The Tea Elf's page

I was thinking about this item a lot. Wizards can still kill things better, so I think it's ok. :)

It's easier just to keep track of every purchase even if it's just a 1cp whetstone. At least I think it is easier, that way you don't have to wonder where everything went.

I even keep track of bribes and passages (like on a boat) with the inventory tracking sheet. That way I don't have to rummage through chronicle sheets trying to figure out where my money went.

I have two scenarios that have not been reported yet for my -1 character. It's the first and second scenarios I ever played so they're pretty old (a year or so). Is there anything that can be done about that? I didn't realise it until now since I haven't played my -1 since he hit 12th.

Today I was playing a game (our group got crushed except for me) and we encountered something. The enemy had cast Spike Stones on the ground and my PC wanted to charge through them (he had DR 8/- so he wasn't in any danger from the spikes). Anyways, the GM said that I couldn't because the Spike Stones were difficult terrain and I couldn't charge. Now, as an avid player of wizards I know Spike Stones does halve your movement, but nowhere does it state it is difficult terrain.

So basically my question is thus: Can you charge through terrain that is not labelled as difficult terrain but takes double movement to go through?

Another question: Say I get hit by caltrops, once again my movement is halved. Would I also not be allowed to charge?

Arthur Perkins wrote:

Wish inherent bonus is lost. Tome bonus stays because you paid for the item.

A slight clarification: The tome bonus stays if you paid for the item. This came from a previous clarification where a higher level module has a tome as a loot drop.

What if you cast Wish and pay the 25k to get yourself an inherent bonus. How is that different from a tome?

25k of course being the material component cost.

Oh thank goodness! I thought I was the only one that had lost most of my credits. It still shows me as having 2 stars though, so that's good.

I hadn't thought about the spell duration rules. That's a good catch.

It is a sixth level spell. Wizards get sixth level spells at 11th level. I don't think it is in the list of banned spells either so I can't say, "No, that spell is banned," as the spell is still within the purview of spells you can purchase--or in this case learn for free.

As for venerable, PFS does not allow older characters. Or rather, it does but they don't get any bonuses or penalties. And even if it did, I think there is a spell to mitigate it. Age resistance or something to that effect.

So I have run into a bit of a pickle a GM for PFS. One of my regular players is playing a wizard who just so happened to turn level 11 and took Planar Binding as one of his spells. After the scenario when he turned level 11, he explained the rationale behind his spell choice. Simply put, he believes that he is going to cast Planar Binding and bind multiple genies to give him 3 wishes each. First he said he would do it to get that +5 inherent bonus in his stats and after that to wish for more spells to scribe.

Now, I have been looking in the boards for threads about binding genies and usually the way to stop genie abuse is simply because in a campaign, the GM can make it so there are Consequences(TM) for binding and abusing noble djinni or efreet. But in Society play, I can't see of a way to enforce consequences without coming off as vindictive or without derailing the story and possibly punishing the rest of the party for something they didn't do.

To be honest, I do not believe he will go through with it as this player routinely makes ridiculous claims like that. Much like he threatens to throw multiple necklaces of fireballs into a room and follow that up with a normal fireball (a plan of action which I am guilty of encouraging, but has never happened). But I would like to be prepared. All you GMs out there, how would you handle this... shall we say unique situation?

So I had a question about how the plague zombies worked. In particular the Death Burst(Ex) ability.

It states, "When a plague zombie dies, it explodes in a burst of decay. All creatures adjacent to the plague zombie are exposed to its plague as if struck by a slam attack and must make a Fortitude save or contract zombie rot."

Alright, the part that trips me up is the "as if struck by a slam attack." Does that mean that they, on top of having to make a Fort save, also take the damage of the slam attack?

I think so, otherwise why specify it like that? Why not say, "exposed to its plague and must make a Fortitude save or contract zombie rot." It also makes sense as it is an explosion of sorts. But what do you all think?

Bump

So I had a question about how the plague zombies worked. In particular the Death Burst(Ex) ability.

It states, "When a plague zombie dies, it explodes in a burst of decay. All creatures adjacent to the plague zombie are exposed to its plague as if struck by a slam attack and must make a Fortitude save or contract pale pox."

Alright, the part that trips me up is the "as if struck by a slam attack." Does that mean that they, on top of having to make a Fort save, also take the damage of the slam attack?

I think so, otherwise why specify it like that? Why not say, "exposed to its plague and must make a Fortitude save or contract pale pox." It also makes sense as it is an explosion of sorts. But what do you all think?

