Pizza Lord's page

Is a deflected attack, such as Deflect Arrows, considered a hit or miss for purposes of what occurs on a hit or miss? I know Crane Wing specifically says treat an attack deflected with it as a miss instead, some do not.

Restriction This ability can be placed only on melee or thrown weapons.

The wielder of a sharding weapon can make a special ranged attack with the weapon in place of any melee attack. To do this, the wielder goes through the motion of throwing the weapon without releasing it. The weapon splits off a duplicate of itself that flies as if thrown by the wielder at the intended target. The duplicate gains a range increment of 10 feet for this purpose, but uses the same proficiency and otherwise functions the same as the original weapon. The duplicate vanishes after hitting or missing its target.

If I use a +1 flaming sharding longsword (activated), and use the sharding ability, it creates a duplicate +1 flaming sharding longsword that's active (+1d6 fire) which flies at the target. If it hits it does the damage of the weapon and stops existing. It it misses, it does no damages and stops existing.

If my opponent deflects it, (with Deflect Arrows), does it count as a hit or a miss? If neither, then that means the duplicate remains in existence, presumably until someone uses it to make an attack and hits or misses, correct?

So theoretically, we could have the party monk Deflect a few attacks until everyone has a +1 flaming sharding longsword which would exist for one attack they made with it, until they hit or misses (ie. not deflected). But since those are all duplicates, they could be used to fire duplicate sharding weapons, and since it's the sharding duplicates used for the attack, only those duplicates (created from the duplicate) would disappear after the attack, leaving the first duplicates still in existence in their wielder's hands, correct?

Based on the rules and wording, would you consider it reasonable that a seeking magic missile can avoid the obvious interposing barrier that is shield?

Note, this is purely a question on the quoted rules of the spells and feats and is not meant to be based on feelings or whether this is or isn't fine because "Wizards...". I'm not curious of whether it is or isn't fair because wizards or sorcerers have low hit dice or the +2 spell level makes it acceptable. I put it in Advice so you can mention why you would or wouldn't, but the topic is still rooted in basing the advice on the ruling and wording, so please don't ignore that. Then, you can get into your interpretations or how you describe it in your games that shield isn't in front of the caster... but zips around and interposes itself despite the actual wording of the spell of where it is and no indication of it moving autonomously or independently.

You can cast spells that bend around barriers to reach their intended destination.

Benefit: A seeking spell’s range can bend around obstacles to reach the intended target. You can define the route yourself or unambiguously identify a target and allow the spell to determine its own path. However, the spell fails if it would have to travel farther than its maximum range to reach the identified target. A ranged attack roll made to deliver a seeking spell is not subject to cover or concealment. In order to benefit from this feat, the selected spell must have a range greater than touch and target one or more creatures, or it must require the caster to make a ranged touch attack. A seeking spell uses up a spell slot 2 levels higher than the spell’s actual level.

Magic missile is valid for Seeking Spell, as it can target one or more creatures at range, so that's not an issue.

Shield creates an invisible shield of force that hovers in front of you. It negates magic missile attacks directed at you.

Based on the wording, it is clear that shield specifically creates a barrier in one direction. Normally, without facing in combat, it wouldn't matter what direction a magic missile came at you, you'd be assumed to be facing it or at least able to react to face a visible threat. However, there are clearly circumstances where a character cannot turn their body (such as being paralyzed or tied in place and set facing one direction). I think most GMs rule that it would, but I also think it's possible that they don't take into account that shield isn't omni-directional (purely becaus0e of how uncommon such a situation occurring in game is or requires such thought).

I am also aware that shield would normally be ruled to work against magic missiles fired from surprise behind a caster (where a caster shouldn't be able to react to turn and face it with the shield in front of them), but does Seeking ignore the shield's interposing obstruction?

Purely want to know if the intention of the shield spell is that it creates a non-all-encompassing obstacle and barrier and if Seeking spell would work against it. The wording of shield says it negates magic missile but I think the text is obvious that it implies that the barrier is what's blocking the missiles, not that it also coats you in a sheath and that the writer didn't (and shouldn't) have to point out that obviously if the shield can't block something that it doesn't block something (plus Seeking likely didn't exist when shield was written).

