Also, just because a race appears in the ARG, it's not necessarily the only rules source. For example, the rules for creating Kitsune characters are printed in multiple books, including the Dragon Empires Gazetteer and the Dragon Empires Primer.
+1 on this. Most races are detailed in at least two books (usually a Bestiary or the CRB as well as the ARG) and often in three or more, depending on the race.
It has been said before, but it's still a fair point. The only real counter I can offer is that, at the time, wizards were the only class with any kind of interest in a spellbook. This is no longer the case, as a result of various new options introduced since the CRB was written. So the question is whether the original writing ought to be reexamined now that the assumption it was based on no longer holds true.
And as far as other spellbook-using classes referencing wizard spellbooks, that's certainly true. But any number of classes refer to other class's features to simplify explaining a long and complicated ability. (Sneak Attack, Uncanny Dodge, Bardic Performance, etc.)
On a different note—if scribing in a spellbook can't be done normally without the appropriate class levels, is there any way we could get a (feat/magic item/archetype/trait/other) which allows it? There's a very distinct lack of such things right now, which is odd, considering how very useful and flavorful it would be. (Although, of course, it ceases to be odd if we assume that non-wizards can scribe spells. >.>)
No, no, it just makes it ridiculously expensive and less efficient than just using the scroll directly. Plus, it adds a good chance that you'll completely waste the scroll by not casting the spell you prepared. But it technically works.
I can't say that I've ever had a character pretend to be another class (yet), but I did have one character who was a paladin in all but abilities. Horatio, of the Silver Crusade, studied with the Golden Legion in order to maximize his ability to defend his allies. With the ability to add +12 to the AC of anyone adjacent to him, intercept attacks that would have injured his allies, and prevent any foe from getting past him, even with a 5-foot step. In the end, he died after suffering 18 points of Con damage, holding off Runelord Krune to ensure that his allies were able to safely escape, and left instructions that the last of his prestige and gold be used to raise the two who he failed, even though that meant that he would never be raised. A truly heroic end to one of the most heroic characters I ever played.
It makes me sad that such an interesting, flavorful thing looks like it's going to go down in flames because of some RAW that's several years old. I understand the importance of RAW, but I feel like we're suffering because of clashing assumptions on the part of various writers. The original writer of the Arcane Magical Writing section assumed that no one other than wizards had any use for spellbooks—perfectly fair since, at the time, no one did—which leaves us with a section that never clearly addresses this issue that's arisen in the last several years. But from as early as the APG (with the Lore Oracle's Arcane Archivist revelation), to as recently as the PFS Primer (with Versatile Spontaneity), writers have been creating abilities, items, and feats which would all range from wasteful at best to useless at worst if the writers had not been assuming that the players using them would have a means of easily accessing spellbooks of their own. Indeed, since Arcane Archivist not only requires a spellbook, but destroys spells written in it, I have to believe that the writer of that particular ability believed that Lore Oracles, at least, had the ability to copy spells on their own.
I know RAI is useless in PFS, but it still seems like a shame to let all these fascinating things go to waste.
I was rather under the impression that the purpose of a spellbook was to record spells in such a way that they can be studied and cast. Spontaneous spellcasters may need an item or feat in order to cast from one, but they most certainly can do so. The original purpose of a spellbook was to allow wizards to record their spells in order to study and cast them later, but like so much else in this wonderful living game, that purpose has expanded with the addition of new options.
I am simply asking that, with all these new options, we take a fresh look at spellbooks and see whether it makes sense for other classes—properly equipped with a knowledge of spellcraft, a book, and a pen—to be able to copy down spells.
I'd like to just briefly cast my vote in favor of non-wizards being able to scribe in spellbooks. In addition to the mnemonic vestments and versatile spontaneity, there's also the ring of spell knowledge which can use either scrolls or a spellbook to increase a spontaneous caster's spells known, and the Arcane Archivist revelation of Lore Oracles, which explicitly requires that the Oracle have a spellbook (no scrolls allowed).
Well, since I was thinking of bards and sorcerers using the Rings of Spell Knowledge in particular, there are definitely arcane classes who will want to do this. And I can see the argument for the ability to scribe a spellbook being a class feature, but I think the spellbook class feature is more about preparing spells from a spellbook than anything else.
There's not much evidence one way or the other, but I feel compelled to point to the fact that Arcane Magical Writing is a separate section under the Magic section of the CRB, and is not inherently part of the wizard class. Although that section references wizards doing everything, all it requires for most of the tasks (such as scribing) is a spellcraft check.