But where are you getting the "authority" to determine if they deserve it?

It could be a personal code of honour. It doesn't have to come from a government. Consider the gunslingers of the wild west or any explorers in a wild frontier. I would consider a personal code of honour/conduct as valid legal "authority" as an actual writ from a magistrate.

@Jiggy,

What would you think about a paladin who executes an arsonist that set fire to an orphanage? Would it be Good/Evil? Would it Lawful/Chaotic? My opinion is that as a servant/protector of good, he would be well within his right as a paladin to go Axe Cop on the arsonist and collect his head. What do you think?

Also note that just because something detects as evil doesn't guarantee it is evil. One only has to have evil intent to detect as evil. And just because someone has evil intent doesn't mean they will actually act on it.

I thought Detect Chaos/Good/Evil/Law worked based on your alignment and hit dice, not intentions--hence the table with talking about Aligned creatures, Undead, Outsiders, etc.

Yes, their Morale stated they would fight to the death. They were unconscious but stable, the monk was just going to change their status from Dying to Dead. :)

The Tea Elf wrote:

There is no Habeas Corpus in Golarion that I am aware of so it is completely fair to play the part of Judge, Jury, and Executioner.

That's a Lawful issue, not a Good issue. It also depends on the local government.

Good point. I don't think the Hin Jao Tapestry has a government though. So in a very real way he was the law (no one else was playing lawful). :)

Apparently I wasn't clear, since neither you nor trollbill seem to have the slightest clue what I was actually saying. But that's okay, because it wasn't an important statement anyway. :)

Well now you have me curious. What did you mean? :)

Some evil deeds would automatically change the alignment, same to good deeds.

Where do you draw the line though? Saving an entire village from being devoured by an archdevil and then banishing the aforementioned fiend is by all accounts good, but no one said that my friend's LN monk should atone for that to maintain his alignment.

The main problem I have with a draconian interpretation of Evil but not Good, is that it punishes a PC for not being Good. For the most part I usually play Good PCs, in fact all my PFS characters are Good. But it rubs me the wrong way when a GM says that someone must pay atonement for executing a torturer or otherwise someone that is obviously evil. There is no Habeas Corpus in Golarion that I am aware of so it is completely fair to play the part of Judge, Jury, and Executioner.

The GM's argument was that the individual he was going to murder was helpless (which was true) and performing a coup de grace would be tantamount to murder--an evil act.

However, here is where it gets weird. He later said that if I had cast Sleep on them and they had failed their saves, I could coup de grace them without it being evil.

Personally, I think he was nitpicking and we resolved it simply by not killing the Aspis people.

Because a curiously high percentage of gamers are much better at consistently roleplaying non-good alignments than non-evil ones?

That is not really a good argument. Whether the majority of people play good or evil characters should not be a reason why a double standard should be put in place. And anyways, in PFS no one plays evil PCs. So there is in fact overwhelmingly more Good PCs than Evil PCs in the living campaign.

Recently in a scenario a friend of mine came up in a dilemma about alignment. He is playing a Lawful Neutral monk that despises evildoers first of all. So we came up against some evil Aspis Consortium guys (hate them!) and after some struggles, we defeated them. They all detected as evil so my friend said he was going to kill them. At that, the GM took exception stating that if he killed them it would be an evil act and he would become Lawful Evil and have to pay atonement to become Neutral again.

Now, I won't argue that cold-blooded murder is not evil--obviously it is. However, I don't think that one evil act should automatically change your alignment to Evil in the same manner that one good act shouldn't automatically brand you Good. It seems fairly draconian that one Evil act will turn someone Evil, but the countless good deeds don't do anything.

So essentially what I'm asking is: Does one evil act turn you Evil? And if so, why does one good act not change your alignment to Good?

Personally, I would inform the GM and see what he says. What we do in our games is we toss the dice against his Gm screen--they end up in the middle of the table so everyone can see and it makes sure you roll properly.

I once had a group of players that was as you describe and what I did was I told them that they had to roll on the table for all to see. That said, I also gave each one 2 free rerolls each session (we usually played for 8 to 10 hours). That might be a solution for a home game.

I want to learn more about the elf homeworld. It is established that they're aliens from another world, but we know nothing about their world. In fact, we know very little about elves at all even the Elves of Golarion book shared precious little. Basically they have 4 gods, are aliens from another world, used to inhabit a lot of Golarion, but now are limited to Kyonin, the Mierani Forest and a few other locations.

