Remy Balster's page

Magnimar city stat block lists Spellcasting 8th. 4th level spell should be easy to find.

7200 in base magical item cost + 3200 for the bard hirling spellcasting for 8 days = 10,400

XXX
XMX M=Me, x=5' in every direction. Thus 15x15'.
XXX

That is not how radius spells work.

They only go the radius in distance from the point of origin.

XX
XX

Is a 5ft radius spell area. 4 squares.

Edit: That isn't even how you calculate magic item costs either.

Actually zone of silence might just be better.

It does basically the same thing, lasts 1 hour per level and I can hear sound from outside of it. A 5' radius around the caster fills 15'x15' which is close to 20' radius.

I could get a bard to make me a once per day item for 14,400gp and it would last 10 hours.

Uh...

When a radius effect is centered on you, you choose a corner as the point of origin, and it goes out from there to the distance indicated. A 5ft radius is 4 squares.

The listed spell has a maximum radius of 100ft. That is monstrously large.

It has a specific 'goal' in mind, one that is not well accomplished by other spells. Unique is the purpose of this spell, although useful.

If it had a more fixed area, say 20ft radius, and a typical short duration, say 1rnd/level, then it could very easily be a 3rd or 4th level spell.

I am a physical thing and I am providing the shield bonus by using STS. Or maybe it's my free hand that is applying the shield bonus, which seems more likely. Just like my Eidolon is providing the shield bonus simply by being near me - but the Eidolon is the thing providing the shield bonus as is implied by the wording of the ability.

As for that quotation, what it says to me is that things that provide armor bonuses are either 1. armor or 2. things that mimic armor, even though they are not armor. If spells that mimic armor were actually armor, the second category wouldn't need to exist. Plus, we've never determined which category of armor Mage Armor would fall under.

Nope. The style is providing the shield bonus. You are incorrect.

While you are using the Snapping Turtle Style feat, the shield bonus the style grants to your AC increases to +2, and your enemies take a –4 penalty on critical confirmation rolls against you.

Try again.

Just as nothing in Shield Ally tells us the source, thus the ability itself must be the source.

The area is atypical. Recommend a fixed radius.
The duration is atypical.
As a sound based spell, it should be available to Bards too.

As written, I’d say 6th. As it is extremely similar to, but vastly larger than Zone of Silence, a 4th.

Well sure, you could argue that. Probably not very successfully, but one can always try.

PRD wrote:

Bonus: Bonuses are numerical values that are added to checks and statistical scores. Most bonuses have a type, and as a general rule, bonuses of the same type are not cumulative (do not “stack”)—only the greater bonus granted applies.

Unless there's a specific rule out there saying that shield bonuses stack, they do not since they are the same type.

Aren't the rules for that in like, the magical effects section or something?

You can argue anything if you really want to. You can even successfully argue anything, really, even if you're wrong. Now, whether or not your argument is successful... that is a different matter entirely.

Surprised you didn't learn the difference >.>

Rule Forum

Suggestion/Houserules/Homebrew is anotehr section of the forum.

Cute.

We don't need to take a discussion of intent to the homebrew forums. Especially as it relates to a rules question.

Both RAW and RAI are welcome here, even if you don't like it.

The Cestus is an odd, odd weapon. There is likely some editing mistakes here.

First of all, it is considered a simple light weapon. So you can attack with the cestus directly. However, the description of the cestus talks about your unarmed attacks, and how the cestus modifies them, so it is strongly implied that to use a cestus, you should attack with unarmed attacks instead.

You're not going to get a "legal authority" to reply, unless you get a FAQ submitted and replied to.

In the mean time, you can interpret it in a myriad of ways. But there are two version that are fairly internally consistent.

My personal take on it is that the cestus was intended to modify unarmed attacks, and so adjudicate it as such. In my opinion there is no such thing as 'attack with a cestus", instead you make an armed unarmed attack while wearing a cestus.

Consequently, I believe that you apply the better of any options you have which modify your unarmed attacks. So, apply the crit range of the cestus, the option of damage type, and use the monk's unarmed damage.

The other reading is perfectly valid as well however. That to utilize the damage and crit range, you would need to attack with the cestus directly, and could not gain these benefits on your unarmed attacks. You could still use the damage types listed however, because it specifies these apply to unarmed attacks. So you would retain that modified parameter, even with any unarmed attacks you make using the monk unarmed damage and crit range.

Both valid, depending on your POV.

Chemlak, you are right, i'm italian, so i use metrical scale :D

The intent is to move 6 squares.
Character moves 1 square.
Character tries to move another square. AoO triggers.

in my opinion the third is not correct, because in my opinion AoO arrives when i left the threatened area of my enemy.

Thanks!

It depends on where that enemy was in relation to your position, and when.

Was it next to your starting position? It'd have recieved the AoO from your first square of movement.

