ShoulderPatch's page

438 posts. 5 reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


1 to 50 of 438 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>

Necro bumping this. I noticed it today and this is the first thread discussing the issue that came up in a search, it seems it has still not been fixed on the PRD at least.

Plant Shape I to Medium size is the only "Plant Shape [X] [Size choice]" that lists an enhancement, not size bonus, to Con.

-> Has that been confirmed as a typo/fixed in a FAQ or Errata I'm not finding?
-> Was it just forgotten about?
-> Is it intentional* at this point?
*(which would seem really odd, seems like it must be an error, but it has been left unchanged online for 5 years now.)

quincho78 wrote:

Again, tks a lot


No problem. :)

Just keep in mind unless a summoned creature is intelligent (generally Intelligence of 3+, higher is better), and in particular has a language or some other way for you to communicate with it, spreading them out tactically only has as much value as they're instinctively capable of using and/or the GM humors you.

Example: My PC is very low on health and spells when 4 Orcs stumble onto his area. I get surprise and win initiative. I have Superior Summoning so I decide to use SM/SNA IV to summon multiple SM/SNA II creatures and my roll gets me 4. The Orcs are close enough the spells range lets me put each summoned creature in front of a different Orc so the Orcs all get attacked initially and later can't break off without provoking an AoO.
-If I summon Hyenas, while their Trip might be good crowd control, the GM might decide their pack instinct has them all try and group up no matter how far I spread them initially or, more likely, they all simply attack the closest thing to them... even if an Orc crits his hyena and breaks through to come for me the other hyenas won't break off from the foe they're engaged with to protect me.
+However if I summon Small Earth Elementals, and speak Terran, I can tell them all to take a different foe when I spread them out and let them know to not let anything get to me no matter what... so if an Orc does breaks past his elemental the other elementals know to switch their focus to the Orc actively trying to cleave me and not the one they started with.

So while the rules allow you to spread summoned creatures out keep in mind that what they specifically do after that depends how smart and understanding they are and what your specific GM/DM decides.

quincho78 wrote:

Thanks for the reply.

There are somewhere in the manual where this detailed this or is a deduction that you take out?

It's what the general Magic section of the CRB tells you that you can do, in particular look at the Conjuration school Summoning sub-school rules, within the limits of the spell. You can go to the Pathfinder PRD and read it all if you need. Anyone who tells you it's more limited than that needs to point to you why, not the other way around.

quincho78 wrote:
... or the summoner can choose the place for every monster separately?


Summoning (multiple) creatures with SM or SNA or the like, you can place each of them individually within any valid space within the spell's range.

In example, a common use is to place one of the creatures near you for protection while sending the others into or as close to the actual fighting as you can (starting in flanking position usually preferable).

Regarding #4 and what's followed...

I recall a thread on this subject a long time ago (I'm talking '09 or '10 at least). Thought it was on here but could be mistaken, can't find it now, might have been OotS forums or somewhere. Paraphrasing it's conclusions to these question...

Regarding just Sylvan
In order for the creature to speak it by RAW it must be listed on it's language entry in the bestiary (as that is the more specific rule). Treants for example can speak it. Assassin Vines cannot.

Regarding language use in general
Additionally, by RAW, if a creature can speak a language it can theoretically speak any language (could physically do it) because of the way Pathfinder handles languages.
So, for example, if you polymorph into a Treant or Elemental you could speak all languages you know because their form is capable of language use... though you don't automatically gain the Treants or Elementals languages specifically (as they are not something listed in the spell, ability, or general polymorph rules as something you gain).

Not really a FAQ needed whoever clicked that, surprised the OP missed these, unless there's a FAQ/errata/Devpost I'm unaware of the answers all seem to be self contained in the rules text of what's being discussed...

shaxberd wrote:
Does the Burning Gaze spell count as a gaze attack for the purposes of being able to penetrate a Wall of Force?

Contained within the spells own text, quoting from the PRD entry of Burning Gaze... "...Note that this spell does not grant an actual gaze attack..." ... it doesn't count as a gaze attack, as the specific game term, really for any purpose. Despite targeting you during the casting and having the term gaze in it's name, the devs/writers explicitly had the spell text call itself out as still a spell effect and not invoking the gaze attack rules.

Which brings us to...

shaxberd wrote:
Or is it only the monster special attack and not spells that can penetrate a Wall of Force?

Again quoting from the spell in question's very own text, Wall of Force this time, PRD as source again... "... spells cannot pass through a wall of force in either direction..." ... not seeing a ton of ambiguity. Only the monster attack, because of it's specific note later in the spell text, gets a pass. Plus the other few tricks quasi-around it mentioned specifically in the rules.

shaxberd wrote:

What about Eyebite?

See above bolded part.

Shadowborn wrote:
For an actual mount or animal companion, yes. For a horse-like construct via phantom steed, I'm not so sure it's necessary.

Agreed. As it's a corner case I think it might best fit as an "Etc."

