Hi all, Reading several previous posts regarding witches "feeding" scroll soups to their familiars to add new (Wizard) spells, I was wondering if a similar mechanic existed for Half-Elf Bonded Witches, allow me to illustrate: My level 12 Half-Elf Bonded Winter Witch has acquired a high-powered Wizard's spellbook containing all Arcane spells in the Core rules up to Level 6 (RoTRL Part 4). Given she has no familiar and relies on her bonded item (ring), what is the clear mechanic for the Bonded Witch to "add" spells from the acquired spellbook into her bonded item ? Would she be able to commune scrolls scribed from the spellbook into her bonded item (ie. akin to a familiar's scroll "soup") or is there another method of achieving this ? Many thanks for all your pointers.
Katydid wrote:
Hi Katydid, completely concur. That's my understanding too. On an added note, here's a curveball for you all: the DM in the Campaign in question, has allowed another player to use the old 3.5 feat; Arcane Thesis which essentially allowed you to cast spells as though they were were at Caster Level +2 AND apply a -1 spell level reduction PER Metamagic Feat applied. IMHO the original ruling of this feat is broken else you could apply 4 Metamagic feats to a Scorching Ray and cast it as something insane like a Level 5 spell. Although I heard there was a revised errata for the Player's Handbook II (between 2007 and 2009) which effectively nerfed Arcane Thesis down to "-1 *total* spell level reduction, regardless of the number of Metamagic feats applied" bringing it more in line with the effects of Magical Lineage. Any thoughts on how that would work with either a Max'ed and Emp'ed Scorching Ray or Fireball (at say, a given Caster Level) ?
A player with a Level 7 Sorcerer with Metamagic Master and Magical Lineage wants to cast a Maximised and Empowered Scorching Ray. His argument is that the Base Level is 2, plus 3 for maximised, plus 2 for empowered. Total modifier equivalent to a Level 7 spell. But, Metamagic Master allows him to reduce the total spell level by 1 for EACH Metamagic feat used, plus the SAME again for Magical Lineage resulting in a total spell level of 3 (thus castable at Level 7). I know he's wrong but I'm trying to decipher the rules so that I can explain how he is wrong. Also, his math regarding the damage dealt seems odd. He is claiming each Scorching Ray (he can cast 2 at Level 7) can deal 49 pts of damage, which again to me sounds wrong. I think it should be 4d6, empowered to 4d9 and then maximized to result in 36 damage per each Ray, maximum. I am not aware of any other Sorceror Class abilities nor Feats that could increase this damage, unless he has some fire-affecting abilities that I'm not aware of. Any tips on how to calculate getting out of this 'tangle', would be greatly appreciated. Thanks all !
Great, many thanks Ckorik. Just one question guys; I am very interested in the Cape of Free Will (the 1,500 GP version). Given this is a Mythic Item which normally requires the creator to possess the Mythic Crafter feat, in my DM's homebrew campaign, how would I go about suggesting to him that my Level 6 Sword Saint wishes to purchase this item in his setting ? For example, could I suggest to him that the creator of said item has simply imbued a greater degree of Will protection into the item creation, thereby increasing the material cost of creation and forgoe the Mythic Crafter feat requirement, such that it could be purchased over the counter in "Ye Olde Magick Shoppe" ?
ZanThrax wrote:
Yeah, sorry Zan. The Wakis are Masterwork...oops, forgot to mention. Trust that returns the iteratives to those I had in my post originally (ie. +11/+11/+6/+6). Speak again soon.
Hello all, Apologies for re-hashing the same old 2WF question again but just wanted to check with you my logic is sound: Level 6 Samurai (Sword Saint). 20 Str with Wakizashis both hands and Weapon Focus (Waki). Has 2WF and I2WF. Is this correct: Attack 1: primary hand (first base attack up to lvl 5)
Attack 2: off hand (2WF)
Attack 3: primary hand (extra base attack at level 6)
Attack 4: off hand (I2WF)
Looking forward to hearing your agreements or clarifications. All the best. Hex
GeraintElberion wrote: If this was a UK forum then 'bastard' would be censored in the same way that 't*+%', 's@!&' and 'wanker' would be. Er, no. Not necessarily. It all depends on context. Automatic censoring page scanning apps may delete the word/post from some types of public/commercial channels, such as a banking forum etc. If it's a manually moderated channel, then it depends on context. For example, if someone said "You're a f****g bastard" then this would most surely be censored/deleted. However, if someone said "the son of George the Second was considered a bastard" than this probably wouldn't be. It all depends on context.
Abraham spalding wrote:
Phantom Steed (bard 3, magus 3, sorcerer/wizard 3, summoner 2) is not on the Witch's spell list...
F. Wesley Schneider wrote:
Perhaps, but Frostburn was an *excellent* 3.5e splattbook, possibly one of THE best accessories WoTC published. IMHO, if anyone is intending to release a "cold"-themed accessory, it really should be taking a leaf out of Frostburn (no pun intended) and besides, I'm sure players *want* more cold-themed class options, PrCs, spells, equipment, monsters, locations etc, so why curtail all that possibility on the grounds that "In other words, Zoobooks not Encyclopedia Britannica, surgical not comprehensive". Weight, cost and production time are not an issue. If there is sufficient comprehensive material, the fans will wait for the production time and happily accept the cost and weight of the product...Am I missing something ?
James Jacobs wrote: This book, like ALL of our "Revisited" books, will focus on the monster, NOT on player options. No giant bloodlines or anything like that, in other words. Hi James, That's an interesting point and it begs the question; will Paizo be considering the re-introduction of the concept of "Level Adjustment" for players wishing to play races which are already over-powered at Character Level 1 ? If so, I assume that would open the door to a host of tasty racial options (eg. Giants etc.). Alex (The Hex)
In Seekers of Secrets (page 51) there are rules for generating resonance powers when placing an Ioun stone in a Wayfinder. Can anyone explain where does the rules text from this source explicitly state that you CANNOT use cracked (or flawed) Ioun stones using Method 1 resonance detection. As I understand it, I cannot read where it explicitly states this is NOT possible but I would like someone to show me if I am wrong (or not). PS: I know the rules on this are explicit for PFS play but I want to know for a "normal" campaign. Someone on another thread has suggested that there is a 25% chance of detecting resonance powers in a cracked Ioun Stone but I cannot find this rule in any PFRPG source. Many thanks for any clarifications.
On the same note, the rulebook is quite clear, it specifically states; "domain powers AND abilities". Correct me if i'm wrong but a Cleric's Channel Energy class feature is an *ability* and should therefore stack with levels of Inquisitor. Furthermore, do levels of Cleric and Inquisitor stack for the purposes of determining Judgement bonuses ? Again, if this is considered an *ability* then why not...?
ZangRavnos wrote:
Funnily enough, I'm playing this (currently 4th ECL) build as we speak. I've got a male human, Cleric 3 (for the 2d6 Channel Smite), now Justicar (Inquis archetype) 1 rising to Justicar 5 (to get Bane) and then Holy Vind all the way. Works very nicely indeed. Take the 3rd party feats "Lasting Judgement (Healing)" (150 HP inside 15 mins) and "Judgement Focus (Destruction)" for some fun (if your DM will allow them) ! |