Then again, if you moved through more than one of the squares it threatens, it could decide to take it in any of those squares, it doesn't have to take the first provoked opportunity. It is only limited in that it can only take one, but which one is up to it.

If you first provoked by trying to take the second square of movement, then the AoO happens before you leave the square... but you are already midstep, so to speak, and thus have spent the square of movement already. Meaning, you could stop, or complete that square of move, but either way, so far this turn you have used 2 squares of movement. You can continue up to your speed in move and/or use a standard action. But you're no longer eligible for a full action or a 5ft step.

The AoO was triggered from the character attempting to leave a threatened square after the 5ft step was made.

Intent is to move 6 squares.
Character moves 1 square.
Character tries to move another square. AoO triggers.

So now does the 2nd square movement take place automatically because its declaration is what provoked?
Or can the character stop movement and Full Attack since they only really moved 5ft?

The same would be true with me wanting to drink a potion. I say I'm going to drink it which then provokes an AoO from someone hidden nearby. Then after the AoO, I decide that I'm not going to drink, but withdraw instead.

Is this legal? Or do I have to complete the action I declared since the AoO was provoked from it?

The way I parse events is that declaring an action locks you into it. Declaring that 2nd 5ft of movement locks you into it, even if you opt out or it becomes impossible; you have used the 'action' or energy to perform it.

So, you could choose to not take that 2nd square, but you've already paid for it. So, you could stop, and perform your standard, but not a full, because you've used 10ft of your movement.

Same with the potion... you've used the action already, you can choose to not drink it if you like, but you don't get to salvage the action for it if you do, you just waste it.

But, as I'm increasingly aware of, not everyone on these boards reads rules as I do so ymmv.

kinevon wrote:

Would that work?

Those are attacks that you would still be able to perform normally with that weapon if you didn't have spellstrike, since you aren't actually required to use both hands for Flurry of Blows. As long as you aren't trying to perform Spell Combat and Flurry of Blows in the same round (since both are full round actions), I see no issue with using FoB to deliver spellstrikes in a later round.

Basically this.

Spellstrike doesn't ever give you extra attacks. Ever.

If you have attacks, those attacks can deliver touch spells with a weapon attack... that is all spellstrike does.

Oooh, that's a good catch. I was assuming you would qualify through BAB or skill ranks. Yeah, seems like you could just make it at 12.

I... don't actually think that matters much. Although this may be a stronger argument against the "SLAs count" ruling than the other prestige classes, because evangelist isn't obviously weak, unlike mystic theurge and such.

Yeah, my jaw dropped when I first read it. It seems absurdly powerful. But, then again, a lot of things in that book do.

maouse wrote:

I would like to point out AGAIN: That these "double dipping sources" ONLY APPLY to MAGICAL affects... and mundane (non-magical) sources all stack and ignore these rules (or rather are not governed by them). Throwing that out there... Feats that add and replace would Stack (unless they say the don't) because they are not magical. All these "rules for sources" are under the MAGIC EFFECTS and that is the only place in the book they technically apply to. (RAW)

I think I'm the person who first spotted that this is the only instance of that rule in the books, and honestly, I think that's very clearly purely an editing error. I don't think for a minute that they intended to create such an exception.

That said, outside of magical effects, I'm not sure there are any ways to get untyped bonuses from "the same source" more than once. The majority of bonuses specify a type, or come from something like a feat which you can only take once to begin with.

Hmm.

Well, there's an interesting case: Consider an ioun stone which grants alertness, and a character who already has alertness. Does the ioun stone grant you the benefits of the feat again? I mean, obviously the intent is "no", but I don't immediately see what stops it.

Power attack isn't magical. What stops you from using it twice?

You can choose to take a –1 penalty on all melee attack rolls and combat maneuver checks to gain a +2 bonus on all melee damage rolls.

What if I simply choose to take that penalty a couple times?

What stops me, is that you don't get to stack bonuses from the same source. Power Attack is the source of this bonus, of course, and so can only provide this bonus one time.

We're talking about things that require you to be at a level outside what PFS covers because the rules are already unbalanceable at those levels (you can't get the third boon of erastil before level 14, so far as I can tell), and which have the amazing and...

Couldn't you get it by like, 12 or so?

Aasimar @1st
Deific Obedience @3rd
Evangelist @4-12th gaining divine boon 3 at character level 12.

That works, no?

The fundamental misunderstanding that several (including JJ) are making here is conflating "source", "value", and "type".

"Source" is which rules element allows you to add the bonus. In the case of adding Dex to your ranged attack rolls, the "Source" is the default combat rules. The Power Attack feat is the "Source" of its bonus. Bonuses from the same "Source" don't stack which is why you can't take double the Power Attack penalty in order to get double its bonus.