It's just that at the time the CRB was written, wizards were the only class who could do anything with spellbooks. But now there are two other classes which prepare their spells from spellbooks, a couple magic items which enable spontaneous casters to use them to expand their spell options, and a revelation for oracles which actually requires that the user have a spellbook(Arcane Archivist, Lore Mystery).
As far as needing the Scribe Scroll feat to scribe a spellbook.... That would make sense, except neither the Magus nor the Arcanist start with that (Arcanists get it at 3rd level, but they've been preparing and casting spells for two levels by then). So that doesn't make a lot of sense, especially in PFS where nobody has Scribe Scroll.
To expand on what I said in the OP, Rings of Spell Knowledge and Mnemonic Vestments are both items designed for spontaneous spellcasters that use written forms of spells to expand the spellcaster's options. Scrolls can be used, but spellbooks are usually cheaper and easier to carry, plus they often make for more interesting flavor. So admittedly this is something of a corner case, but since it's something I've been running into with several of my characters lately, I thought I'd see if I could get an answer.
I think it's safe to say that you're never going to find a RAW statement saying that all undead all uniformly evil (or that all undead can become good, for that matter), because it's a setting-specific question rather than a rules-specific one. We've given you pretty much all the RAW there is on undead alignments, and the Golarion ruling on it as well (non-evil undead are about as rare as succubi paladins). Everything from there is up to you.
Remy Balster wrote:
Well, now that's an interesting thought. I rather like the idea, but since I'm hoping to be doing this in PFS, I'm not sure it would fly. It does sound like something that would make an awful lot of sense though. I can certainly imagine a wizard running a business selling spellbooks with various sets of spells already inscribed.
Generic Villain wrote:
Additional source: Every undead template that has the requirement of Alignment: Any Evil. Also, descriptions of the processes required to become a lich or penanggalen (or ghost, or morgh, or, or, or...)
The trick with undead is that A) many undead are unintelligent and therefore cannot stray from their standard alignment, and B) the process of creating an intelligent undead (lich, ghost, vampire, penanggalen, etc.) almost invariably requires that the transformed creature must either already be evil, or become evil in the process. As everyone else has said, individual exceptions exist, but they are extremely rare.
Like the title says. There are a lot of abilities and items lately that use a written version of a spell, which usually can be either a scroll of the spell or a copy of it scribed in a spellbook. I'm thinking in particular of the Arcane Archivist revelation that Oracles of Lore can get, and the Rings of Spell Knowledge and Mnemonic Vestments from Ultimate Equipment. Obviously, a player looking to have a large list of spells that they could make use with one or more of these of would much rather have a spellbook full of all the spells they want to use rather than a bunch of very expensive scrolls. However, most of the Core Rulebook is written under the assumption that only wizards use spellbooks, which tends to make it unclear as to whether other classes have the training and knowledge necessary to scribe spells in spellbooks with training in the Spellcraft skill. So my simplified question is:
Can a character who does not have any levels in a class that uses a spellbook to prepare spells (i.e. wizard, magus, or arcanist) still scribe spells into a spellbook if they can make the appropriate Spellcraft check?
Cloudkill is your best friend for killing armies. Most armies involve a lot of low- level warriors or fighters. Cloudkill lasts for minutes per level, covers a wide area, and will roll over the enemy forces. If you create a line of Cloudkills (or better yet, Mythic Cloudkills), they can just sweep over the enemy line and leave a large pile of the dead in their wake. If you can imbue your tower with the ability to create an instantaneous circle of Cloudkills around the city...
Well yes, technically it is a different case. At any rate, I linked it because the issue being debated there is similar to the one being debated here: can two archetypes be combined in PFS if there is a relatively clear means of combining two conflicting class feature changes? And the answer, straight from the top, is no.
It seems to me that "same saving throw" is in reference to having a Fort save to have the damage and negate the stun. If it was supposed to use the actual level of the spell to determine the DC, it would usually be a SLA. I can see where there's room for interpretation, but to my mind RAI is fairly clear. Of course, it's up to the GM at the time.
John Compton wrote:
Except, of course, for those of us with Lantern Bearer characters who see this entire scenario as one big glorious opportunity to do some work for their true faction. ^w^
Lore Oracle seems fitting.
Oooh, yeah! Combine a love of the law with an overwhelming knowledge of it. "According to the most recent Laws of the City (Annotated collection, fourth edition, with a foreword by Grandmaster Torch), magically enhanced firearms are a restricted class IV controlled weapon. Please present your permit for your musket or prepare to be immediately extradited and eviscerated according to Chelaxian....." Spends a move action each round explaining why the enemies are breaking the law.