I've been reviewing Drugs and Addiction recently and I was trying to wrap my head around the drug 'Zerk' (presumably a play on the word 'berserk')

My reading of addictions leads me to believe that you take the drug by injuring or injecting yourself with Zerk, then you receive the effects and the indicated ability damage at that time. In this case, for 1 hour you receive a +1 alchemical bonus to initiative and 1d2 Con damage (which can be healed normally). You also make a DC 18 Fort save to avoid a minor addiction to it. If you fail (or choose to become to become addicted), you also receive a +1d4 alchemical bonus to Strength as long as you are addicted (which requires two consecutive saves that may be attempted after one day without using Zerk).

The wording seems to be that you could have a +4 bonus to Strength basically forever. You don't ever have to take the drug again and just never pass the save to remove the addiction. I see nothing that says the addiction clearing is forced or occurs after time without the drug (and even if it did, consensus is that you can fail if you want).

Granted, a minor addiction gives a –2 Con penalty while you have it, but it seems that getting a +4 Strength bonus forever, and with a rare bonus type that will stack with almost any other Strength-enhancing effect, seems almost a no-brainer for any class that would use the drug at all. Even if you got a less desirable result on the Strength increase, if seems you just wait a day, clear the addiction (with minor effort), and try again until you get a 4 (25% chance). I see no point in even ever taking another dose (other than a +1 initiative for one hour or to suppress the addiction penalty to Con just before combat).

Am I reading this correctly, and any thoughts?

Several people teamed up to come up with creative ideas. It was nice to see how blood-thirsty and how innovative people could get. A lot GMs have a love-hate relationship with cursed items but there are some nice gems in this collection for those with the discipline to use them sparingly for best effect. There are also options for changing up the methods for detection, removal, and durability of cursed items.

I would love hear the story of someone inadvertently using the bracelet of fiends or a set of tikbalang horseshoes.

I had some questions on one of the witch archetypes I was reading over.
Gravewalker Witch

I can see that the Bonethrall power says that at 1st level she can use this power and it costs her the class's typical 4th-level hex. I then see that the Possess Undead power just beneath it costs her the class's 8th-level hex.

Is the Possess Undead power just a rider on the Bonethrall ability (which is acquired at 1st) and thus usable on undead minions within her Aura of Desecration from 1st level (it doesn't list a level it is acquired at)? Normally I would assume it's acquired when the power that is modified is acquired (at 8th) but since the Bonethrall power doesn't follow this rule (and says so) I am wondering if the two are just gained at 1st together.

Additionally, what is considered an 'undead minion' of the witch? I assume it includes any she creates with animate dead and similar effects, but does it also apply to any undead she has used control/command undead on?

Also (less of a Rules question), unlike the Bouda archetype, the Gravewalker has no apparent alignment restriction listed, but it seems clearly evil (if not more so than the Bouda). From it's familiar/poppet being inhabited by an evil spirit and gaining their powers from evil, and their aura of desecration which is clearly indicated to be powered and consisting of evil, was this just an oversight or did they have a good reason for allowing the possibility of good witches to be gaining power from evil and generating fields of evil and such?

Are magical spell traps, like fire trap, glyph of warding, etc. considered 'constructed' for purposes of a rogue using the Cunning Trigger talent? I am designing an encounter and I am on the fence as to whether to consider them 'constructed' or not.
Cunning trigger
I know they're definitely magical traps and are listed as such in the Disable Device skill description, but could a rogue use Cunning Trigger talent to set off a fire trap they had cast if an enemy were next to the chest (rather than having to open it) or set of a glyph of warding against an enemy (say one that didn't trigger it normally because it was a race or height set not to trigger it?)

If yes, thoughts on explosive runes? Those aren't mentioned in Disable Device nor is there any mention of disabling them in the spell description, so I am likely going with 'no' in either case, but I thought I'd ask.

For instance, could a trickster or secret enemy of the PCs trick them into touching him or the rod so they can all rest in a safe place (even letting them identify the rod so they know it isn't a trick) only to resist the transport himself, basically locking a 4-person party in a pocket paradise for 50 days or so (barring them being able to dispel it, since he has the rod and they can't dismiss the spell themselves.)?

This sword is the size of a bastard sword. However, a sun blade is wielded as if it were a short sword with respect to weight and ease of use. In other words, the weapon appears to all viewers to be a bastard sword, and deals bastard sword damage, but the wielder feels and reacts as if the weapon were a short sword. Any individual able to use either a bastard sword or a short sword with proficiency is proficient in the use of a sun blade. Likewise, Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization in short sword and bastard sword apply equally, but the benefits of those feats do not stack.