"Value" is the amount assigned to the bonus. In some cases, it's a fixed value (ie. +1 bonus). Power Attack's "Value" is a function of BAB. In the case of the standard adding of Dex to your ranged attack rolls, your Dex modifier is the "Value". Zen Archer allows you to change the Value from your Dex modifier to your Wis modifier. Same goes for Weapon Finesse and the like. The ability score isn't the "source" of the bonus, it's the value of the bonus. There are no rules as to stacking Value so if two bonuses from different sources add a bonus of the same Value (either flat or based on a particular ability score), nothing prevents them from both being used.

"Type" is the designator of the bonus; sacred, dodge, shield, enhancement, natural armor, deflection, luck, etc. Bonuses from different sources, but the same type, won't stack save for specific exceptions (ie. dodge type).

Thus, the Dex bonus added to ranged attacks is an Untyped (type) bonus equal to your Dex modifier (value) which comes from default combat rules (source). The bonus coming from Estaril is an Untyped (type) bonus equal to your Wis modifier (value) which comes from the pertinent boon (source). Zen Archer has an ability that changes the Type of your bonus from Dex to Wis, but that has nothing to do with the Source nor the Type; thus the two values stack.

Very well phrased. Thanks for this Kazaan. ^.^

The one and only exception is for the single free attack you generate when you actually cast the spell in the first place.

Even then, you could, in theory, take that free attack with either you main hand, off-hand (if you used Quick Draw to draw an off-hand weapon between casting and attacking), or even a natural attack or unarmed attack if you wanted to.

Close...

You get a free touch attack to deliver the spell on the same round you cast it, this is default rules for touch spells. By using spellstrike, you can use that free attack as a weapon attack. And, as we know, anything you wack with a weapon can also deliver a charge.

The terminology mainhand/offhand is only used for TWF. And only while you TWF. So, even if you have two weapons out, and use the smaller one to deliver your free attack, it isn't called an offhand attack, it is just an attack. The same thing as AoOs for a TWFer type, he can take an AoO with his lighter weapon, and that isn't considered an offhand attack or anything, it is just an attack. He only makes "offhand/mainhand" attacks during the actual full attack action where he two-weapon fights.

So, to rephrase what you were getting at...

'You could, in theory, take that free attack with any weapon already drawn, or if you used Quick Draw to draw a second weapon (or draw as part of a move action) between casting and attacking this weapon could be used instead, or even a natural attack or unarmed attack if you wanted to. Essentially, any weapon you could possibly attack with could be used in place of the free touch attack.'

Edited for clarity.

Oh! An Oracle of Life with Fast Healer and Life Link. Plants his feet, and heals erbody. Then you'd not even need to swap the boots around. He'd have to be heavy con focused to make it work right, but... that is always a good thing anyway.

But, check it out... to get Fast healer, you need Endurance and... Diehard.

Diehard makes it so going negative HP doesn't make you unconscious... so even that wouldn't stop you from staying put and healing.

Hrm, I think I'm actually going to make a character based around this...

Character idea ramblings in spoiler form cuz… ramblings…

I like how this would work in theory.

Hrm... maybe not. I've looked into it more, and everything with touch attacks seem to only get the one per round. I wonder if they are being treated as natural attacks though? That seems the only reason for it...

Pretty much the same argument--evidence from the Bestiary shows that monsters with BAB +5 or higher don't get iterative touch attacks (e.g., spectre)

My suspicion is that that is a slam attack. But, like, an incorporeal version of one.

You could have a town where they have a couple of these afixed to the ground, so anyone who is injured need only make it to the town square and be fully healed in minutes.

Ack. Yall are seriously trying to overcomplicate this.

Spellstrike. If you hit a dude with a weapon, while you hold a charge, you can hit im with a charge too.

TWF. You get an extra attack with your offhand when you full attack.

So... if you are holding a multi touch spell, and you full attack TWFing style, each weapon attack can be used to deliver a charge.

That simple.

Snapping Turtle Style is proving the shield bonus, and a style isn't physical, so isn't a valid target of a touch spell.

Shield Ally, like all things dealing with the summoner, is dumb. There is no listed source for the bonus. Shield Ally, the ability itself must be the source, then. And an ability isn't physical, and again thus isn't a valid target of a touch spell.

Even weirder, Greater Shield Ally is SU and Shield Ally is Ex. What is the deal with that? >.>

As to whether or not all things that provide armor bonus are armor... depends on what this line means to you:

Armor Bonus

An armor bonus applies to Armor Class and is granted by armor or by a spell or magical effect that mimics armor.

Remy Balster wrote:

There is a clear answer. You're focused on the wrong bits.

Quote:

Even if the spiritual weapon is a ranged weapon, use the spell's range, not the weapon's normal range increment

Even if.

Most of the time this spell makes a melee weapon... but even if the spiritual weapon is a ranged weapon, use the spell's range.

That 'even if' bit is telling us to handle the ranged weapon version the same as a melee weapon version regarding the spell's range.