A Legalistic Oracle going into Diabolist could definitely do very well. The only trick would be picking a mystery. I'm inclined to jump to Outer Rifts as the only "evil" mystery, but that one's more associated with demons than devils. Another Prestige Class to consider is the Divine Scion from Inner Sea Magic, which has full spellcasting progression and some interesting flavor, but might not be exactly what you're looking for.
So I had an idea while talking to a friend about how much easier (and how much more fun) it is to GM a scenario more than once, and how some scenarios are actually more fun to GM than play. So I had a thought: is there any reason why GMs shouldn't be allowed to receive a second credit for running a scenario as long as they haven't received credit for playing? Or in other words, could GMs convert unused player credit for a given scenario into GM credit?
It provides a nice incentive to GM scenarios more frequently without handing out anything that we didn't already have. Thoughts/opinions/concerns?
Also be sure to look at Master of the Falllen Fortress and the We Be Goblins Modules. They're all free in PDF form, and the two 1-2s can be applied multiple times to first-level characters, which will help you and your players bring up multiple low-level characters without exhausting your options too quickly. With those two and the remaining First Steps, it's entirely possible to get every character to second level playing those same three scenarios - First Steps gets old pretty fast, but the other two are plenty of fun to play over and over (especially We Be Goblins).
James Jacobs wrote:
Worth noting that Aroden's death and the failure of prophecy were certainly linked... if only because they happened at the same time... but one did not necessarily actually cause the other...
Curse you, Correlation! Stop giving us that come-hither look and furtively pointing at Causation!
Ciaran Barnes wrote:
Why, I believe I am making a Charisma-based Dexterity check!
Wait. Wait wait wait. If I have something that lets me add Charisma to my Initiative instead of Dexterity, like the Noble Scion (War) feat from the ISWG.... Can I use this for a +3 on initiative? Leave out the milk, it's time to make some cheese! (Begins searching for any RAW reference to intiative as a "check".)
EDIT: I just now read the post directly above mine. Aha. Ahaha. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA!!!!
Like the title says — compared to other gods who represent/rule universal concepts such as fire, nature, luck, and the like, is Aroden, the god of one little race only found on one tiny planet in the Material Plane really that big a deal? And gods have died before- it seems like Aroden's only real significance to most of the other gods is the fact that he ascended to divinity in the way that he did and that he died without any apparent reason, which makes them uneasy.
Seriously, on the cosmic scale, why should anyone but humanity care about Aroden?
I finally remembered the other two! Figures, I spent a good half-hour staring at my screen when I wrote the original post trying to remember these two and then I remembered them as soon as I went to work. So... Samasboy1 offered
I would also add
8: Spell-like Abilities that mimic Sorcerer spells. (i.e., the Burning Hands SLA that Ifrits get.)
So I'm building an Ifrit Wishcrafter with the Fire Elemental Bloodline for PFS, and I'm trying to determine what exactly the Fire Affinity racial ability modifies.
Ifrit sorcerers with the elemental (fire) bloodline treat their Charisma score as 2 points higher for all sorcerer spells and class abilities. Ifrit spellcasters with the Fire domain use their domain powers and spells at +1 caster level.
In order to make my question as clear as possible, I thought it would be best to list the various things that a Sorcerer's Charisma can modify, in order of most to least likely to be affected (in my opinion).
1: Checks and attack rolls made by spells such as Hydraulic Push which add the caster's ability score modifier.
2: DCs and uses per day for class abilities (usually bloodline powers).
3: DCs for spells.
4: Bonus spells per day.
5: Charisma-based class skills. (An especially large stretch, but I thought it should be mentioned.)
If anyone could point out a RAW reason why any of these do or don't qualify, that would be much appreciated. I'm personally of the opinion that numbers 3 and 4 are the only real border cases, but I'm open to being proved wrong one way or the other.
Another thing to remember is that some tactics are designed to be weaker than they could be on purpose- like if an otherwise average monster has Weird as a 1/day SLA. In such cases, the monster's tactics might explicitly rule out use of that ability because it can lead to disappointing one-turn curbstomp fights on the part of the monster. You should definitely give plenty of extra thought before ignoring those kinds of tactics.
The assumption that players are supposed to ask questions, instead of receiving one or more pieces of "useful information", is my biggest Pathfinder pet peeve. It rewards metagaming like nothing else. The more knowledge a player has about a monster, the more useful the information their character can learn.