I would say, with the "Can't fight" note of the Phantom Steed spell I would check with a GM first as to how broadly he defines that covering (there were threads before on the RAW of them charging, I forget how they ended).

Shadowborn wrote:
... (lots of good rules stuff)...

All this for PC's/intelligent creatures/etc.

If it's a mount/AC doing the charging then, per the spell text (just checked the PRD, still there in PF), it must be Handle Animaled. Either easily w/ the approp. trick or pushed w/o.

Amrel wrote:

The text states that you are "affected as though by the dimensional anchor spell for 1 round."

If someone casts a spell on you and you make a save, then the spell doesn't affect you (or at least not fully). If someone casts a spell on you and your SR kicks in and the spell does not beat it, then the spell doesn't affect you. Since the text says you are affected, it seems as though the wording has already bypassed the saving throw and the SR.

If the rules instead stated that you are "affected as though the spell dimensional anchor had been cast upon you for 1 round" then I could see an argument for a player getting SR and a save.


Also how I first read the RAW and for balance/common sense reasons that all but has to be RAI.
... but FAQing too, just in case.

Iterative, I can think of no way with a PC that hasn't been mentioned. The only other thing I can think of even like that is Animal Companions by their rules can get a 2nd iterative attack of a main attack if they have no secondary attacks. However that's strictly for AC's as far as I know. Otherwise Rodinia already listed most of what I was going to say... Haste and Blessing of Fervor, Speed on an AoMF, AoO's (maybe w/ [teamwork]feats that provoke them) and reach.

NobodysHome wrote:

Oh, yeah, she'll take the AoO...

Again, confirm that first, I tried to note in the last post that that step varies. If the climber is unarmed (climb skill w/o using both hands takes a penalty IIRC) and lacks Imp Unarmed feat, and lacks a nat. weapon or a class feature or something, it's possible she won't even risk that. The climber may not threaten to exploit the AoO trigger.

RAW, it would not effect them any differently, the spell works exactly as it says it does and neither the creature or the spell receive any special auto success, bonus, penalty, or immunity.

Anything beyond that is HR forum territory.

.5) Azata may* face attack of opportunity w/o improved grapple feat.

*(Unlikely from most humanoids climbing w both hands but not impossible with some racial abilities, gear, feats, and classes out there)

Looking at the feat on the PRD now. Untyped, not Enhancement. As MP, Throne, Lazar, and Gisher(x2) have said, as long as they're activated on separate turns, they appear to stack just fine.

RumpinRufus wrote:
... Um, many of the things Prestidigitation does are functional, not cosmetic. ... so if you think that is enough to jam a gun, I think that's very reasonable (and creative.) But, like I said, rules on line of effect and range still apply.

See my above post. Ninja'd you.

You can be creative within the rules you don't need to make a 0 level spell of arguably the most powerful classes even better, see my "very limited wish" point, to be creative. Grease shouldn't be allowed to be set on fire either (and can't by RAW), for example. Creative use? Sure. Not supported by the rules though any more than, say, "I jump on the dragons head and stab his brain through his eye so he dies". Melee classes can't just do that, so spell casting classes shouldn't just get even more of a bye on breaking reality.

So I'll admit, IMO, I don't think the texts supports your interpretation, I explained why above, however I also think you balanced it with another factor so fine at your table. As I first stated this is GM call so I won't debate this with other people. You'd be wrong, I'd be wrong, because there is no absolute beyond what a players GM says. This, like how to use Freedom of Movement, is not one that can be concretely argued. All I can say is I think the available evidence we can try and draw from says no, that takes the spell too far.

xenlev wrote:

"Cosmetic not functional"

That is the descriptor I was looking for right there. Case closed.

Yup, I did oversimplify it a little but not by much. While technically there is some functional use to, say, creating candle light. However the writing of Prestidigitation is clear on "more limited, less powerful". Any functional use should be BARELY functional (no more than examples like lifting only one pound, with poor control/only slowly up and down, no more than 10 feet away.)

Giving it even, say, a 5% chance to stop a Gunslinger, when the wizard and his allies already let him get that close to the wizard, is almost unquestionably beyond the scope. That's equivalent to a plus one functional bonus. Probably better since it requires the gun to then be cleaned. That's almost unarguably, for non munchkins it probably is unarguably, beyond the scope of an unlimited use cantrip.

You could make the firearm look crappy. It is very doubtful you could clog any of the internal mechanism.

While prestidigitation leaves room for interpretation, so RAW it's GMs call and table variation may occur, what you are describing is generally considered beyond the scope of the spell.
[Edit: ... and if a GM did allow it, I think Rumpin has the right idea. Ie, only allow it with a significant balancing factor]

Cantrips are very limited, particularly that spell. It does cosmetic things not functional. It's written and is generally ruled on in a way that when in doubt, No.
[Edit: otherwise it becomes a very (very) limited version of limited wish... which would still be at least a first level spell not a cantrip.]