By that same token more about dwarves, gnomes, etc. Why did the gnomes get kicked out of the first world?

It would be nice if there were more spellbooks in Chronicle sheets. There was one scenario I played where I fought a wizard, I was excited at the propect of getting a spellbook, but there was none to be had. Not in the chronicle sheet and not in the wizard's place. Seemed kind of odd.

I'd like them to be yearly as well. There aren't many people with 4+ stars anyways and even if there were, it isn't such a bad thing. That way if someone showed up at a game venue where he's played all the scenarios that are offered he could feel comfortable spending one of those stars and sitting down to have fun rather than squirreling them away for a "special" scenario.

@Adam

Take nosig's example. If my wizard wanted another six 5th level spells, that's 6750gp for the scrolls and 1500gp for scribing the spell for a total of 8250. As opposed to getting them from an NPC for 2250.

Also, take into consideration that a wizard can lose his spellbook and therefore his access to his spells, whereas a sorceror cannot. Granted at this level I keep my spellbook safe (Secret Chest).

It still costs resources to scribe a spell, it is just nice that it doesn't cost too much. I think I end up spending as much on scribing spells as a warrior spends on his primary weapon--an appropriate cost IMHO as spells are the wizard's sword/spear/your weapon of choice.

If he's an elf, he can take the Oracle archetype (Ancient Lorekeeper) that they get in Advanced Race Guide. With that they could conceivably pick Spectral Hand.

However, if movement is his concern, I would advise getting a mount. A halfling on a dog would be ideal.

If you're going the distance take Spell Perfection Delay Blast Fireball. That way when you cast Time Stop, you can drop Empowered DBFs all over the bad guys. If you luck out and get 5 rounds you could potentially drop 10 Empowered DBFs (assuming you have 2 rods of greater quicken). Assuming caster level 20 you could net 800 damage (save for half). That's good enough to kill almost anything.

As for items, don't forget Dweomer Essence. It's a one off item, but it gives you a +5 boost to penetrate SR.

That, plus Spell Pen and Greater Spell Pen is +9 to overcome SR right there.

I'd add being a Tower Elf for the extra +2 versus SR.

So if you have a Rod of Piercing and Dweomer Essence along with the two feats and the race, you have a total of +11 to overcome SR and their SR is treated as 5 lower. At level 10 you can easily bust through SR 27 by rolling a 1.

Just remember Dweomer Essence is a 1 use item, so I'd save it for those enemies with really high SR.

As a player of a wizard, I can tell you that it is sorely needed. I was not looking forward to purchasing scrolls only to have them consumed to scribe them on my spellbook.

And I recognize my GMs did not misinform me out of malice, that is honestly what they believed was true.

Another thing. Do these count as purchases that need to be logged in an inventory sheet? If so, I'm going to end up with more inventory sheets than Chronicle sheets.

That's why Teleport is such a great spell IMO.

"Excuse me while I go back to Absalom to purchase this vital item we require so we do not perish," he said to his party members who had all been level drained.

Still though, this clears it up and it makes playing a wizard much better. I was starting to think I went the wrong way and should have been a sorc.

Okay, so basically as long as I have the source the spell is in (i.e. - Advanced Player's Guide if I wanted to purchase Vanish) and I notify the GM who oversees the relevant Spellcraft roll, I can simply pay the scribing cost and the NPC access cost?

Then what is the deal with the FAQ stating "In the rare instance of a wizard charging a fee for the privilege of copying spells from their spellbooks"? Other than a PC, is there an instance where an NPC would not charge a fee?

Good point. Can someone move the thread or should I recreate it in the PFS messageboard?

I currently play, among other things, a wizard in pathfinder society. In my area, there aren't many other wizards and the magi in the area only have one or two levels in the class. As such, I do not have the ability to exchange spells with PCs that much and most of the spells I have, I have obtained from scrolls in Chronicle sheets.

The GMs in my area had informed me that I could not purchase spells from NPCs to scribe into my spellbook and that if I wanted more spells I had to first purchase the scroll and then pay for the ink to scribe the spell. For example, if I wanted to have Alarm (1st level Abjuration spell), I would have to purchase the scroll for 25gp and then pay an additional 10gp for the ink to scribe it in my spell book--incidentally destroying the scroll in the process.

I have been neglectful in reading the FAQ or else I would have found the one FAQ that states:

Can I scribe spells from another PC's spellbook into my own? What about gaining spells via scrolls found during an adventure?