Is the above abilty/quality of the sunblade considered magical?

In other words, would a shortsword-proficient or feat-focused user suddenly be unable lose apply their proficiencies or shortsword-related feats while using it in such a situation or is this property considered a part of the weapon's construction, build, or manufacture (ie. just a big sword that's really easy to use)?

Or vice-versa? Would a trained bastard sword user be out of luck if the blade loses its magic temporarily?

A reposition attempts to force a foe to move to a different position in relation to your location without doing any harm. ... You cannot use this maneuver to move a foe into a space that is intrinsically dangerous, such as a pit or wall of fire.

I was looking over the Reposition combat maneuver and I wanted some thoughts on what would count as intrinsically dangerous for purposes of causing the maneuver to fail.

Clearly moving a foe out into thin air such as over a pit or cliff is one. It also says wall of fire is another, but does this mean positioning the target where it would actually pass through a wall of fire or does it include the areas where the heat emanates to and deals fire damage?

I would probably say it only includes the wall's actual location and would consider the emanation of heat to not count as making the square itself dangerous, only the environment or area. Otherwise you couldn't reposition a creature if they were on the Negative Material plane or something where every square is considered dangerous. Also it would mean casting wall of fire suddenly creates a 100-foot long, 20-foot wide strip of anti-reposition? Even if your target was immune to fire?

Could you also reposition a target to a safe square by moving them past an open space, such as beating their CMD by 15 or more and moving them over a 10 foot pit or space and setting them on the other side (taking no damage) or possibly placing them on top of a pillar-like area that would require a 10-foot jump to leap to or from?

Does an area with caltrops in it count as intrinsically dangerous? How about grease? What about an area that contains a pit-trap that would open when a creature moves onto it, but neither the repositioner or the target knows about the trap? What if it a bridge but in bad repair? Say it's illusory and can't hold any weight but neither you or the target know that. Are you told that your reposition just fails for some unknown reason? If it's a bridge that can support up to 200-lbs of weight before collapsing is that intrinsically dangerous? What about 500-lbs? 10,000-lbs? At what point isn't it dangerous or does it only count as dangerous after you look at the target and total up their gear?
Do you say, "Reposition maneuver passed. Okay, you move him one square left, he weighs 190-pounds okay. Oh wait, he's got on chainmail and has a greatsword so he's over 200-pounds and (checks that the section of floor would collapse at that point). Nevermind, you just fail. For some reason you don't know."
Do you let them take back where they were going to put the target?
"Do you want to set him in another square?" "There? (checks) No, fails. There? No. There? Okay, end of your turn."

Does the target need to realize the square it's being moved to is dangerous? For instance, you are standing on a shoreline in ankle-deep water fighting a creature that takes damage from salt water. Obviously it's chosen to take the damage while fighting you, but suddenly because any square around it deals damage to it (and only it specifically) do it suddenly gain reposition immunity?

Of course, that could mean if you fighting an elemental of each type (earth, air, fire, and water), you could actually reposition any of them except the fire elemental into otherwise normal square other than it has 2-3 inches of water in it. Fair enough I suppose, but if that's the logic then theoretically you can reposition a creature out into thin air assuming that the square isn't dangerous to them (they can fly, they have feather fall, can levitate, etc.) That doesn't seem to be the intended measurement for intrinsically dangerous however, which means a reposition into a wall of fire should fail even if it isn't actually dangerous at all to the target (fire subtype, immunity, already passed an SR against that spell, etc.) Just trying to narrow down as much acceptable uses as I can before they become issues.

I would probably lean towards saying that if the target is already in a dangerous area, then moving them is fair game. For instance, you can't reposition them into an incendiary cloud but if they were already standing in the area, then you can move them around in it just fine.

Does intrinsically dangerous only apply to physical danger and damage? For instance, is a stinking cloud intrinsically dangerous? Is being moved into the area of a mind fog or an ongoing effect like a harpy or bard's song?

I was looking over the wizard class and the favored class bonuses available to certain races.

I see that an elf can:
'Select one arcane school power at 1st level that is normally usable a number of times per day equal to 3 + the wizard's Intelligence modifier. The wizard adds +½ to the number of uses per day of that arcane school power.'

If I read this correctly, an elf Evoker could choose this bonus twice over 2 levels and choose, for instance, Force Missile (available at 1st and usable 3 + int. mod. times per day) at which point he could use the ability 3 + int. mod. + 1 times per day.