Besides, there is nothing in the spell text to suggest that this spell creates ammunition of any sort... so what exactly is a spiritual crossbow supposed to shoot? Imaginary bolts?

All spiritual weapons "strike" their targets, and they do it as a spell.

Hey, I wish the text was as clear as you think it to be - but I still don't buy they allow a priest of the god of archery to create a bow and bash people over the head with it because it has no ammo...as I said I'd rather they'd disallowed it, or clarified it.

You're free to visualize or describe it however you like. Mechanically though, there is no difference between a longsword and a crossbow spiritual weapon.

SiuoL wrote:

"Armor/Shield Bonus: Each type of armor grants an armor bonus to armor class (AC), while shields grant a shield bonus to AC. The armor bonus from a suit of armor doesn't stack with other effects or items that grant an armor bonus. Similarly, the shield bonus from a shield doesn't stack with other effects that grant a shield bonus. In each armor category (light, medium, or heavy), the armors are listed in order from worst AC bonus to highest AC bonus."

I can't find anything that say about enchantment, but shield bonus would not stack with other thing that grant shield bonus... Hm...

So in short, "You can only benefit from one shield at a time".

If you wanna get picky... nothing in that says two shields wouldn't stack.

Just sayin.

The armor bonus says it doesn't stack with other items or effects.

The shield bonus says it doesn't stack with other effects.

Notice what is missing? Other items.

So, technically, two shields would stack, because it only calls out 'effects' as incompatible.

And the functional difference is what? The important part of that line isn't "grants no AC bonus". The important part of the line is "for the purposes of this spell".

If clothes aren't ordinarily considered armor (which they aren't), it's unsurprising that they don't grant an AC bonus; this is unremarkable.

Clothes - No impact on AC. N/A armor bonus. Not armor. Not enhanceable as armor.

Clothes for Magic Vestments - +0 armor bonus. Armor for the purpose of the spell. Enhanceable as armor.

Clothes work fine for this spell because the spell says cloths work fine for it. I'm not sure what the confusion is about here. You can't use Magic Vestment on a book, even if you're using that book as a shield. Why? Because a book isn't a shield. It doesn't provide any Shield bonus to AC (not even +0, just N/A). However, if the spell had a line saying, "For the purposes of this spell, a book counts as a shield with no bonus to AC", then you could enchant a book with MV and use it as a shield.

This doesn't change the fact that a book is not a shield. Likewise, clothing is not armor - it just counts as armor for the limited purpose of being enchanted by Magic Vestment.

You're stuck on arguing something that everyone already agrees on, and not hearing what is being said.

We all know a book isn't a shield, and that clothes aren't armor.

But the 'no armor bonus' is important, because if you cannot modify a - then a 'no armor bonus' cannot be increased with an enhancement bonus, whether it is considered armor or not.

Nothing about being armor or not being armor changes the difference between a zero and a none entry.

If none plus one is none, and zero plus one is one... then the spell treats clothes as if they have 'none' ac, and a none plus one equals none. Meaning you could enchant them, but it would still provide none ac.

Unless that rule isn't universal after all.

Remy Balster wrote:

They're basically errata actually, because they change the way the spell functions from how it is printed in the book.

Um, no. There's no contradiction between how the book says the spell works and what the FAQs say. Maybe there's a contradiction between the FAQ and your own assumptions of how the spells would play out in a given situation, but nothing that's actually written in the book is contradicted by the FAQ.

The FAQ adds things that are not in the book. They're different.

Darkness: Can I see light sources through an area of darkness?

No. If a darkness spell reduces the light in the area to actual darkness (or supernatural darkness, if using a more powerful spell), you can't see through the darkness into what is beyond it.

Nothing in the spell says this. And darkness(lighting condition) does not work like this.

This FAQ adds a new effect to the spell, in that the spell creates an actual barrier to seeing through to the other side. This functionality is not included in the spell, as written, within the book.

An area of natural darkness can be looked through. The level of lighting known as 'darkness' is not a barrier against illumination effects from the other side. Two people in a dark open field with candles lit can see each other. That is how areas of darkness function...

And that is what the book indicates, to reduce the light level to darkness. It gives every indication that we are using the lighting rules. With the one exception being which effect suppresses which. And a one degree drop in light.

The FAQ adds that areas of darkness creates a barrier against looking through the spell area. So it is an errata. It changes the spell, it is no longer just an area of decreased illumination, but an area of inky black cloud that people with darkvision can still see through.

Does Ablative Barrier create armor? What happens when Ablative Barrier or Mage Armor is cast on an Eidolon? What happens if an Eidolon wears Bracers of Armor? What happens when a Monk is the target of Mage Armor or Ablative Barrier or puts on Bracers of Armor?

Yeah, looks like it. Note the material component. The fact it creates layers of protection. That it gives an armor bonus.

The eidolon's AC probably goes up.

The eidolon's AC probably goes up.

