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.
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.
Just as nothing in Shield Ally tells us the source, thus the ability itself must be the source.
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 >.>
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.
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 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.
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.
Yeah, my jaw dropped when I first read it. It seems absurdly powerful. But, then again, a lot of things in that book do.
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?
That works, no?
Very well phrased. Thanks for this Kazaan. ^.^
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…
So, be human, cuz... feats. Try for a 20 con. Level 1, take a level of (Unbreakable) Fighter. For free endurance and diehard feats. Then take fast healer and fey foundling as your 1st and human bonus feats.
Then progress as Oracle (life), and choose life link. Grab whatever other goodies you like... by level 4-5 you can keep life link on all party members, so are free to progress however you please. Put all your stat boosts into con, and get a con belt.
So, level 2, they'd heal you 3 hp a round. And you could life link one party member at a time to heal them 5 hp a round (at range). And you'd have about 25 hp, so pretty beefy. And can keep functioning until -20. Minimal spell/ability use for healing necessary, and everyone is at/near full between combats with ease.
By 5th or so, you should be able to have a +2 belt, and could be healing 4 hp a round from these guys. You'd be able to maintain life link on your whole party, so transferring up to 5hp from each to yourself per round. You'd have like 65 hp and could go to -23. And supplement any group spike damage by channeling or curing yourself. But would mostly be free to cast offensively/defensively/utility instead of heals. And yet still be healing.
You should be able to afford a +4 or +6 belt easy enough by 10th level. So, assuming a 4, 20+2+4 is 26 (+8), and your stone boots are healing you 5 hp per round. You can go to -26 hp before dying, and have about 150 hp or so. You'd be one hellova hp battery, and one that self charges. And all for no actions whatsoever in combat, aside from one move, and then not moving.
I like how this would work in theory.
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.
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:
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.
If you wanna get picky... nothing in that says two shields wouldn't stack.
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.
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.
The FAQ adds things that are not in the book. They're different.
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.
Diego Rossi wrote:
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'.
These sturdy leather dwarven boots have soles made of thick gray marble. As a move action, the wearer can plant her feet and draw strength from the earth, gaining fast healing 1 and a + 4 bonus to CMD to resist bullrush, reposition, and trip combat maneuver attempts. These effects end if the wearer moves or is moved, knocked prone, or rendered unconscious.
Price 5,000 GP
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:
"Devil's Advocate" wrote:
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.
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.
Mage Armor isn't worn.
Monk Stuff wrote:
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.
Sounds very reasonable.
Would you do the same for confusion, or other mind affecting effects that can cause someone to attack an ally?
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
"Mundane" is a rules word.
It is used to denote something that isn't magical.
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
Okay... you seem to know what qualifies as armor and what doesn't. You 'know'.
Show us all where you learned this. Quote us some cool rules text to help everyone catch up to you.
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
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:
Dun dun dun....
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.
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.)
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
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)
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.
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
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.
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.
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.
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.