I see nothing that says the arcane school power must be one from a school the wizard has. So an elven Universalist could choose Force Missile twice and seem to be able to use it once per day. Is this correct? It would also seem that an elven wizard could choose even an opposing schools ability and be able to gain uses per day, is this correct?

I did find one thread on the subject when I searched and some people said it wasn't an option because a wizard had to have the ability to gain the use of an ability, but looking at the wording and the way other bonuses are listed that doesn't seem to hold water. For instance, the Sylph's favored class bonus spells out that the chosen power must be one that the wizard has.

As far as wording and rules go, it seems that a wizard could gain 1 use of an ability every 2 levels, whether this is intended or not or whether it might be too powerful or not. Granted, they wouldn't have 3 + int uses, only 1.

Benefit: Whenever you use two hands to throw a one-handed or two-handed weapon, you gain a bonus on damage rolls equal to 1-1/2 times your Strength bonus. Using two hands to throw any weapon requires only a standard action for you. If you also have the Quick Draw feat, you can throw two-handed weapons at your full normal rate of attacks.

Normal: You add your Strength bonus on thrown weapon damage, regardless of available hands. Throwing a two-handed weapon is a full-round action.

The way I read this, not necessarily how it's intended, is that it adds your Str + 1/2 modifier to damage with one- or two-handed thrown weapons. It doesn't say it you get Strength + 1/2 instead of Strength. Obviously this seems like an oversight and I haven't found anything addressing it my search of topics.

Now some people could claim that the 'Normal' text implies something, but it really doesn't. For instance, if the wording were changed to 'you gain a bonus on damage rolls equal to 1-1/2 time your Charisma bonus,' or 'you gain a bonus on damage rolls equal to your caster level, that in no way implies you don't still add your normal Str modifier. It would have to read '...instead of adding Str,' correct?

Even the Normal section would still read exactly the same, since its just relating the normal way damage would be done without adding bonus damage.

In other words, it doesn't say that it replaces a formula, but it does definitely say it adds bonus damage. Has this been addressed anywhere?

Yes, I see there are multiple threads on Toppling Spell and Magic Missile but mostly they end up talking about spreading multiple missiles to multiple targets and talking about how its Trip effectiveness drops off.

I just want to know:
If you cast a toppling magic missile and fire 3 missiles all at the same target, how many Trip checks do you make?

I understand that there are certain spells that when cast on a body affect or stay with a body but also that some affect the mind, and as such should reasonably stay with the mind/soul/spirit if it transfers.

For instance, certain curses should stay with a soul (unless they've already physically twisted a body). Casting mage armor on yourself then using magic jar shouldn't carry the spell to the target's body. However, I would say that being charmed would still stay with you even if you kept jumping hosts.

Similarly, would permanency versions of such spells also stay with the body, or move with the caster's soul as it takes over hosts.
Detect Magic?
See invisibility?
Enlarge Person?

Now, in addition to that, or assuming permanency spells don't travel to the host bodies (which I believe they shouldn't in most cases,) is it legal to take over a host and then cast permanency along with one of the spells that are listed as only being permitted upon the caster?

Say you pop into the party rogue for a minute or two, cast see invisibility follow it up with permanency, and pay the associated gp cost in diamond dust. Does the rogue now have permanent see invisibility that can't be dispelled except by a higher caster than you were when you were in his body?

Seemed like something worth looking into.

You can attempt to disarm your opponent in place of a melee attack. If you do not have the Improved Disarm feat, or a similar ability, attempting to disarm a foe provokes an attack of opportunity from the target of your maneuver. Attempting to disarm a foe while unarmed imposes a –4 penalty on the attack.

If your attack is successful, your target drops one item it is carrying of your choice (even if the item is wielded with two hands). If your attack exceeds the CMD of the target by 10 or more, the target drops the items it is carrying in both hands (maximum two items if the target has more than two hands). If your attack fails by 10 or more, you drop the weapon that you were using to attempt the disarm. If you successfully disarm your opponent without using a weapon, you may automatically pick up the item dropped.

I just want to make sure I am reading some changes from how Disarm used to work. The rules used to be that if you successfully disarmed an opponent with an empty hand (or without using a weapon) you end up holding it. The wording here seems to make it clear that regardless of how you disarm something, it drops to the ground (be it an egg, a soft-headed baby being held hostage by the BBEG, or a typical weapon) and then, if you did it without using a weapon, you automatically pick up the dropped item.