Trazom wrote:

Does the new Arcanist class, in the Adv Class Guide, need to prepare spells daily or CAN they "carryover" to the next day? This would be a nice feature in case the spell bool is lost. Also it keeps the ability to change "spells known" as needed or not.

Readdressing this question now that the ACG has been released.

The wording is...

"An arcanist must choose and prepare her spells ahead of time by getting 8 hours of sleep and spending 1 hour studying her spellbook. While studying, the arcanist decides what spells to prepare and refreshes her available spell slots for the day."

... with the RAW finalized is the concensus still that spells prepared from the previous day carryover or are the spells prepared something that needs to be redone every day even if selecting the same spells?

Minsc&Boo wrote:

Problem is I'm not sure what the other people are rolling. I want to say (with 75% certainty) we'll have a druid. I think one guy rolled one while another did a cleric. Not sure at all

Then, for the reasons I recommended above, I'd say cut your teeth on the default Summoner class first. Just make sure to read up on the Summoner guides and threads around here to make sure you build your eidolon correctly and powerfully (and so you learn some of the tricks your battlefield control spells offer, a 2nd forte of the summoner class). It should give you everything you want.

Again take of that what you will but I don't think you'll regret. There are some butch, legal, Eidolon builds floating around here. Plus the buff spells are great and learning battlefield control is one of the core values of learning to play a good caster. Combined with teleportation and other spells you'll get you will rarely find yourself feeling weak or with nothing to do.

Minsc&Boo wrote:

I believe we'll have. ...

1 Ranger
2 (?) Sorcerers

I know there are gonna be 4-5 people (minus DM).
The DM said he didn't mind what classes we rolled as long as we were satisfied with them.

I would honestly, for what you want, recommend stock Summoner.(*) with default Summoner...

Your Eidolon can rock in combat 9/10 (many threads/guides around here on that).
You get standard action summons in a pinch.
You'll get to master buff spells and battlefield control spells as a caster while your Eidolon/summons are doing the above, learning the game without having the overload of a full (esp. prepared) casters potential 'option paralysis'.
You won't be too squishy yourself.
Starting around SMV you'll gain some healing from SM, that group make up could use it.

(*) Edit: Unless you're willing to hold back what you want a bit to help the group... then I'd recommend Druid with a powerful animal companion as a 2nd best choice, loading the occasionally heal spell for emergencies, a little less what you wanted but that group, unless a Sorc changes to an Oracle or something, is lacking divine mojo.

Once you've cut your teeth on that, next time consider a Druid, Cleric, Wizard, or Master Summoner. That way by the time you expand your options and powers you've already gained some system master over running it and you'll take CONSIDERABLY less time running multiple creatures or using many spell types.

Take of that what you will though, and good luck whichever way you pick.

Minsc&Boo wrote:
Interesting. I'm leaning towards Master Summoner right now. It sounds like my type of class. As much as I like SNA on the Suarian Druid, SM can summon dinos as well (from what I read, could be wrong). I do like the idea of standing in the back line, summoning a monster for a particular battle and then running around buffing people. Wjich it seems the Master Summoner can do fairly well.

If it hasn't been asked or stated (I didn't see it in a quick browse but might have missed it), How many players total will be in this game?

If you've got 3 or more fellow players at the table, and the GMs turn of course, I cannot recommend strongly enough, for out of game reasons, reconsidering Master Summoner to something else.

As a matter of courtesy, if you have several other players, it's usually best to focus on having just one big pet to contribute. Especially if you're new enough to be having to ask these questions. Even a veteran player who knows stats and rules by heart is hard pressed not to easily triple their turn time if they go Master Summoner.

When your dice rolling is 2/3 of every combat turn, and with combat being such a big part of 3.X/PF, and the other 1/3 still has to be divided amongst 4 other people, that's probably a fun killer.

Melkiador wrote:
If you are just comparing summon monster to summon natures ally then it's generally accepted that summon monster is superior. Personally I think the lists are close enough that it's more about how the rest of the class functions.

It's really more "quantifiable fact" then just "generally accepted", Summon Monster beats out Summon Natures Ally 19 times of 20. SNA was changed to be 'beat stick/meat shield' only in PF, at least functionally, and even at that role it's only on par at best (only briefly having a lead at V and occasionally VI thanks to Cyclops). While some SNA choice have unique abilities or a handful of spells or spell like abilities they are not a noticeable fraction of what the spells, spell like abilities, and special abilities of the SM summons can do [Mass Lantern beams or Bralani lightning, the various powers SM VI brings (innate True Seeing, Bardic abilities, Dominate Person, sooooo many good ones that level), Bebilith armor rip, Heal spell on SM IXs, etc]. In addition, the templates to animals, Dire Tiger and Tyrano in particular shine, and DR on almost everything means even in the beat stick role SM generally has the edge (and can always fall back on the exact same Elementals as SNA has if the foe requires something Neutral).

