature possesses Fly, the Druid can fly, up to the creature's natural Fly speed or 90', whatever is smaller?

My view is NO in the first and YES in the second.

My reasoning is as follows: The very idea of Wild Shape is diversity. It gives the Druid a great number of options. However, if you simply gave flat values for all these options, then the Druid would simply find the one animal that is superior in all orther aspects and always change into that. Using the innate balance of the creatures within the forces the Druid to make choices of one over the other; i.e. one might fly faster than another, but possess a superior natural weapon attack, or have as sense that the other doesn't possess.

I also really hate the idea of all creatures just being flattened out like that for the Druid. It makes their Wild Shape really boring.

I agree that in melee it works fine i think the thing that is bothering me is could a caster use magic missle to pick out the real target amonst the fakes?

so could a party barbarian run up to an evil spell caster who has cast mirror image and then wait for his own mage to cast magic missle then just clobber the one that gets hit by the spell?

No.

Mirror Images flicker in and out of the real mage and it is assumed the real mage isn't standing stock still in a fight. Even if the Barbarian "Readied" an action to attack the "image" struck by the Magic Missile, I would still not allow it.

EDIT: And as said by someone else, all the images appear to have been affected by the spell, but in the case of magic missile, because there are foreign objects flying into the cluster of images, I can see how you might want to argue you can pick out the actual mage. Regardless though, it is still a No ;) The only way to figure out the real mage is to get rid of the images ;)

Now to my question; I am currently building with Arcane Strike and Weapon Specialization with the intent of adding the extra damage to Scorching Ray. These will add damage, but for Scorching Ray there are multiple Rays. The current rule is a ray is considered a weapon. Scorching Ray allows me to gain additional ray attacks which are like iterative attacks but better(which is where the rub comes in). I feel the extra damage should be applied per ray , but perhaps this is my inner munchkin talking. I am sensitive to balance (I DM quite often as well as play) and after a long progression of this character the damage potential seems close to what my napkin math says a 2h fighter should expect without my build surpassing the fighter. So, with the extra damage per ray, the damage is reasonable to the level I expect from secondary damage dealers. However, I would like either a more direct ruling or some RAW...

I have reviewed many of the arguments from other posters. I'm not 100% sure if my view has been given yet, but here it is:

I would rule that Scorching Ray produces multiple Rays, where each ray applies as a separate weapon but of the same attack. The caster of Scorching Ray must declare all targets of multiple rays at the time of casting and attack is resolved simultaneously and not iteratively.

In such a case, I would allow bonus damage from Specialization, etc. on each Ray. However, I would only allow bonus damage applied from Sneak Attack once to all unique eligible targets, regardless of the number of Rays fired at the target. So no matter how many rays you fire at an elligible opponent, you only apply one sneak attack damage once.

The rogue's attack deals extra damage anytime her target would be denied Dexterity bonus to AC...

The bonus damage applies to the ATTACK, not to the number of weapons used. Since it is a SINGLE attack made multiple times, the bonus damage can only apply once.

The same argument would be said for a Sneak Attack damage and Manyshot feat. Two arrwos are fired at the target with a single attack roll, but sneak attack damage would only apply once.

Pentar wrote:

What I'm trying to say here, Ravingdork, is that the GM made a call and NOT a house rule. This is an important distinction.

A very important and FUZZY distinction.

But we're playing a "fuzzy" game (no pun intended, get your minds out of the gutters! :)). There are no hard fast rules. That is the first rule.

The only suggestion I could make to the GM would be once he made the ruling that it was a Standard action for you to dig out the axe, then you should have the opportunity to change your action, assuming you had another option (which from your description of events, you did not).

The reason timing is *important* is because it changes behavior. Had he known retrieving the axe was a standard, he *might* have placed it in a more accessible place. Whether he would have or not is endlessly debatable but the fact is he didn't have the opportunity because there was an important communications gap.