I understand that picking up the item must be considered 'not an action' as an inherent part of Disarming without a weapon (to avoid an AoO from anyone threatening when you automatically pick up an item). I just want to make sure that the rules for disarm now, clearly, knock the item to the ground regardless of how you do it.

Assuming a vial of silversheen was a breakable container, similar to alchemist's fire or holy water, can you make a touch attack (similar to a ranged sunder perhaps) to throw it at an ally or enemy's weapon?

Could you then have its effect apply to the weapon/item? Normally it's a standard action to apply, so I'm thinking no, since a person with multiple attacks could hurl two or three at his companions and grant them silvered weapons much faster than otherwise.

More questions about magic jar. First off, I know it's a confusing spell and there are many gray areas. There's no need to reply if that's all you're basically going to say.

How does magic jar interact with familiars, both the caster's and possibly the target's? While the spell does not list it as having a target of You (since it mostly functions by you targeting a life force after casting the spell on You, would it count as also affecting your familiar? It also says Target: One Creature, but clearly that isn't strictly true either, so should that Target description just be viewed as one listed for simplicity's sake?

I think the easier ruling would be No, to keep from having to decide if you need a second magic jar for the familiar or whether it's inside the same magic jar and you have two entities, but it's worth bringing up.

Second, is a target wizard's familiar considered a separate target? When determining life forces (it would use the wizard's HD for sensing life force most likely) is it possible to randomly jar it? Or would jarring the wizard also seal the familiar in there (since sometimes they are considered to be the same creature and linked, such as with confusion effects and spell sharing?)

What might a familiar do if its wizard were magic jarred? Would it lose its familiar power (technically it's still within a mile most likely and on the same plane, so probably not,) would it just flop about making noise trying to alert everyone, or other?

As for certain feats a target possesses, some should obviously stay with the body, correct? For instance, if the target had Toughness, the wizard in the body should get the benefit of the extra hit points (since that directly affect the body). Similarly, if the target had taken Improved Natural Attack to indicate it had larger teeth or claws, then the body should use that damage. The body wouldn't change form because the original soul became trapped correct?

Does an item have increased hit points when enlarged? For instance, if you have enlarge person active, your longsword will be large, does it then have double its normal hit points as for a normal large weapon in case there's a sunder attack or similar occurrence?

If so, what happens to the damage in regards to the item and its hit points when it stops being enlarged, when the spell ends or you drop or throw it for instance?

Example, a typical medium quarterstaff has 10 hit points, a large quarterstaff has 20. Assuming an enlarged quarterstaff increases to 20 (which makes sense, it's thicker, harder to cut through) and it takes 10 damage (disregard hardness for this example) it would normally be destroyed but now it's at half hit points (broken). If the spell ended, should the staff suddenly splinter apart? I don't think it should, be how should the damage and hit point situation be resolved?

I'm sure you're all about sick of glitterdust questions and this is probably answered somewhere, but a player had a question and I said I'd ask. Does the glitterdust spell help you to see ethereal creatures?

1. Ethereal creatures are considered invisible, but I'm not convinced that glitterdust actually crosses between the planes, not being a [force] effect. Just for completeness though, does glitterdust affect ethereal creatures caught in its area?

2. We were battling a manifested ghost. Managed to catch it in glitterdust. Will save not Fort save, so it failed and was blinded. It fled and de-manifested back to ethereal. Would it still be trackable/visible once ethereal? I see nothing that says ethereal glitterdust is visible on the Material Plane. I know it negates invisibility, but I don't think it means the invisibility from being on a different plane of existence, whereas see invisibility specifically mentions seeing ethereal creatures and even differentiating between the two.

3. Does glitterdust help against a blinking opponent? The invisibility conferred by the blink is specifically from being ethereal, not just invisible, hence Blind-fighting not helping. Would glitterdust lower blink's miss chance to 20%? It says if you have the ability to see invisible foes, but I think that more applies to having see invisibility not just the target being outlined by physical (though magical) dust, which technically would follow the target to the ethereal plane and become as unseen as any other ethereal item.

In advance, this is more rant than question on a rule, which is why I put it here. I don't like the rules changes for crafting that lets someone ignore CL or certain requirements, most especially access to spells required. I DO like the Master Craftsman feat they added. It lets skilled crafters create items without having to become spell-casting classes. I just think having to either learn the spell or find someone who can cast it is not really that hard unless it's a rare spell or class... and then it should be hard to get, because it's a rare spell, not something you can fake with a +5 check. I can't ask for a Spellcraft check in combat at DC 10 +spell level +5 to just cast a spell I don't know.