That said, total agreement you have to take the spells in relation to the class as a whole. Standard action summons is incredible... but more incredible then everything else Wiz/Cler/etc get? Probably not. SNA is behind even as beat stick yeah... but also given to the class that can easily have a full strength animal companion of any type up all the time.

nighttree wrote:

The Cannibal Barbarian Archetype requires that the first rage power you take be Animal Fury (to gain a bite attack)....

If the character race being played already has a bite there any harm in ignoring the requirement ?

More a house rule question than a rules question, as the Raging Cannibal rules state unambiguously you must take the rage power, not just you must have a bite attack, it's fairly clear by RAW the answer is no you can't exchange it.

Approaching it from a house rule stand point on any harm... it depends. As FrozenLaughs pointed out, it could put the character ahead on other powers or power chains and that could lead to an advantage. If the rest of the group is an unoptimized Rogue, Monk, and Fighter that could be noticeable eventually. If the rest of the group is a Druid, a Wizard, and a Summoner that could be less than a drop in a very large bucket so help the poor Barbarian out. If the group has a lot of synergy everyone benefits so no harm no foul. If the group has a lot of internal conflict or competition within roles that could be an unfair, if slight, edge. YMMV. If the rest of the group doesn't care though it's probably not something that's going to break the game.


Congratulations to us all on breaking *500* F.A.Q. Requests, a first on these forums. :D

Everyone give themselves a pat on the back. ;)


Prux wrote:

Are there any alignment restrictions for the summon monster spells? For example, can an evil aligned Conjuror summon Hound Archons (which are LG).


To the original questions specifically,

1) The Summon Monster line has no inherent restriction in it, however it can have an alignment descriptor depending on what you summon and some classes do further restrict that.

2) Assuming by "evil aligned Conjuror" you are referring to a Conjuration school specialized Wizard, Yes, he may summon a Hound Archon . They have no alignment restrictions on what they can cast.

Karjak Rustscale wrote:

Actually Clerics and ofher classes with alignment based castig restrictions cannot cast summon monster if the monster ia of an opposite alignment. LG cannot summon chaotic or evil monsters (and definitely not chaotic evil monsters)

Wizards, summoners and all the other classes are fine to conjure whatever creature they wish to..

To the overall concept here,

You are close but slightly misunderstood it.

Some casters, Clerics for example, can't cast spells of opposing alignments. A spells alignment, if it has one (most don't), is defined by the spells alignment descriptor. The Summon X lines of spells are only given alignment descriptors if the creature summoned has an Alignment Subtype. That is not the same as their alignment, though it is related, it is a subtype of creature they are.
Regarding the Summon X lines, the subtypes of creatures summoned are listed with the spell or in the spell description for ease of reference.

While not as important with Summon Monster that distinction becomes particularly important with the Summon Nature's Ally line. Creatures like the Cyclops or Fire Giant, while evil, aren't innately (subtype) Evil so don't trigger the ban so Good Druids can summon them. Nor in the opposite direction would the Pixie since, while good, it is not innately (subtype) Good.

Short version
Some classes do have alignment restrictions
*As it applies to the Summon X lines of spells...
Creature 'alignment' isn't what matters
Creature 'Alignment Subtype' is what matters because subtype activates the spell descriptor which applies the class ban.

*(edit: That is also an important distinction, some abilities in game DO function off of alignment not alignment subtype. This is just not one of them.)

Desmond Shannon 762 wrote:
Out of curiousity, If you have the Eldritch Heritage ( Arcane ) feat and want a 7th level familiar, Do you have to wait till you are 9th level? ( Since its character level-2?) Im sure there is a post on it somewhere but damn if I can find it.

Wait until L9.

Rule wise, Improved Familiar tells you to use your level in the arcane spell caster class (in reference to what gave you the familiar, feat is in Core). Eldritch Heritage tells you for the benefits it gives you that is your character level -2. So, 7th level req. familiars via IF aren't available with EH(A) as the base until character level 9.

... and Merry Christmas/Happy Holidays all.

Ed Reppert wrote:
This is one of the most ridiculous threads, on any subject, that I've ever seen anywhere.

The conviction level of certain people on each side is certainly... noteworthy sounds polite.

TriOmegaZero wrote:
I'm just kicking back and waiting to see if a developer corrects anyone.

Word, and Dotting. I think one side might have slightly stronger RAW and one side might have slightly stronger RAI but I wouldn't call either side clear on either, and I definitely don't think it matters enough to get into a knife fight over, so while I know which one I'd lean if I had to make an on-spot ruling I'm otherwise just chalking it up to "expect table variation" until/unless the P-DT weights in.

Piccolo wrote:

Actually, the Ring of Improved Invisibility is in the rules, it's just not premade and ready in the book.