I agree; see above. However, that's the thing about calls. They can only be made at a point in time. There's no way for the DM to know that's what the player wanted to do or that this situation would have come up to begin with. It is up to the player to decide to make that decision when he stows equipment. I do tell me players that they have to asterisk items that are Ready-able on their persons for the purposes of Quick-Draw, or drawing a weapon as part of a move action. So perhaps Ravingdork could have saved himself a lot of raving by being more of a dork and specifying precisely where each piece of equipment lay ;)

Eitherway, my point is that you cannot predict a Call. This is why we play this game, because it does change and it is ever evolving.

Except it isn't supported by the rules anywhere. It was strictly house rule territory, which would have been fine if he hadn't sprung it on me.

This.

You are here trying to play the victim. The GM is a monster! He made a judgment call on the fly to my detriment! It was against RAW!

RARR!

SNARL!

**vehemence**

What I'm trying to say here, Ravingdork, is that the GM made a call and NOT a house rule. This is an important distinction. In future encounters, in similar situations, he may rule that pulling an item out of backpack is a Move action, which fits RAW. But then you may flip the table claiming cheat, that in the previous ruling, you had to make use of a Standard action to achieve similar results.

The point is that it is a call at that time given a particular, very specific set of circumstances. This is not necessarily a house rule and nor it is something that can be addressed ahead of time, because the situation itself is fluid and everchanging. I do not have a real opinion on whether he made a correct or incorrect call - he just made a call. Accept it.

He's going to do it again in the future... and it may be another call that is on-the-fly, against-RAW and inconsistent with future calls of the same nature.

Adapt.

How about option 4 (it's actually option 3, just modified)?

4. The Vampiric Touch spell is cast as a free action upon a successful melee strike against an opponent. The weapon hitting acts as a successful touch attack using the standard rules for touch attacks + critical hits.

Translation: If you rolled a 20 for your critical threat on the weapon and confirmed it, the touch attack will also crit. If you didn't roll a 20 for your critical threat, the weapon will crit but the spell will not (unless you have Improved Critical for touch attacks and the threat was a 19-20).

Hmm, an interesting solution. I like that you're still using the crit range of the Touch-attack to determine if it was critical, as opposed to the weapon and thus potentially getting abuse from a Keen Falchion or something. :)

As I pondered this last night, one of the thoughts that came to mind was "What of spells that do not crit?" While technically the easiest ruling would be to say : No crit effect, no additional effect. Simple; but it would still be an inconsistency in the ruling. Why would one spell crit when the weapon crit, but a second spell, one that does not allow critical hits, have no additional beneficial effect? How did this relate to Spellstrike?

My ultimate answer was that Spellstrike only allowed TOUCH spells to be used, which answered the issue about critical hits, since all touch-spells can crit.

Second, I think in order to ensure Spellstrike retain its unique properties without being watered down by every person with a Spell Storing Longsword, it needs to allow the spell to crit along with the weapon, which means the Spell Storing property cannot crit along with the weapon, it just releases the spell. The benefit of the Spell Storing property lies in that it is not limited to Touch spells only, so a Hold Person, Fear or even Lightning Bolt are legitimate spells to cast from the weapon on a successful hit. This versatility of Spell Storing should outweigh the loss of having to make a second attack roll if the spell cast also requires one, I should imagine?

I think it should have been:

He hits (a possible critical hit)
He declares to use the spell (cast when enemy is hit)
Roll to confirm critical.

I'm not worried about when the confirmation of critical is rolled (although your point about when the use of the spell can be declared is important and well taken!).

Are you suggesting here that the spell would also be a critical strike if the player confirmed the critical? Or would you say, as I'm leaning towards, that the spell must make a separate attack roll and only if that attack roll is a Critical would the spell crit. Meanwhile, the sword strike would crit on its own.

I realize now that I shouldn't have put this on the Rules board (not sure which it should have gone on. Maybe advice.)

I don't really want to argue about what a character can and can't take ten on. I generally don't like argueing. I get no fun out of it at all.

What I want is to know if there is anyway to avoid these arguements in game time. To determine how the judge wants his game to go before I have played with him. And I think 2 minutes before the game starts to answer these question, and NOT ARGUE ABOUT THEM would be time well spent.