Alright, I might be wrong here. I don't typically play Pathfinder so skills might throw me for a loop and feat gains might trip me up as well. Correct me if I am wrong, but:

Assuming a reasonably-focused crafting character at 5th level will have 5 ranks of Craft (weaponsmith). This means he can take Master Craftsman at 5th-level. His next feat comes at 7th? He can take Craft Magical Arms and Armor.

Now he has 7 ranks in Craft skill, likely a +4 for intelligence, +2 for Master Craftsman, with another +3 because he has a rank in Craft which is a class skill. So he has +16 to Craft without a doubt. Possibly +3 for Skill Focus, +2 if a gnome, +1 for an Intelligence booster, +2 masterwork tools. So not unreasonably a +20 to Craft at 7th-level and actually +23 is not hard to get.

If this 7th level character wants to craft a Luckblade with 1 wish (price: 62,360, cost: 43,835), he needs Craft Arms and Armor, which he has. Other than that, he spends 63 days, makes a DC 27 check [17 + 5 (for not having wish) + 5 (for not being CL 17, which is a special requirement for this weapon). That's not a check he can believably fail even assuming you aren't letting him just Take 10. I know, that's a lot of gold. We all know that's not really an obstacle and a party could have been saving and planning for these for many levels.

A 17th-level crafter who knows the wish spell only needs a DC 17 check instead DC 27. He can add +5 to accelerate his crafting time, finishing in 32 days. But that's about all he seems to get. He's at DC 22 on his check, the 7th-level guy's at DC 27. That extra +5 DC of difference between him and Level 7 guy means nothing really and, in fact, the 7th level character can do the same thing, pushing his DC to 32 for accelerating and still only risking failure if he can't Take 10, definitely not failing by 10th-level when his Skill Focus bonus doubles. (10 ranks, +2 Master Craftsman, +3 Class skill, +6 Skill Focus, +4 Int, +2 masterwork tools. With a racial bonus to the craft check or an item increasing Int, easily a +30.) Again, assuming you're not letting him Take 10. So it doesn't matter if at 17th-level you're swinging a +40 skill check, it's moot.

Just in case I'm missing something or somehow the fact that it's a non-caster and they had to take an extra feat (Master Craftsman) is suppose to balance out getting wishes easily by 10th-level, earlier with slim chances of failure but not even catastrophic cursed item failure, I'm going to try another example for clarity.

A 5th-level caster just takes Craft Magic Arms and Armor. He can, reasonably and by the rules (we all know gold cost is only a small barrier to someone who plans or has teammates helping) can craft a Luckblade just as easily as the 10th-level guy (DC 27). All for the same cost and effort as above. In fact, assuming a reasonable +17 modifier range or more (5 ranks, +4 Int, +3 for a rank in a class skill, +2 for masterwork tools, maybe a +2 if a gnome or a +3 for Skill Focus) he can't fail if you let him Take 10, which most people seem to allow unless he goes out adventuring. Only if he tries to accelerate the crafting, pushing the DC to a 32 does he have a chance at failing. That's assuming he didn't take Master Craftsman just for another +2. Instead, he probably took Craft Wondrous Item at 3rd, and has already crafted an Intelligence booster and an item granting skill check bonuses for himself.

Am I mistaken here that this should set off a warning? According to this rule, the guy who's not 'cheating' on the requirements actually still loses his spell for 63 days . Since the other guy isn't using a 9th-slot and doesn't even have one, he's unaffected.

If these two, supposedly balanced and equally-affected characters want to go adventuring (it just cuts their hours put into work for that day, which means little at a 63 day project), Why is it the guy who actually made the effort to meet the requirements gets shafted and doesn't get access to his 9th-level spell. As far as I can tell, the guy cutting corners doesn't lose a spell slot. He's not down a potentially critical ability while the other guy is.

Honestly, a guy adventuring at 17th-level probably needs his spell slot and is at way more risk than a guy adventuring at 6th-level would be without one 3rd-level spell (that being his highest level). The guy who has all the feats, spells, requirements, caster levels... HE is the one that suffers 63+ days without his most powerful spells available! And somehow, people are going to tell you that because the other guy has +5 to a DC check he will make in two months, which he already can't fail (he might have even gone up 2 or 3 levels while out adventuring with no penalty in that time!) is balanced, or that this system does not backhandedly slap the people that meet the requirements in the face?