Partially true as you've had pointed out to you in that thread, the Ring of Invisibility has a markup not detailed in the rules and the rules tell you as a GM when allowing new items to apply common sense (lol ninja'd by Wraithstrike, who said it better) as some will come out stronger, or potentially weaker, than the math might apply. How you allow those two to combine when you allow a ring of Improved invisibility is outside the rules.

Anyway, I have no dog in the fight of either of your posts. I was just pointing out if you want discussion as to how to do things that aren't cleanly in (i.e. this) or aren't clearly in (i.e. the ring) the rules then there is another forum here made specifically to focus on those issues. That forum, and the Advice forum, has some overlap with here but how you use that is up to you (unless the mods move it for you). Just know in this forum many will just say "it's not in the rules", because that is the correct rules answer in the rules question forum, where as in the other forums people will be posting solely to help you find a way to make it work.

Jeff Morse wrote:
when determining CR for the bad guy it is level -1 unless they have wealth equal to PC and than it is level = CR. So 6th level PC druid would have SR12

This seems correct to me on a glance. We know the PC's HD. We know the conversion rate of PC levels to CR. We apply the template math from there.

Azten wrote:
If the Celestial template called out racial hit dice you'd be correct. Since it doesn't, a level 5 druid would get everything a 5 HD bear would get.


Dave Justus wrote:

... However the only one of those abilities you get is darkvision from wild shaping.

The feat says "add the celestial template or fiendish template to your animal form" not the animals form. It tells you to add the template to your new form, not to the form of the creature you're basing it on. That is an important distinction.

You are not adding template to the creature then changing forms. You are changing forms to the creature then adding template to your new form.

So you gain everything the template adds (DR, resists, vision, smite, anything else I'm forgetting).

As a Rules Question, similar to what happened when people tried to argue they wanted to further enchant a Black Blade, the charts will lack compatibility, the answer will be Leadership can't be applied to a Familiar/Improved Familiar because the rules don't allow for it.

Piccolo, I've noticed your last "Rules Question" threads (this and ring of impr. invisibility) ask how to do things that aren't clearly/cleanly present in the rules. Just wanted to point out to you that there is a "Suggestions/House Rule/Homebrew" Forum around here for just that, where you can discuss with people how to do things 'outside the box'.

Undead are immune to all mind affecting effects, etc. Don't have time to look up the exact wording at the moment but that is probably a barrier to the HoOA.

Saying what's already been said but Reduce Person does not give a bonus... directly. However the Stealth and Fly rules give the bonus and they state what size gives what effect while putting no limits on how the size was achieved.

Those are in the RAW, Dev adjudication shouldn't be needed. Any player arguing otherwise needs to explain where is their rules exception to the skill rules, saying it isn't in the spell doesn't change it is in the skill rules and the spell provided no exemption to them, if they can't point to an exception then they follow the skills rules.

Bumping this as I see it came up being debated in another thread again.

I do think by RAW it is already not allowed, not only for the Sylvan as an archtype discussion but also because Eldritch Heritage does not give you the Arcana and it states it counts as an Arcana. The wording of the bloodline stops you. You can't take it as you can't make that trade in. [Just as you can't stack two archtypes that change the same power because one has already taken it away before it could be traded for the other]. If you've got a quarter and something costs a dollar twenty five you can't buy it just because you have the quarter and technically that's part of it.

However as it will just not die here, i do acknowledge the wording has a tiny bit of ambiguity and it's just too tempting of an option (esp. now post "Boon Companion") for people to not keep trying to go after without someone on high saying no, Bump.

Dafydd wrote:

That is their choice. HOWEVER, this thread is specifically about the ELEMENTALS from Beastiary 2 (and any future elementals that use the same nomenclature, ie small Steam Elementals).


wraithstrike wrote:
Are the bestiary 1 elementals such as the fire, water, earth, and air, elementals the only ones allowed to be summoned with the summon monster and nature's ally spells?

One of the problems I have with the questions phrasing is it is kind of loaded to one viewpoint of this.

There really are three options.

+The Core/B1 list + B2 Elementals they are okay with as it's balanced as is and not worth changing [as it stands now]
+They just want the B1 list as that was really RAI they just forgot to toss a note into B2 or somewhere [what I believe Wraithstrike believes though I could be wrong]
+They want to include B2 AND future Elementals [which is asking them to judge now on things not even made yet]

I don't like that this question forces them into only 2 answers. They must answer yes to only B1 or Yes to everything to follow ever, it's phrased to not allow them to say "Yes to B1 and B2 Elementals, but no to anything else." (Which I still say their lack of response has made that their official answer currently).

I think the question should have been specific to the B2 elementals, allowing them to keep them RAW legal as they have been for years, while allowing them the option of excluding any further elementals with a tiny note in any future bestiaries or a rules errata or FAQ at such a time if it is needed.

So that is my issue, albeit maybe a minor one because they can reword the question if they need, choosing to phrase it this way, even if not deliberate, still takes out one option to lump a reasonable (and the current) option in with a riskier one in a way that favors the question in one direction.