The monk's AC probably goes up.

Since none of the listed armors are ever 'worn', they do not impose penalties to things that would incur penalties for wearing armor.

(And no, bracers of armor don't give an armor bonus, they create the armor which gives the bonus, per their description)

As for Magic Vestment working on clothes, it ordinarily wouldn't. Clothes had to be specifically called out to work with that particular spell. That Magical Vestment works on clothes, because the spell specifically says clothes count as armor for the purposes of the spell, does not mean that clothes are "armor" in the more general sense (and in fact this type of mechanic generally implies the opposite.

It doesn't say that about clothes...

It says clothes count as armor that grants no AC bonus.

I'm starting to think that line means that Magic Vestment doesn't work on clothes at all.

Well, unless none plus one equals one. But, yall seem insistent that it doesn't.

CraziFuzzy wrote:

Remy Balster wrote:

Diego Rossi wrote:

Remy Balster wrote:

Is it within the spirit of the magus ability to allow a touch attack with a weapon to deliver the touch spell? Yes, I believe it is.

It isn't. it go to great length to do the opposite.

It goes to great lengths to allow weapons to deliver touch spells, period.

Yeah, its pretty much a core ability of the magus.

PRD wrote:

Spellstrike (Su): At 2nd level, whenever a magus casts a spell with a range of “touch” from the magus spell list, he can deliver the spell through any weapon he is wielding as part of a melee attack. Instead of the free melee touch attack normally allowed to deliver the spell, a magus can make one free melee attack with his weapon (at his highest base attack bonus) as part of casting this spell. If successful, this melee attack deals its normal damage as well as the effects of the spell. If the magus makes this attack in concert with spell combat, this melee attack takes all the penalties accrued by spell combat melee attacks. This attack uses the weapon's critical range (20, 19–20, or 18–20 and modified by the keen weapon property or similar effects), but the spell effect only deals ×2 damage on a successful critical hit, while the weapon damage uses its own critical modifier.

Let it go, buddy.

There is no such thing as a melee touch attack with a weapon simply to touch them. Since there is no such thing, people can form whatever opinion they like regarding how it 'could or would' work if it was a thing.

And rules quotes aren't going to much matter, as we're discussing something that isn't covered by the rules.

Can you make a touch attack with a weapon for the express purpose of simply making contact and not injuring them? Nothing says that you can, no.

Is it easy to imagine how that would work? Yes.

Should a Magus be able to deliver a touch spell through a weapon, if we do allow these weapon touch attack thingies? Yeah, seems about right. The intent of the magus ability is to channel touch spells through their weapons, and this would be just another case of them channeling a touch spell through their weapon.

Follow? The point where this convo stopped being RAW was at 'Nothing says you can do this'. Everything after that is the land of 'intent and possibility'.

Yeah, as Jiggy mentioned, there are FAQs on this topic. They're basically errata actually, because they change the way the spell functions from how it is printed in the book.

Book: Area with less light.

FAQs: Orb of inky black cloud.

Do these grant you Fast Healing 1, basically whenever you like, so long as you stand still? A ring of regeneration is 90,000 GP, these are only 5,000, that doesn't seem right, since these boots have other bonuses too...

Is there some sort of uses per day or something that I'm not seeing for this, or is this genuinely a way to get near infinite healing for even a low level character? (Or even a party, taking turns wearing the boots)

It seems entirely to good to be true, so... what am I missing?

Hmmm - can't find any reference to them stacking now. Could have sworn they did. My bad.

With Natural Armor, sometimes an ability doesn't give natural armor normally, but instead gives you an increase in natural armor.

That stacks with other NA, because that is literally what it says to do.

The NA from the Dragon Disciple, for example:

Natural Armor Increase (Ex)

As his skin thickens, a dragon disciple takes on more and more of his progenitor's physical aspect. At 1st, 4th, and 7th level, a dragon disciple gains an increase to the character's existing natural armor (if any), as indicated on Table: Dragon Disciple. These armor bonuses stack.

Remy Balster wrote:

Lol... you're arguing about the difference of none and zero? Really? O_o

Anyway, for added fun...

Quote:

An outfit of regular clothing counts as armor that grants no AC bonus for the purpose of this spell.

It's actually a good argument for this. Undead have a Con Score of -, which is very much not the same thing as 0. It means that things that lower their Con have no effect on them, (outside of they are immune to it for being Undead), but it also means that things that would raise their Con lie Bear's Endurance can not help them, because their Con is not 0, it is "-". It also means that (there are exceptions to this), that Undead can not qualify for Feats that require a Con Score.

So there is a significant difference sometimes.

Oh, there is absolutely a difference in game terms when a distinction is made. And every time there is a zero vs none difference, the rules go out of their way to explain that the game is making that distinction, in a case by case basis.

We know there is a difference between 0 spells per day and - spells per day because the rulebook explains the difference.