Example: A relatively new player is playing as a 3rd-level wizard. He has Acid Arrow, Daze Monster, Shocking Grasp, Ray of Enfeeblement, and Bull's Strength. He encounters a Carrion Golem, succeeds on his knowledge check, and is told that he gets one question. Not knowing that golems are immune to magic, he asks what its weakest saves are. He's told that it has poor Fortitude and Will saves. In his first turn, he casts Ray of Enfeeblement to weaken it, and then next turn he casts Shocking Grasp to damage it. Electric damage Hastes Carrion Golems, so because the player didn't know the right question to ask, he's wasted his first turn and spent the second round buffing the enemy. If the GM had just told him the most relevant information (immunity to magic that checks SR), he could instead have cast Acid Arrow in the first round and Bull's Strength on an ally in the second round.
That was the most obvious example I could think of. There are so many strange immunities, abilities, and weaknesses that monsters have which have to be handled correctly to keep them from being much greater challenges than intended. If GMs don't tell you the most useful information, then you need to already know it out-of-character to learn it in-character.
Yeah, no. Even the actual gods have a really hard time killing other gods in Golarion, someone imbued with a mere fraction of godlike power probably doesn't stand a chance. It's one of the main reasons the Aroden thing was so frightening: in a world where even lesser gods who were actually attacked and "killed" by other gods still manage to survive (see Ydersius, who's surviving as nothing more than a skull right now), having a very powerful god completely disappear without any reason at all is scary as hell.
But on the other hand, could you fight and even hurt a god? Absolutely. You could help drive them back into their timeless prison or weaken them so they can no longer carry out their dark plan or something. You should probably expect to be erased from existence in the process, of course, but that's the cost of being an enormously powerful hero.
I would also like this to be addressed. I've been looking at the Diabolist for a Sorcerer of mine, and I'd really like to know how I should be planning the next few levels. Can I use a scroll? Does it make any difference that I already have an Imp familiar? After all, I spent a feat on getting that imp, and as I understand it, that feat will basically be wasted once I take the class (unless one imp can be both a familiar and a companion, which seems unlikely). Even if I retrain the feat, it's going to end up costing me an amount fairly close to what I would have spent on the binding.
And if I can't use a scroll, do I actually have to know the spell or do I just have to be technically able to cast it? Because learning a new 5th level spell that I probably won't use just to qualify for the class is a big drain on my resources, one way or the other.
Also, as a side note, it would be great to have some confirmation on what item slots an imp companion gets under the Animal Archive rules. I assume the same as an imp familiar, but I've got nothing to really back that up.
Well, it does make sense to me that if the cost of the first option is reduced, the cost of the alternative should be as well. The problem, of course, is that the two items can stack, and reducing the cost to, say, 2500xBonus^2, is that the total cost of enhancing unarmed strikes for non-monks or monks without flurry with both the amulet and the bodywraps goes down even more. Yes, you're giving up the Monk's Robe to do it, and yes, that's a sacrifice, but it's one that can definitely be made for a lot of builds — even some monk builds.
I ran this recently. My players did me the great favor of spreading out and failing to barricade the first floor windows, in addition to playing up. So while the mooks rushed in to occupy some of the people on the first floor, the Xun Stranglers flew into the upstairs and tied up the gunslinger in no time (a very satisfying moment, since gunslingers usually wreck my fights), and then proceeded to tie up everyone who came upstairs to rescue him, including the high-Ac-low-CMD tank. Eventually, they managed to free a couple people by using explosives to burn away the ropes and brought down one of the stranglers at the same time, so then they were able to finish the encounter, but it took us about 2 hours for that single fight.
Heh. I actually loved this scenario because my bard Charmed the BBEG and got him to explain the entire plot while the rest of the party was healing. It was a great plot twist, and I had a fantastic time roleplaying the conversation. Also he got to use Triple Time to cut down the amount of time we spent climbing the mountain. But mind control on the BBEG is just about the only way you could possibly understand the plot as a player.
The way I had Knowledge rolls for things you previously encountered explained to me is that the Knowledge skill represents how much you remember, not just how much you know. Just because you read the chronicle doesn't mean you remember every single part of it. You can produce the chronicle in the hopes that the GM will grant you a circumstance bonus and/or the ability to make the check untrained, of course. But that "unspecified" amount of time between missions goes two ways- it might have been years since your character read that particular chronicle. Some knowledge checks are automatic, of course- for example, a gnome who is actively suffering from the Bleaching. Think of those as Knowledge checks that you can't fail because you have such a high circumstance bonus.
To answer your original question: Metagaming is not metagaming when you use your OoC knowledge within the limits of your in-character knowledge.