Taenia wrote:

As I mentioned in the previous thread, SKR was quoted here as noting that the spell didn't include elementals outside the Bestiary.

Also in the other thread it was shown this was confirmed for PFS.

The summon monster spells are balanced based solely on the list provided in the Core rulebook and the Bestiary. Additional monsters only come by worshipping a specific god, and thus limited to adding a small number of monsters across the entire list, or picking up feats or items that add to the list.

If you want to change this for a home game go ahead, but the devs have spoken repeatedly about their intent.

And as we told you in the other thread, SKR making a private comment is not a rules source and PFS is not a rules source. If it doesn't come from the Design Team account or a FAQ/errata then it is the RAI of one Dev.

By RAW, There Is Currently No Question That Bestiary 2 Elemetnals Are Allowed. The wording clearly allows them as it is written.

If it didn't then society wouldn't have to state a house rule on it, as they go by RAW that would be redundant. They had to add that rule because as written the Bestiary 2 elementals are inclusive in the wording and after 4 years the developers have never felt the need to errata that out.

So in your home game you can ban them with your house rule.
In society they are prevented by society rules.
However in default Pathfinder, unless the Design Team or an update says otherwise, they are currently 100% RAW legal and it isn't even ambiguous (and RAI can be argued either way, you have a SKR offhand quote, we have 4 years of them as a team never changing it or officially taking a stance against it).

wraithstrike wrote:

... But I am also of the mind that you should write the rules to account for future rules whenever possible.

... then let's at least acknowledge their current lack of changing of the status quo might be the official answer to this (at least for now).

It can always be house ruled away.
PFS has society ruled it away.
In the future, if more elementals are made in Bestiary (insert number here) they can re-address it then. They may find it balanced enough now but want to reserve the right to change their mind in the future.

Right now though let's acknowledge that, unless this does get answered, and if it does obviously we'll go from there, 4 years of no change might be the answer as this is currently just about B1 and B2.

wraithstrike wrote:

The reason I did not state "Bestiary 2" elementals is because they might make more of them in another book. By asking the question in the manner that it is in the opening post it also covers future books, but you are correct. Currently it only applies to the bestiary 2 elementals.

Fair enough, though I will point out that next month is the 4 year anniversary of Bestiary 2 being published and in all that time nothing else has come up that would add to this question directly. When this is the same question for almost half a decade, and the RAW has remained unchanged and isn't unclear, then functionally, if admittedly not theoretically, this is just about that RAI.

wraithstrike wrote:
Rikkan wrote:

What about the invisible stalker from core?

It is a medium air elemental, can you summon it with summon nature's ally 4?
No. They(the spells) mean the Elementals such as the ones I listed, not any elemental that has the subtype.

Just for clarities sake, for any others that come to the thread and/or in case it needs to be stated, the other four being discussed are...

Ice Elementals
Lightening Elementals
Magma Elementals
Mud Elementals

...from Bestiary 2, as they share identical nomenclature with the Bestiary 1 elementals thus by RAW they are currently allowed but by RAI this question exists (as they'd be the only non-B1 creatures but that might also, by itself, not be a big deal).

Nothing else is being asked of the Dev's here as nothing else fits this criteria.

[wish we could edit that into the original question]

Rikkan wrote:

What about the invisible stalker from core?

It is a medium air elemental, can you summon it with summon nature's ally 4?

Only if you want to ignore the loaded nature of the question and pretend ["Elemental (Size)", specific-name-of-bestiary-creatures like every other summons] is the same as ["medium {size}" "air {subtype}" "elemental {subtype}", all separate size-and-subtype-notes, with the name of the creature never mentioned unlike every other summons on those lists].

If you can find someone to bite onto that go right ahead.

You get only the +2 in this case.

You get just what the spells and the polymorph rules in the spell rules (and any applicable size change rules) specifically say you get (or lose).

Anything else off the bestiary entry you do not get.

Bob Bob Bob wrote:
Dire wolf sells for 380 gp on the open market. Giant list of animals and their prices.

Okay, follow up question, what was their source for those numbers? I'm not seeing it where they usually list it. Is it buried in the Game Mastery Guide or a supplement somewhere?

[edit: and thanks again both of you, this is already enough for me to make educated guesses on]

Eltacolibre wrote:

According to Paizo, they are untamable but well as the GM, like they mentioned up to your discretion, you can have handle animal/wild empathy checks to prevent them from running away or hurting people randomly.

The basic price of a dire wolf (not trained or advanced) is 380 in someone just selling you a dire wolf.

Thanks for the help.

What I can probably do is see what the mark up is on known exotic mounts, from untamed to tamed, apply that to the 380g of the Dire Wolf.

Out of curiosity, where did you pull that 380gp from? That's the kind of numbers I was looking to go off of.
[Edit: Ninja'd, Just saw this...