But taking that, and extrapolating that there is always a distinction between zero and none gets you into problems. Because it isn't a universal thing, and if you try to force it to apply universally some things get wonky.

The perfect example is the Magic Vestment spell itself! That is why I highlighted the effect it has on regular clothes. You treat clothes as if they have no AC bonus. If you apply the distinction between none and zero universally, then that means they cannot benefit from Magic Vestment.

Clearly that is not the case. So, if we are trying to apply a principle in the game from one area of the rules to another area it doesn't actually belong in... we're going to run into weirdness like that.

Again, the rulebook goes into a great deal of detail explaining the difference between none and zero... but only for each time there is a rules component that is making the distinction.... but that distinction cannot be applied universally, nor do the rules tell us to apply that distinction universally.

Um...

Guys...

It is both. Lol... It is a blacklist AND a whitelist. It just depends on which books you are looking at.

The core books are all blacklist based.... meaning the additional resources tells you what you can't use.

Everything else is whitelist based, meaning the additional resources tell you what you can use.

Assume that Mage Armor is armor for a moment.

A monk can still benefit from Mage Armor without penalty.

How?

Mage Armor isn't worn.

He loses these bonuses when he is immobilized or helpless, when he wears any armor, when he carries a shield, or when he carries a medium or heavy load.

Nor is the shield from Shield carried...

So a Monk can benefit from both these spells without penalty. Even though they are armor and shield.

@Remy: Yes.

For the Sense Motive check though, I think I'd take the lower DC from either that to detect the mind-altering effect or the victim/attacker's Bluff check.

Basically, if you detect the effect with SM, you know that your ally is being "weird" and you should be careful. If you penetrate the Bluff you sense a hostile intention before he actually does something.

Sounds very reasonable.

You want you some Murderous Command. Only level 1, and they'll absolutely kill their ally for you.

I'd run it the same as Kobold Cleaver. There is no directly obvious way to see just what spell was cast, or at who, and if the target was affected.

Surprisingly (for a spell with "command" in the name), MC is not a language-dependent spell. Otherwise people would probably realize their buddy's been told to attack them, if they speak the language.

Would you do the same for confusion, or other mind affecting effects that can cause someone to attack an ally?

seebs wrote:

Why the qualifier "mundane", then?

If I was talking about two things, and one of them was armor, and the other was not-armor, I would say "Unlike armor, ..."

The only reason I can see for the qualifier is if the writer intended to draw a distinction between two kinds of armor, both of which were armor.

... And this result bothers me a lot, and I am about 80% sure it has to be wrong. But strictly going off the words used, yes, the phrase "Unlike mundane armor..." does strongly imply that this is some non-mundane kind of armor.

It's just used descriptively here. The emphasis is not on the word 'mundane' but on the word 'armour'. 'Mundane' isn't a rules word.

"Mundane" is a rules word.

It is used to denote something that isn't magical.

Matthew Downie wrote:

The title of the spell says it is.

The spell name has no mechanical function. The spell's statblock and description are what matter. If the spell was called something else, would that change anything? If it was called Findal's fabulous force field would anything change mechanically?

Quote:

The text of the spell doesn't say it isn't.

'Doesn't say it isn't'? Are you kidding me? Charm person doesn't say it isn't armour, so it is? A longsword doesn't say it isn't armour, so it is?

Okay... you seem to know what qualifies as armor and what doesn't. You 'know'.

Cool.

Show us all where you learned this. Quote us some cool rules text to help everyone catch up to you.

The idea that mage armour does actually have ACP, ASF and speed reduction, but all those values are zero, are simply not true.

It says that it entails no ACP, ASF or speed reduction, not that it does but the values are zero.

We have a comparable situation with spellcasters. I'm a 7th level paladin and have 18 Cha, and that gives me an extra 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th level spell per day. At 7th level paladins get:-

1st: 1
2nd: 0
3rd: -
4th: -

So, modified by my high Cha, I get one 3rd and one fourth level spell per day, right? Wrong! If you have '0' per day, this is a number which can be modified. If you have '-', then you don't have anything to modify.

Caster level is the same. A paladin's caster level is equal to his paladin level minus 3. So, at 2nd level he has a caster level of minus 1, and I can modify that with traits and feats, right? Wrong!

Quote:
Through 3rd level, a paladin has no caster level. At 4th level and higher, her caster level is equal to her paladin level -3.
FAQs have made it clear (if such were needed, but this thread illustrates why it's needed!) that 'no caster level' does not mean 'caster level zero'.

And 'no armour check penalty' does not mean 'ACP 0', 'no arcane spell failure chance' does not mean 'ASF 0', and 'no speed reduction' does not mean 'speed is modified by +0 feet'.

Lol... you're arguing about the difference of none and zero? Really? O_o

Anyway, for added fun...

An outfit of regular clothing counts as armor that grants no AC bonus for the purpose of this spell.