So when I say "I take ten on this roll" I know that I can, so that I wont waste time trying it if this Judge doesn't allow it for that skill, or in this circumstance. If my character has a high Perception, I want the Judge to know that so he can take it into account during the game. I do not want to "spring it on him" later during the game. I'm not playing AGAINST the Judge (as some players do). PF is not a comptetive sport.

Frankly, you're asking for the impossible.

The whole point to the existence of a DM/Judge/GM is that they are there to make rulings on the fly as it pertains to the situation at hand. In the end, even if you spent 10 minutes before a session understanding your GM's general guidelines and rules, a game situation may come up that he/she is forced to deviate from those guidelines to make a ruling on the fly.

What you're asking for is a boolean response to an infinitely variable problem. No solution exists.

If you feel the issue is so relevant that you must speak to the GM before the game session begins to go over these basics, then by all means. I don't think anyone here is going to say you're over-the-top. But they won't agree with you if you expect that discussion to be the be-all-end-all black-and-white answer to every situation you will find in-game. The best advice I can give you is if the DM's ruling can be construed as generally fair, even if it is not a ruling in your favour, then accept it and move on. If it is completely off-the-wall and unreasonable, then you'll probably have to take it offline with him afterwards or go to whatever higher-power exists in these conventions to discuss the incident.

Pentar wrote:

But if the DM thinks that pulling a handaxe out of the bottom of a backpack that also happens to contain a tent and a suit of armour, then I don't think that's unreasaonble either.

More evidence showing that people aren't reading my posts.

There was no armor in the bag. I was wearing the only armor I possess.

Irrelevant.

Your nitpicking quotation is evidence you're not reading the responses. That being; the DM's ruling was not uncalled for given the specific circumstances, even if the RAW is on your side.

Capiche?

I might be more inclined to go with number 1. as it says under the spell storing quality

Anytime the weapon strikes a creature and the creature takes damage from it, [b]the weapon can immediately cast the spell on that creature as a free action if the wielder desires.[b]

The weapon doesn't have to cast the spell it can. Which I would kind of assume would need a whole new roll to hit.

I tend to lean towards this too - mainly because the Spellstrike ability is a special and specific ability provided to the Magus. If anyone can replicate it with a +1 Enhancement bonus weapon property, it seems sort of a lame power to give a class.

I'll probably stick with my Ruling #1 for now.

Thanks for the input

Except the party and myself had everything to gain. Up until I got the axe out and started using it we were quickly heading towards TPK territory. If you recall, we were a 2nd-level party facing a ghost-thing. Many 2nd-level parties don't have any ability to combat incorporeal foes AT ALL. We were just lucky. We also aren't even close to being able to afford the things you describe.

Losing that action and allowing the incorporeal entity to drain more life from us cost us quite dearly. If anything, the GM wasted more time with his ruling than I did with my protest since it prolonged the fight much more than it needed to be.

Though I agree that I maybe should have saved it till later, E-mail in particular faces all the same problems this forum faces.

Wow dude. Relax.

No one disagrees that the RAW states it is a Move action. Anyone who can read english can establish this.

The "rules" are in reality, guidelines, and bendable to the situation at hand. We use the Move action rule in my games because we can't be arsed to figure out how much sh*t is stuffed into whose backpacks and in what configuration. That's an inane amount of detail that simply gets in the way of the game, IMHO.

But if the DM thinks that pulling a handaxe out of the bottom of a backpack that also happens to contain a tent and a suit of armour, then I don't think that's unreasaonble either. Next time, have your weapon sheathed at your hip, or back, or over the shoulder and you never have to have this argument again.

Hi everyone,

I recently awarded a player a weapon with the Spell Storing magical property. This particular character is a Magus, so I thought the item would be a great enhancement to his character.

The Magus has an ability called Spellstrike which allows the character to channel a Touch spell into an attack roll. The Spellstrike ability explicitly states that in the event of a confirmed Critical Hit, the spell damage is also made critical (only a x2).

However, what happens if the spell was delivered through the Spell Storing magical effect as opposed to the Spellstrike Supernatural ability? In this particular even, he had Vampiric Touch stored in the weapon. He scored and confirmed a critical hit. At the time of the ruling, I allowed the Critical Hit with the sword strike to also apply to the Vampiric Touch. However, should this have been the case?

