Search Posts
Admonishing Ray:
You blast your enemies with rays of nonlethal force. You may fire one ray, plus one additional ray for every four levels you possess beyond 3rd (to a maximum of three rays at 11th level). Each ray requires a ranged touch attack to hit and deals 4d6 points of nonlethal damage. This is a force effect. The rays may be fired at the same or different targets, but all rays must be fired simultaneously and aimed at targets within 30 feet of each other.
The rays hit about as hard as a punch from a strong adult human, and can knock away unattended objects weighing up to 10 pounds if that amount of force could normally do so.
Can you damage undead with it as well in that way using elemental damage?
Elemental Spell: Elemental Spell (Metamagic)
You can manipulate the elemental nature of your spells. Benefit: Choose one energy type: acid, cold, electricity, or fire. You may replace a spell’s normal damage with that energy type or split the spell’s damage, so that half is of that energy type and half is of its normal type. Level Increase: +1 (an elemental spell uses up a spell slot one level higher than the spell’s actual level.) Special: You can gain this feat multiple times. Each time you must choose a different energy type.
Bracer of Armor don't "require" the use of Mage Armor. Unlike bracers of armor, mage armor can be cast on somebody wearing armor, like Quilted Cloth. Although 2 AC Bracers of Armor would remove all benefits from Quilted Cloth armor, Mage Armor would not.Bracers of armor allow you to pretty much enchant the 0 AC you get naturally, clothed or not. The effect created is similar. Mage Armor and Bracers of armor compete for the same "space" but do 2 different things. The effect created seems a legal target for Magic Vestment, but I am naturally drawn to seeing the Armor bonus from BOA as an enhancement bonus itself, even though the text never calls the bonus enhancement. I wouldn't mind seeing an enhancement bonus on the effect of the bracers, just because of the heavy cost of the armor. The text also says "as though he were wearing armor" which also says "which he isn't" referring to the words "armor" or "wearing" or both.
No, because armors are listed on the equipment table under "armor," that's how we know they are armor. If it isn't on the table under "armor" then in order to count as armor it needs to explicitly state, "this effect counts as armor." If I call something armor, doesn't that explicitly mean what you need to see. There is no mundane armor list, but you can put 2 and 2 together and say what they mean.
How good does a mimic have to be to be considered what it mimics. The last difference mimicked may create a copy on an object made by different materials, but if all the effects are still there, and all the logic that follows as well, who is to say that the mimic is not now a kind of thing the mimicked thing is. Unless a mimic by definition cannot ever be the thing it mimics. Then you won your argument by making it as it is kind of circular. IF you mimic an argument, you are not making one, for if only you didn't mimic one, you'd be making one. lol JK
Can you sunder Mage Armor? If not, I do not believe it can count as armor. Can you see mage armor? And if you can, all the rules can apply to the material you "hit" with the sunder attempt. Sunder is a CMD stat based CM. It has no connection to the type of armor. So YES, you can. You just have to know it is there before any other rational choices, like sundering armor can be made, and then, fields of force may self repair or have incredible hardness. It is up to the design team to decide what the hardness of the force "material" is and the HP per whatever. We all know what happens to destroyed magical/wondrous items.
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic-items/wondrous-items/wondrous-items/c-d/claws -of-the-ice-bear
Claws of the Ice Bear:
Strapped to the hands, these spiked climbing claws grant a +2 competence bonus on Climb checks and Acrobatics checks made when using both hands to aid in movement, and allow the wearer to ignore the normal penalties on those skills for slippery or icy surfaces. In addition, up to 3 times per day, the wearer can activate the claws as a swift action to gain the benefits of spider climb for 1 round. The wearer cannot hold anything else in her hands while using claws of the ice bear. If used as a weapon, claws of the ice bear function as spiked gauntlets. A few questions. First, are these considered weapons as well? Second, what would be considered "using" in the "cannot hold anything else in her hands while using"? As in, can I cast a spell if I am wearing them and not "using" them? Third, if wearing=using, can I rotate the strap so that the spikes are not in my palm, but more like where a spiked gauntlet spikes would be, and use that hand as a "cestus" to cast spells. And if not, how quickly can I remove a claw of the ice bear and put it back on? Thanks
Mage Armor has no spell resistance, so a spell targeting a physical phenomenon should not be so hard to grasp. I think we have addressed the not actual ("armor") by the fact that it is a conjuration spell that creates actual things, like acid and snow. Shield of Faith: Does not have the same privilege. Nor is it a force effect. (And shield you only cast on yourself [or share spells pet]) You can, if you just try, envision a piece of clothing made of force that adds 4 Armor AC. You just don't want to call magic=clothing because it isn't actual clothing? What is actual clothing? (your) skin? A 15th century bikini? cotton? fashion? (a tattoo/piercing?) paint? makeup? Who decides what is actually actual?