Mal, tell me...

For Magic Vestment, is an "outfit of regular clothing" a valid target? And... what exactly happens when it is targetted?

Since it has no AC bonus...

Does it go:
nothing + x = nothing
or
0 + x = x

???

Dun dun dun....

Remy Balster wrote:

Is it within the spirit of the magus ability to allow a touch attack with a weapon to deliver the touch spell? Yes, I believe it is.

It isn't. it go to great length to do the opposite.

It goes to great lengths to allow weapons to deliver touch spells, period.

The only RAW argument that really prevents this is that there aren't well defined rules for choosing to make touch attack with a weapon.

Is it easy to figure out how that'd work? Yeah.

Is it within the spirit of the magus ability to allow a touch attack with a weapon to deliver the touch spell? Yes, I believe it is.

The purpose of spellstrike is to utilize a weapon as a touch spell conduit, so that when you strike someone with it, it also discharges a spell charge.

So, if you could make a melee touch attack with a weapon, the touch spell should discharge and deliver the spell effect.

No.

Would YOU allow a player to use a flaming weapon as a rouge to just touch foes to get sneak attack?

Always consider:

are you arguing from belief to improve this game for all and all games for everyone. OR are you arguing to be a douch, emotive reaction, ego, self interest, this game specific self aggrandisement?

A flaming weapon isn't a touch spell. Your argument is invalid.

(SA only adds extra to the damage of the attack, and a touch attack doesn't do damage. Even if it did 'extra damage' from a flaming weapon, the 'attack' didn't do any damage, so cannot benefit from extra damage.... which, really, is the same reason that the flaming enchant doesn't do any damage... because it functions by doing 'extra damage' too. So, a touch attack with a flaming whip wouldn't do any damage, and therefore not be able to deal extra damage either.)

Remy Balster wrote:

Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

'Devil's Advocate' wrote:

people are saying that the things created by the Mage Armor and the Shield spell d not count as actual armor, despite having rules in them that only apply to armor and shields (such as ACP, ASF, movement reduction for armor, etc. . .).

The only reference to ACP, ACF and the rest are that these spells don't have them! Why? Because they aren't armour or shield!

Compare instant armour:-

Quote:

nstant armor acts in all ways as armor typical of its type (armor bonus, maximum Dexterity bonus, arcane spell failure chance, and so on)

Which shows that this spell does create actual armour made of force, unlike Mage armour which just creates a force field.

If Mage Armor didn't create "armor"... there would no reason to say it doesn't have ACP etc.

But it does create armor, so they needed to tell us that it doesn't have the standard armor penalties.

If it wasn't armor, there'd be no reason to even mention it.

The 'need to mention it' is right here in this thread! If it didn't say so, those people who are misled by the name of the spell might think it's actually armour. If it was called Findal's fabulous force field they might not have needed to point out that it doesn't suffer the drawbacks of armour.

And the reason it doesn't suffer the drawbacks of armour...is that it isn't armour.

That reason is lame. You'd have to make stuff up whole cloth to give mage armor any of those penalties. The only reason to include them is because it is armor and armor generally has those mechanics. Mage Armor does too, and those penalties are all zero. They are defined penalties in this case.

Care to name something else you think isn't armor that has all three of these defined for us (ACP, ASF, speed reduction)?

If Mage Armor isn't armor why does it provide an armor bonus?

I assume the intent is for spell combat to function for them while they use a ranged weapon.

That is an assumption, of course.

But if I DM for a player who ever goes this route, that'd be how I handle this badly written archetype. Simply because it makes the character play smoothly, instead of having some weird clunky mechanics. (And some that simply don't function)

Thing is magix vestment wants a suit of armour not just armour. You can only target clothes with it because it gives permission.

Mage armour isn't a suit you don't wear it.

It only gives you permission to treat clothes as "armor". It does not give you permission to treat clothes as a "suit of armor".

Your argument is self defeating.

An outfit of regular clothing counts as armor that grants no AC bonus for the purpose of this spell.

If you can only cast Magic Vestment on a [suit of armor], then you could not use it on an outfit, because an oufit only counts as [armor].

We really need to retire this argument. Not only is it self defeating, but it is worse when you follow the full ramifications. Like, what of the types of armor that aren't described as 'suits of armor'? Can't Magic Vestment a Chain Shirt?

Instead, we should treat the words 'suit of armor' as descriptive, not prescriptive. The prescriptive portion of the spell is found under "Target:".

Target armor or shield touched

And in the target section of Magic Vestment, that whole 'suit of' bit is absent. So the spell should work just fine on 'armor'. It doesn't need be a 'suit of' anything.

'Devil's Advocate' wrote:

people are saying that the things created by the Mage Armor and the Shield spell d not count as actual armor, despite having rules in them that only apply to armor and shields (such as ACP, ASF, movement reduction for armor, etc. . .).