I get it, the 17th-level guy should just add +5 to his own DC and ignore the prerequisite and not lose a spell slot, just like the guy who doesn't have the spell slot to lose. That's not the point, why have requirements at all then? When a system pays off people for NOT putting time and effort into it and hindering those that do, that's not a good system.

The caster who took the Cleave feat so he could be the guy crafting a special weapon had to give another feat up and work through the levels with that. The caster who had to use a known spell slot to learn Magic Circle vs Evil and hold off on having Scorching Ray put his time in. The player that had to play a fruity elf and suffer through 12 levels of... being a elf, just so he could make his party cloaks and some quiet shoes does not deserve to be punished because they actually know the requirements.

So obviously this isn't about a Luckblade by itself, trying to point out that it's some kind of exception isn't going to convince me, that's just an example I thought of within 2 minutes of hearing about this and I am sure this could be broken much further.

Doesn't this trivialize working towards creating stronger items? This means that right as soon as a crafting feat can be taken, it allows access to what may arguably be one of the most powerful and rare items in the game (I said arguably, but you try and have one roll up randomly in a treasure. First you need to have a potential treasure cache worth at least 40,000 gp and take that out of what will be found before even rolling on the Major chart.)

Thank you for letting me vent that, I just can't believe when people tell me that it's a fair system because there's a +5 DC modifier in exchange for getting rid of the foundation, flaws though it may have had, that was in place for regulating magic item crafting. Am I really just seeing ghosts? I mean, they removed XP penalties, so that doesn't restrict anything, now CL is a 'guideline'? Requirements are optional?

The rules do call for cursed items on failed checks, but only the most obtuse or bad-luck-pressing buffoon could ever fail without really trying let alone fail enough to ever get a cursed item and that's with a right-out-of-the-gate whelpling creating one of the best items (granted not one with the most requirements but that's the point, it's not a balanced system that takes into account actual power. It's not any harder to create a Luckblade with 17 wishes than one with 3. There's still just one requirement: Wish, and if it did actually require multiple wishes the guy who actually could cast wish would be even more screwed by losing even more spell slots for two months.

There needs to be some restriction and just requiring the crafting feat is not it. Keeping the actual spell required to be present was at least something, "Oh no, I can't find someone with Owl's Wisdom! I can't make an item... oh wait... yes I can... or I can get a scroll, or I can get a wand, and if I still can't use it one person in the party can or at the very least, if I am even the most pitiful player in the world and can't get another PC to cast the spell I could invest in Use Magic Device because that's what it's for in the worst case scenario.

Have I missed a ruling somewhere? It's possible, I've just been reading the SRDs and might have misinterpreted everything. If so, hopefully my embarrassment will enlighten and help someone else.

Okay, I hate to bring up antimagic field, I really do. This is only going to focus on the 'Should a creature be larger than the area enclosed by the barrier, any part of it that lies outside the barrier is unaffected by the field,' part of the spell though.

In the current campaign the party is battling the big Great Wyrm Red Dragon and the druid has shapechanged into a beholder. Basically he's got the Antimagic ray 'cutting' the red dragon in half. I've looked over tons of posts and got some really good ideas but I need to make sure I go for as much clarity as possible. Also, please trust that I know whether the party is able to do this in this campaign, they are.

If the dragon has spells up, such as mage armor or shield those will still be effective on the exterior (non AMF) portions. If the dragon is protected by a magical item however, say a ring of cold resistance and that particular item is definitely inside the field, will it still function on the exterior part of the dragon while it's suppressed? How much or what parts of the body needs to be outside of the AMF for the dragon to cast spells? Breathe fire?

My player says that a character is homogenous, meaning if he even touches his big toe into an AMF it means all spells on him are suppressed and any items, like bags of holding are similarly suppressed. I don't agree, but I am mentioning the option.

For the most part, I can easily rule on most occurrences except ones that might change a creature's form. For instance, if a medium-size druid changed into a large-sized creature and is half-in half-out of the field. Does he stay in one shape or the other? Does he look like a horrible hybrid abomination (half large bear taking up two squares outside the AMF and half medium human taking up one square inside it?

I really need some good examples or points to help ease the player's mind on how it works or why it is the best ruling for whichever way I decide.