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/s/shield-of-faith Maybe the supernatural CAN create mundane things. The other armor spell creates a physical armor that is 100% exact replica of an "actual" in game armor! that is just as crappy as a real everything armor, oh wait... but it is made of force? What? Why? Imagination? Illusion?Actual? Still? What is reality in a dream? What happens when you wake up? Everybody knows that leather and rosewood is 2 and a haramaki is 1. Leaf Armor is made of leafs? That's not real/actual armor, everybody knows that, but look it wasn't created by a spell or should I say augmented? So what can you augment with a spell, unless you payed your 1000G to have it enchanted/enhanced permanently/legally? All legal permanency spells are there actual or not. Just because Mage armor does not have a cost other than a 1st level spell and a pearl of power for 18/24 hours at CL 9 and runs out while you sleep for 6 hours, doesn't mean that it isn't fairly permanent at CL 12(13). Which means that a spell targeting a spell is not something new and works the way that you'd expect. The only thing left now is to be willing to see clothes/armor and "tangible" fields of force as the same thing. It is just a will save, unless you find it non-harmless. It can be cast on anyone and grants protection that does not stack with other armor, just can't be increased in any way the way "normal" armor is meant to be increased. Is 5 AC Mage Armor overpowered at the cost of a 1st level spell and a 3rd level spell. 6 at CL 8 and 7 at CL 12? IDK it feels more expensive than the permanency of a level 3 spell. But what happens is that people don't want to see a "wizard" doing that. Sure, I know that if you see it happen, 1 extra DC against attacks would not be too much difference other than the value of that 5% decrease in the opponents accuracy. I am only guessing that the bonus to attack on enemies goes up as well as CL. But if you want to RAW it out, I don't see how you can live in a magical universe in any way where magic is better than brawn, because hey why should the wizard/monk get extra armor, not fair. I think that having to target "real/actual" armor/clothing should be met with "Can you please tell me what mage armor actually/really is?" just so I see it your way.
That isn't an armor bonus, it is an untyped bonus to armor class. Shoes are armor. All clothing is armor. You will be surprised how many scratches your clothes prevent, and worse things get reduced in danger. Since you can touch mage armor, you can enchant it. It's magic enchanting magic. And we all know magic is bs, but not in pathfinder, where you have to use your imagination. If you wanna talk about how things are worded and all that, try explain what d6 in damage feels like, or what it equates to in anatomical "reconstruction", or the blood on your weapon that has no real significance to all the numbers in the game (cause raw didn't tell you how that works). I just have to imagine the people writing/describing magical effects. I wonder what they go through before putting some of their imagination on paper. Explain to me what an "enhancement" bonus is to armor and how it works? How exactly does it get applied to your armor and why the armor is better? The best you are gonna come up with is some guy says something and touches it and it is magically better. Pull out your calculators. I see no reason why a force field cannot be enchanted in the same way. Obviously, logically speaking, if we consider only RAW, Mage Armor is a conjuration spell that creates a magical effect. This magical effect adds numbers the way a mundane item would. It is described as a different type of armor, but not as light, medium, or heavy. I would rather agree that MA IS armor that has no weight (therefore is one step below light) that moves with the "wearer" magically rather than just some numbers that affect the success/failure ratios of encounters/attempts. At the end of the day, the side you pick has to do more with your imagination or balance issues or with the ease that looking simply at RAW provides. If your imagination allows it, ok. If you think it is unbalanced, ok. But if you wanna just say that Mage Armor is not the same kind of armor as the type of armor that you know you can enchant, because RAW is not explicitly explicit about the interaction of these two spells or that mage armor is armor, then there really is no argument that will add the RAW you don't see, other than an FAQ answer. And this issue is too small for that kind of thing. I really for the life of me, cannot see how mage armor is not armor. I get the balance issue that armor bonuses don't stack, or the math would be too much, mage armor everywhere. I can even see that enchanting mage armor can have a balance issue. But flat out RAW didn't say that mage armor is armor is just a horrible argument. I would rather get something like "the magical essence of mage armor does not allow further magical manipulation." Again, the whole idea of enhancement bonus to items is just "pay" to get better things if we are not trying to enter a magical/mythical world where RAW provides the backbone to what we give flesh.
I am trying to picture a deaf oracle in the game. I can't seem to figure out if they can have intelligible speech/verbal communication. Sure they can still cast. But if sign language is the word, there will be some large amount (if not the whole lot) of NPC's that can't "speak" sign. I can see how your party would be more tolerable to your inability to communicate normally, but for the rest of the game, IDK. I mean, if able to talk as normal and only one skill to read lips, to be as good as anybody else, the benefit of silent casting would seem more playable than if you can't even speak from birth.
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/monster-listings/outsiders/devil/bearded It seems like a bearded devil can summon another bearded devil, and then that bearded devil another and so on. If you have to fight one more bearded devil each round things can get crazy. Hellknight Commanders can summon one at level 3. Does that mean that by doing so they can summon a whole infinite army of them for a limited time? Thanks
Right, so if you pay 6000GP to put a furious enchant on the Club, would you have a +5 club while you rage? |