For the record, spell storing property states:

Anytime the weapon strikes a creature and the creature takes damage from it, the weapon can immediately cast the spell on that creature as a free action if the wielder desires.

There are several scenarios I thought of but wasn't sure what the correct ruling should have been:

1. The Vampiric Touch spell cast as a free action upon successfully damaging an opponent, but that this spell functions as the spell normally would and thus would require an immediate second touch-attack roll to confirm the hit. The reason I thought this was that the spell functions as if the spell was cast normally, except that it was triggered as a free action through the sword... so since Vampiric Touch still requires an attack roll, then an immediate attack roll should have been made. In the event it was a spell that does not require an attack roll, then the spell goes off normally (e.g. Suggestion or Magic Missile).

2. The Vampiric Touch successfully goes off, no further attack roll is needed, but it is considered a normal hit and the normal spell effect is triggered.

3. The attack roll used to deliever the attack is also used to determine if the spell effect is a critical hit. Thus the Vampiric Touch is a critical since the sword hit was a critical... but only if the spell would normally have allowed for a critical hit.

Thoughts?

Thanks
Pentar

After reading all the posts online about this I am sure that most groups use the -4 "rule" in their games and I really don't care if they do. It's just I can't find anything in the literature to support this and it annoys me that this is presented as clear cut.

I believe it is very clear in the literature. The problem you're having is the word "Touch" is in the phrase.

If you removed the word "Touch" it may be helpful:
"Ranged Attack"

The word TOUCH makes it sound different, but in reality it is not. It is a RANGED ATTACK, subject to all rules and regulations thereof. The only reason to add the word TOUCH is that you make the attack against the target's TOUCH AC.

Let me ask you this; if what you say is true, then non-spell ranged-touch attacks would ALSO not be subject to the -4 penalty for firing into melee. Therefore, I could throw a net at an opponent engaged with a friendly and not suffer any penalties! Nets are Ranged Touch attack weapons!

This would apply to acid flasks, tanglefoot bags, etc.

Lastly, your argument about Casters having lower BABs, etc. and thus not requiring the -4 penalty is faulty. The whole reason they make the attack against TOUCH AC is because most creatures have a very low touch AC, therefore it is a lot easier to hit, making it more likely that the low-BAB caster still have a hope of landing the attack.

The pearl of power enables the possessor to recall anyone spell that she had prepared and then cast that day. Easy enough but what if a cleric had prepared say a bless but spontanously casts it as a cure light and then uses a pearl of power to recall the spell? Does it recall as a bless or a cure light. You can blame my wife for this question as she is thinking of getting one for her cleric and came up with this. :)

I would allow the Cleric to recall the spell that was converted, because the spell was 'cast' just not to the same effect that was initially intended. The energies were ultimately expended as per RAW.

This does bring up an interesting question, if you go by the exact wording of the Pearl of Power - what happens if a spell was attempted, btu lost due to a failed concentration role or other circumstance? Since the spell was never successfully 'cast', can it still be recalled?

The PRD glossary is pretty clear, I think.

Quote:

Spells, spell-like abilities, and energy attacks (even nonmagical fire) ignore damage reduction.

Though I agree there's room for interpretation.

Thanks for the responses everyone.

I am aware of what the rule says and I followed them to the T. However, I do believe there is room for interpertation and I tend to agree with the others who rule that damage that is caused as an indirect result of a spell, is subject to DR.

I.e. Someone collapsiing a Wall of Stone on someone could try to argue that since the wall was created by magic, any damage done as a result of that wall is also magic - but that seems flawed and a misinterpertation of the intent of the rule.

Thus I believe I will rule as others have; Any spell effect that causes indirect non-energy physical-type damage will be subject to DR.

Hi everyone,

I'm sure this question has been asked in various forms thoroughout the ages since the intro of DR, but here goes once more:

If a spell causes an effect that deals physical damage, does Damage Reduction apply?