Bob Bob Bob wrote:
Dire wolf sells for 380 gp on the open market. Giant list of animals and their prices.

... thanks!]

Yeah, this is definitely a home game not a PFS compliant one or pure RAW. It's close but some leeway has to be taken. The game is spanning years and some of the PCs have access to allies with Miracle/Wish who owe them a favor or three, the PCs themselves are cusping the high teens in level with redonkulous handle animal scores (they spent the skill points, one is talking about taking Skill Focus in it, I'm cool with rewarding that), I'm willing to humor a few generations of breeding and some judicious use of high level spells would make it a fun little idea if that's what they want. I mean at this point they have a few elite troops with PC classes in the level 7-8 range, not many but enough letting their forces have a few mounted cavalry with CR2-5 troops on only CR3-4 mounts won't break anything.

I've got some players in a higher level/longer term game who want to breed Dire Wolves and Dire Wolves w/ the Advanced template for use in their military forces and for sale to their allies.

They've got enough druidic and handle animal prowess their plan seems reasonable enough and they've got plenty of downtime in game.

Once they're done 'domesticating' (they are being bred/trained as military mounts) and training them, is there somewhere in the rules it gives me a way to calculate the value when they're sold? I thought there was but I'm not finding it at the moment.

If there is, anyone know offhand what the average sale value would be for a trained Dire Wolf mount and/or a trained Dire Wolf mount raised to the Advanced template?

Blakmane wrote:
... they will restrict it to core 4 only).

Yeah, if they're going to do that though I guess at least better to pull the band aid off quick so to speak. I'd call it 50/50 at best, simplicity of books would side with rewording to just the B1 four but, since as RAW stands the B2 four are usable, any wording errata to exclude B2 might require some edit to the CRB text and they've said they're loathe to do that. Because of that, this might get to be the one exception that stays. Here's hoping. S:NA could use it. If not oh well. It's only a small nudge either way as far as balance or simplicity is concerned, nothing breaks either way, this is a molehill not a mountain (probably hence why it hasn't been addressed so far).

RumpinRufus wrote:

My reasoning being, I could invest a whole lot of resources into getting a reasonable AC but I'd probably still be hit by anything that isn't an iterative, or I could just invest elsewhere and embrace the squishy.


What do you think, is it suicidal to go for no AC, even with massive healing powers?

I would say you can minimize AC safely, if you take other measures, but totally disregarding isn't an ideal idea.

There will come a point when the tiny return you get by not using them in comparison to your overall WBL won't get you as much as their added safety would so don't tank it altogether.

For example, use +1 items (armor, shields, rings, amulets) when you could (most players of your class/level would) be affording +2 or 3's is probably okay. Using none is probably going to fail to pay off in the long run.

"but I'd probably still be hit by anything that isn't an iterative"
This isn't necessarily true. While it probably holds true vs. the big (melee) bads anyone who isn't a front line combat build should fair poorly by that hit/AC comparison and be needing tricks other than AC, that's good game balance and deliberate. In those fights your combat characters should be keeping those things off you (and distracted by their DPS or special abilities)with smart battlefield positioning and good use of battlefield control spells and abilities.

Your AC as a support character comes in handy when it's lots of mooks, those times your combat PCs can't possibly keep things off you the whole fight. Even 2 or 3 small mooks on you can eat through mirror images or negate the advantage of displacement effects quick and you'll be glad you had some AC too. Those are the foes most likely to be on you uninterrupted as well, when your meat shields are tied up by something bigger or sheer numbers.

You said L11, let's look at a theoretical CR12 encounter.
Two Frost Giants (CR 9 each)
Eight Ogre followers (CR 9 together IIRC)

Yes the Frost Giants are going to auto hit you but your melee characers and/or summons should be keeping them busy. Those Ogres, who are likely to have at least two or more break free to come for you, just too many for 2-3 meleers in a standard party to completely tie up, are only sporting a +7 to hit. The trivial cost at L11 it would take you to get say an AC of 16 over an AC of 11 is translating to a 25% reduced chance of being hit by then. A mere AC of 18 and you'd have dropped them into the 50/50% hit chance range. That might be the time you need for your more fighty characters to wrap up the rest and get to you, and can be enough to keep you casting despite being hit at.

Dafydd wrote:
I will also point out, we have not seen a single elemental since Beastiary 2. Admittedly, there are not really many more they could do. (steam and sandstorm perhaps, and the abstract ones like gravity and time that 3pp have made)

Yeah, I don't think this is a balance issue. They're still generally the low CR for their summon level and SM still has better options (mass summoning Lanterns, mass summoning Bralani's for group lightening shots, Succubus and Lillend shenanigans, the Cleric in a bottle of SM IX) while SN was mildly nerfed in PF and a little love would kind of balance it a bit in the right direction for summoning focused Druids who aren't as close to their shtick in the era of Summoners.