The only reference to ACP, ACF and the rest are that these spells don't have them! Why? Because they aren't armour or shield!

Compare instant armour:-

Quote:

nstant armor acts in all ways as armor typical of its type (armor bonus, maximum Dexterity bonus, arcane spell failure chance, and so on)

Which shows that this spell does create actual armour made of force, unlike Mage armour which just creates a force field.

If Mage Armor didn't create "armor"... there would no reason to say it doesn't have ACP etc.

But it does create armor, so they needed to tell us that it doesn't have the standard armor penalties.

If it wasn't armor, there'd be no reason to even mention it.

Slacker2010 wrote:

Gregory Connolly wrote:

Sure, you can use Mnemonic Enhancer to get back a spell you already cast of up to 3rd level 10 minutes later. Or you can just leave a 4th level spell slot open and get any spell in your spellbook of up to 4th level 15 minutes later, without wasting a 4th level spell known or buying a 50 gp focus. If you can cast Mnemonic Enhancer you can take the arcane discovery Fast Study and only have it take 1 minute to fill that unfilled 4th level slot. Sure it uses a feat but having all of your out of combat utility spells 1 minute away rather than 15 minutes away makes it a lot more tempting to leave slots open.

Glad Im not the only one that didnt understand the excitement or draw to Mnemonic Enhancer.

Actually, the real way to use Mnemonic Enhancer is to get phantom spell slots. It all hinges on the most overlooked aspect of the spell; the 24 hour duration of 3 levels of phantom spell slots per casting of ME.

Here's how it works. You need a day of in game prep time. You memorize ME in all your Level 4 slots then cast them to get more spell slots and prepare as many spells as you can in those slots at the end of the day as close to the point you go to sleep as you can.

Rest 8 hours.

Wake and prepare all your normal slots and refreshed Level 4 slots, in addition to retaining the spells you prepared in the phantom slots at the end of the previous day. These bonus slots should last for at least 13 or so hours.

Having any of the feats which reduce your spell prep time as well as a Ring Of Sustenance give you even more working time with the phantom slots.

I think I should give seminars on the proper use of this spell, I've had to explain it so many times now.

I always thought the real benefit was the ability to convert 4th+ level slots into higher level slots with multiple castings.

Level 20, you should have 6+ 4th slots, but only 5 9th, for example. So, you prep ME 6x and cast em, earning you 3x6 levels of preparable slots. Ie 18 levels, or 2 9th level spells. So, now you squeeze out 7 9th level spells in a day by essentially recycling your lower level ones. You could do it with your 5th (6th, 7th, 8th)too if you feel the need to squeeze out a ton of 9th level spells on any particular day.

/shrug

Also, for the Wizard who leaves slots open throughout the day. If you end up not using some, you toss in your ME in all the 4th+ ones, cast em, and can prep spells for the next day. Again, to sorta recycle that unused potential a bit.

Wouldn't 4 Pearls of Power serve you better? I mean, that'd be 4 1st spells per day, have more flexibility, not get used up, and still works for using em every fight if needed.

A high caster level wand for a 1st level spell just seems like a waste of gold.

41: The person you were supposed to meet at the Tavern doesn't show up, as you wait, every time you order something to drink, the glass breaks just as you try to drink from it. The barkeep is getting agitated.

42: The tavern is lively, people chatting, someone playing music, ale being drunk, and food being eaten. A good time all around. With a cacophonous boom, half of the tavern explodes, broken boards and splinters fly through the air, as portions of the ceiling cave in, dust and debris spray your face and skin, and hang in the air. There are screams, people injured, maybe even dead... And then from the ruble, a large form arises, a bronze dragon, as you realize finally what caused this disaster... it crash landed. Badly wounded and bloody, it shakes off its wings, but one seems too injured to function. It turns its back to the tavern and limps out into the streets... There, another band of 'heroes' is rushing in, intent to defeat this monster.

43: You find a human tooth in your food.

44: As the party enters the tavern, the loud atmosphere goes quiet as all the patrons stop. All heads turn to the party, and in silence they watch one of the member's every action. No one here will respond, to words or deeds, and just watch on, only moving to shift their gaze to follow this one PC. If this party member leaves, all of the parons resume whatever they were doing before the party entered, and act as if nothing happened. That PC cannot shake the feeling that he is being watched now.... no matter wher he goes.

45: During dinner, you notice that the ceiling has a wet spot, and that it seems to grow. After a short while, it begins to drip onto the floor a few feet from your table, and the droplets make an almost imperceptible sizzle as they hit the floor. Shortly after, the wet area of the ceiling collapses down to the ground, along with some sort of jiggling gelatinous form. The innkeeper shouts up at the hole " #%^*% it Frank, I told you NO experiments up there!!"

46: There is a group of four halflings laughing at one of the tables next to yours. The barmaid comes by to take your order, and you notice all three of the halflings get up from their table and leave the tavern.