Players are welcome to exchange spells with each other during an adventure. They must still follow all the normal rules as put forth in the Core Rulebook and their class descriptions (for instance, an alchemist can scribe from a wizard, but not vice-versa) and they must not bog the session down.

Similarly, scrolls found during an adventure can be used to add spells to spellbooks and similar class features (such as a witch's familiar), using the normal rules for doing so. Scrolls used in this way during an adventure do not need to be purchased, but are still consumed as normal.

With either method, the GM should sign off on the spells gained (after witnessing successful skill checks) on affected players' chronicle sheets. All other methods of gaining new spells (such as by gaining a level or purchasing access to an NPC's spellbook) function as described in the Core Rulebook and relevant class descriptions.

In the rare instance of a wizard charging a fee for the privilege of copying spells from their spellbooks, this fee is equal to half the cost to write the spell into a spellbook (see Writing a New Spell into a Spellbook). Rare and unique spells do not change the fee in PFS.

Now, it would appear that a wizard (and technically a magus as well) is allowed to gain access to an NPC's spellbook using the rules from the Core. However, I am confused by the last paragraph.

What does it mean by in the rare instance of a wizard charging a fee for the privilege of copying spells? Is that not the norm? Or could I walk up to say, Aram Zey and ask him nicely to look through his spells and simply pay the cost of the inks?

I have agree with Rynjin, BBT, and Dieben. I've been scouring the books and I cannot find any rule that would allow free attacks that aren't supported by your BAB or feats (as Rynjin pointed out).

Yes and I'm trying to provide him with an explanation that is not just "because I am the GM and I said so." Likewise, if my reasoning is not sound, I'd like to know that as well.

bump

A friend of mine was reading this thread and got it into his head to create a fighter that could hurl an arbitrarily large amount of shields in one turn.

What bothers me about that thread is that assuming everything is true and you indeed can throw your shield as a free action and you can carry an arbitrarily large amount of shields somehow, what is your attack bonus?

I know there is a FAQ that limits free actions a turn to "reasonable" numbers. 5 seems to be reasonable. But for now let's eschew that and assume reasonable is an arbitrarily large number say one million. I know it's not reasonable, but it serves my purposes for what I will say next.

You see, the way I read it is that the shield simply allows itself to be thrown as a free action as opposed to a standard action for a one-handed weapon or a full round action like a two-handed weapon. But you still have to have an attack available to do that.

For example, I have a fighter with Quick Draw and a BAB of +6 so normally he gets two attacks, one at +6 and one at +1 (not including strength or dex bonuses). He could hit someone with his sword with his +6 attack and then Captain America his shield with his +1 attack. But he could not then quick draw his backup shield and get a free attack.

Am I interpreting the combat rules correctly? Or am I missing something and you can in fact make unlimited free action attacks by RAW? If so, are they all at your highest base attack bonus? How does it work? And where are the rules supporting this?

Is it legal to have multiple ability modifiers apply to a single roll? For example, from the Heretic archetype of the Inquisitor we have Lore of Escape and from the Conversion Inquisition domain we have Charm of Wisdom.

Lore of Escape (Ex): At 1st level, the heretic uses every trick she knows to escape those now pursuing her. She adds her Wisdom modifier on Bluff and Stealth skill checks in addition to the normal ability score modifiers. This ability replaces monster lore.

Charm of Wisdom (Ex): You use your Wisdom modifier instead of your Charisma modifier when making Bluff, Diplomacy, and Intimidate checks.

If you have both of these do you actually get to add your Wisdom modifier twice?

On a rather unrelated note, what's up with the Inquisitor and adding Wisdom or just bonuses to random rolls that already have an ability tied to them? With the above two abilities, I see no reason not to multiclass into Inquisitor to make all your social skills dependent on Wisdom rather than Charisma (allowing you to buy down your Charisma for extra points).

Gauss,

I believe the GM would be open to a discussion of the rules. However, I think I would have to provide examples etc. First I wanted to make sure I was right before I pressed the issue further though. But any light you could shed that would help would be appreciated.

So in a campaign I am playing in, one of my party members got grappled by a tendriculos. The wizard decided that to help out the party member he would cast Grease on the rogue's armour so he would get a +10 to his escape check.

The DM ruled that because the rogue was not in control of the grapple, I could not target him with Grease because the tendriculos would just move him out of the way.

I explained that I had line of effect/sight to the rogue so I should be able to target him. He agreed but said that the tendriculos got to make the Reflex save even though the target is the armour of the rogue. I thought that line of reasoning was fallacious. What to you all think? How should this go down?