I do concede that the other side has RAI points though, and it also isn't like SN would be weak if they ruled core 4 only (Earth is still by far the best in most generic cases and Air would be #2 or #3 even if you had all 8).

I've wondered if in that new release... Pathfinder Unchained is it? ... which is like a Pathfinder.5, redoing and adding options to the older stuff... if maybe they're planning on adding new or optional summoning lists for SM and SNA?

That could explain why they're holding off now, if they did that then after it comes out they could officially rule "Core RAW is Bestiary 1 only", while then handing us through Unchained updated/expanded/diverse summon lists, or better yet options for a caster to customize his list, to make the other side happy too.

... and if they're not doing that, they should do that then give me a tiny credit for the idea in the "special thank's". ;)

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I would have phrased it "Can the Bestiary 2 Elementals be summoned by the Summons Monster and Summon Natures Ally spells" but I imagine we're hoping for different outcomes. ;)

Reposted (with slight editing for this thread) from the thread that started this...


As it currently stands...

default Pathfinder - Yes to Bestiary 2 elementals, by RAW they are allowed, no ruling, FAQ, or Errata has ever been issued saying otherwise.*
*(Yes SKR posted about it once, the original question he was answering was something else this was related, however if it didn't come from the Design Team account (or I guess maybe Bulmahn as lead) then that's still only RAI until one of those two verify it. That was the whole big hubbalo when they moved to this system, any other sources haven't ever been and aren't official rulings.)

PFS - No to Bestiary 2 elementals, by specific system rule
(The fact PFS has to make a specific rule about it tells you what they consider the default to be. If the rules didn't allow as written the Bestiary 2 elementals PFS wouldn't have to include a clause.)

Houserules - YMMV

I agree with FAQ'ing however it's been flagged before, I remember this coming up a few times a year since at least 2011, they've chosen not to address it. Cool if they finally do, though I hate to see the already nerfed SNA list nerfed more, it (kind of) needed this more than SM, but I'm not holding my breath.

I suspect they've been deliberately leaving it as a semi-ambiguous GM call in everyone's own games.

Right now, a GM can say Yes to it and he's got RAW on his side.
Right now, a GM can say No to it, and he's got some RAI and PFS's system rules on his side.

Basically if they let it stand as is everyone can be happy and sort of right.
My guess is that's why it's been deliberately back burnered, especially over other FAQs which were needed for rules paradox, current rules disfunction, or balance reasons (which this is none of).

As it currently stands...

default Pathfinder - Yes to Bestiary 2 elementals, by RAW they are allowed, no ruling, FAQ, or Errata has ever been issued saying otherwise

PFS - No to Bestiary 2 elementals, by specific system rule

Houserules - YMMV

Taenia wrote:
SKR was quoted here as noting that the spell didn't include elementals outside the Bestiary because that would expand the list every time a new book came out.

If it didn't come from the Design Team account (or I guess maybe Bulmahn as lead) then it's still only RAI until one of those two verify it. That was the whole big hubbalo when they moved to this system.

The fact PFS has to make a specific rule about it tells you what even they consider the default to be. If the rules didn't allow as written the Bestiary 2 elementals PFS wouldn't have to include a clause.

wraithstrike wrote:

I will FAQ it. That is something that needs to be in writing if that is the case.

I agree with FAQ'ing however it's been flagged before, I remember this coming up a few times a year since at least 2012, they've chosen not to address it [ Edit: I see you made a formal post on the issue, will take the discussion there, maybe this time's the charm. :) ]. I hope they finally do, though I hate to see the already nerfed SNA list nerfed more, but I'm not holding my breath. I suspect they've been doing it to deliberately leave it as a semi-ambiguous GM call in everyone's own games.

Right now, a GM can say Yes to it and he's got RAW on his side.
Right now, a GM can say No to it, and he's got some RAI and PFS's system rules on his side.
Basically everyone can be happy and sort of right.
My guess is that's why it's been deliberately back burnered.

Pathfinder is ambiguous with exact space because of it's combat system.
Your character is somewhere within it's 5 foot squares immediate area but you are assumed to occupy the whole square for functional purposes (why various rules allow drawing lines from any corner).

X= characters square, O= empty square

XX = two adjacent characters and the game considers you touching, literally this is base touch attack range, and not any distance apart from one another
[there are a few ways to be closer than this, to share a square/overlap, in game but all I know of have special rules explaining how they work]

XOX = two characters 5 feet apart
[a reach weapon of 10 foot reach attacks two squares away, one of which is not the target square]

XOOX = two characters 10 feet apart
[if you moved the two squares you would have moved "at least" 10 feet, and thus you had met Charge's minimum, and would be adjacent to (0 distance between), not in the square with, the target.]

The bonus would be +5.

While the levels do stack to determine what your level for the ability is, so your max would be 10 as your combined levels in classes with it are 10, you would need a +10 Int bonus as well in order to get that.

As your bonus is currently only +5 that is all you get until you raise that.

1 to 50 of 438 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>