For example, the spell Spike Growth causes vegetation to become sharp and pointy - that is the effect of the spell. The damage that is caused as a result of traversing the affected area is defined as "Piercing damage" in the spell description:

Any creature moving on foot into or through the spell's area takes 1d4 points of piercing damage for each 5 feet of movement through the spiked area

.

Does the rule of spell damage by-passing DR apply in this case? Or in any other case where similar effects were to occur (e.g. Spike Stones). My argument in favour of DR applying is that the damage is not a direct result of the spell itself and that the damage specifically indicates a physical type of damage (in this case "piercing").

In game play, I stuck with the strict interpertation of the rules itself; that is the spell "caused the damage" so the damage ignored DR... but upon further reflection, I do not think that is the correct ruling.

Thoughts?

Hello,

I was wondering if there was any rule regarding the damage type of a sneak-attack? I believe the most common-sense approach is that a sneak attack takes on the damage "type" of the attack used to generate the sneak attack.

Example 1:
A Cold Iron Longsword +1 that is used to deliver a sneak attack will cause that damage to by pass any damage reduction Cold Iron and/or Magic. The reverse also being true, that sneak attack damage using a weapon that cannot bypass the damage reduction of the creature it is hitting has damage reduction applied.

In the case of the above, do I calculate all damage from the one attack and then deduct DR? Or do I treat Sneak Attack as a separate damage pool that DR works against separately?

Example 2
A Scorching Ray used to generate a sneak attack will have that added damage be considered [Fire], thus fire resistance/immunity or vulnerability applies normally.

I've heard some arguments that Sneak attack damage is "untyped".. it's just precision damage and no form of defensive or vulnerability applies. I disagree with this.

Thoughts?

Since dispel magic can't target an area, only a single creature, you can only deal with one creature at a time. You need the greater version for multiple targets.

Thanks! I figured as much - hence it is advantageous to summon multiple small guys instead of one big goon sometimes.

Sneak attack requires very little. You need a target, who must be vulnerable to the ability (not immune), who is flanked or flatfooted. Note that I'm paraphrasing here. If your touch spell, melee or ranged, does actual damage (not a penalty) and requires an attack roll, you can use it to sneak attack, subject to the normal rules. The sneak attack dice are not multiplied on a critical hit, however. Bonus damage that is expressed as dice (sneak attack, flaming weapons, etc.) are not multiplied on criticals.

Ahh Ok - I knew about the extra damage die rule (i.e. flame weapons, etc.), but was never certain on Sneak Attack. Good to know about the sneak-attack with spells. I have looked throughout and could not find where it was addressed, but it does make sense that touch spells would apply normally, as you said, provided they do normal hit point damage.

Also good to know about magical items. It makes them much more flexible and interesting to allow it.

Hi everyone,

I have a few questions I wanted to ask the community. Been about 2 years since we last played D&D v3.5 (or some variant thereof) and getting into Pathfinder was like a cinch. However, there are rule differences and my memory isn't what it used to be, so anyway... here goes:

1. Dispel Magic used on a summoned creature can send the creature back, this much it states in the rules. However, it only addresses a single creature. What if a Summon Monster was used to summon multiple lower-level creatures. Can only 1 be targeted, or is the entire summoned effect affected when a Dispel Magic is used (i.e. all the summoned creatures are sent back if the spell is targeted)? Perhaps this is only an ability that Greater Dispel Magic can grant and the lower level one just has to make due with one-at-a-time?

2. Can you make a Sneak Attack with ranged-touch / Touch spells? I assume the standard rules of being within 30' feet still applies, but I recall back in v3.5 D&D you could do this, but perhaps it was only the special ability of certain classes (like Arcane Trickster). I also can't find rules on this re: Precision based attacks, but are Sneak attack damage die multiplied when it scores a critical hit?

3. I've looked all over for this but I can't find anything on using Metamagic to create magical items. For example, creating an Empowered Wand of Magic Missiles. It fits within the level limit and I'm 95% sure it can be done, but can someone please verify for me? I know that some metamagic feats are wasted on magical items (i.e. a Quickened effect on an item that takes a Standard Action to use will still take a standard action, regardless of the Quickened).

Thanks!