Toothy's page

How about a compilation book for AoA similar to what was done for Abomination Vaults? Squeeze new life into an old story. I believe it would be attractive to new players.

Toothy wrote:

I'm not sure how the players are supposed to get into the Plinth room (C7) if the locks are on the plinths inside the room and the doors are 2ft thick stone walls until unlocked. Is there a teleporter to this room somewhere?

“Hands of the Devil” wrote:

Two angled plinths stand here, one in the alcove to the east and another in the alcove to the west. A single door leads north; the south wall opposite it bears the outline of a door but no handle or latch.

…

The eastern plinth features a lock with a round keyhole; turning the proper key in this lock opens or closes the northernmost door in the passage to the south (the outline visible in this room) with a grinding noise. The western plinth has four holes clustered together in a metal plate; turning the proper key in this lock opens or closes the southern of the two doors, also with a loud grinding noise.

Emphasis added. The stone wall doors controlled by the plinth locks are the two on either end of the passage to the south (the short hall connecting C7 to C8). The door in the northern side of C7 (leading from C1 & C4) is just a regular door, and would most likely be how the heroes get here.

Note: For anyone using the hardcover, this is room F7 (with references to rooms F8, F1, & F4).

Thanks for the reply. I figured it out. Makes a lot more sense that way.

The newly released Abomination Vaults book version is now available on the Roll20 marketplace! Better late than never.

I'm not sure how the players are supposed to get into the Plinth room (C7) if the locks are on the plinths inside the room and the doors are 2ft thick stone walls until unlocked. Is there a teleporter to this room somewhere?

The arena maps balcony level and floor level do not align properly. The lower left balcony should be shifted 5ft to the right and the left and right ends of the upper balcony aligned with the ground floor perimeter. Also the stairs from the balcony level to the arena floor should most likely show a wall on the arena side, else the portcullis at the bottom is useless.

Please cancel order #Pathfinder Bestiary 3
Order 34054391. Thanks!

Toothy wrote:

Are there plans to issue an errata list for the most recent changes to the CRB?

Some of the changes are already listed on our FAQ/Errata page; the rest of the changes will be added to that page as soon as we are able. Thanks for your patience!

Thanks the quick response!

Are there plans to issue an errata list for the most recent changes to the CRB? Herolab Online has inferred they won't update the Starfinder info until that is available.
More importantly, it's frustrating to have try and find the changes otherwise.
Please issue an errata!

Thanks for the feedback. Yes, I am having some "edition shock". Loved the narrative by Thod btw. :-)

1st level arcane spell Magic Missle requires 1 action. 1st level arcane spell Mage Armor requires 2 actions. Therefore it appears an arcane caster could cast Mage Armor and Magic Missle in the same turn using 3 actions. Am I missing something?

Are there any other spells that require just one action?

Feels not quite right.

There's another thing to consider, as food for thought in the "what was the design intent" category.

Fusions... yeah... they kind of suck. Both in utility and in their rules and construction. Fusions and fusions seals are confusing, have odd cost structures, and are a bit of an oddity. Initially I thought "ah the Starfinder version of magic weapons - this is important!" and I found out I was wrong. We've largely ignored them except for ones we found in our game.

Now this is all just my opinion of course. But if you are of the mindset that fusions were somewhat poorly designed, then it's pretty easy to ignore any oddities in terms of elemental fusions. If you disagree with that opinion, then that's fine too. But I can't explain the thought behind elemental fusions; it's just one of a number of things that don't make sense to me in the "fusion" space.

I do recall 'in game' fusions turning out to be totally useless as there was not a valid weapon of the appropriate level available to put them on! Perhaps the writer assumed the fusions could be upgraded for a price?

OMG, the cost structure seems overly complicated and full of holes. For example, the CRB under Installing and Transferring Fusions states "Any character trained in Mysticism can transfer a fusion; this costs half as much as it would to initially purchase the fusion, using the level of the new weapon to determine the price." That seems to say one could purchase a Level 1 fusion, put it on a Tier 1 weapon, and then transfer it to a Tier 10 weapon for half the cost of a tier 10 fusion. That can't be right.

There's quite a few good fusions, but not the ones Paizo seems to have had in mind. They go nuts over crit effect fusions while most of us are enjoying our Called, Glamered, Opportunistic and Holy fusions...

Agreed

Given how energy resist and dual damage types work in this game, being able to modify the types of damage your gun puts out on the fly is an incredible advantage.

The relative power level of being able to do this of course depends heavily on the enemy and your weapon, but given that the fusions that do this are relatively high level seems to show that Paizo believes its a pretty serious advantage.

I agree being able to modify the damage type on the fly is powerful in order to overcome DR/Energy Resistance, however it is still a fairly random advantage given the fusion only provides one energy type option.

A PC might commonly carry more than one weapon with differing damage types for just that reason. Sharp, blunt, fire, cold, etc. Which one is needed? Probably the one you don't have. :(

From my perspective it seems that being able to convert a duel damage type weapon to all one damage type is no greater advantage than happening to have damage type needed on a single damage type weapon.

So given the energy fusions were INTENDED to limit placement to weapons of differing energy type (as was so kindly suggested), my question is why?

It seems pointless to add an energy fusion to weapon that already does that single type of energy. Does anyone disagree with that?

Is being able to convert a duel damage type weapon to all one energy type too powerful?

I'm just curious folks. Not trying to start a revolution.

"The fusion can't be placed on a weapon that already deals that type of damage." I don't think this can be clearer, but that could be just me.

Does it deal X damage?
Yes > Can't add.
No > Can add.

It's probably you.

Interesting thought. Let's dispense with the premise first:

The Armory has weapons that are C&P, B&F, F&S, and that's just scanning the first few pages.

Second, you cannot use Herolab as an authoritative source of what the rules do or do not allow. Just because a third party coded a tool a certain way doesn't make it official.

So I see no conflict and the rules as written seem clear - you can't add a shock fusion to a plasma weapon.

didici vero certae dispensator

I also believe it is also fair to say these forums are not an authoritative source of what the rules do or do not allow, just because someone make assertive pronouncements doesn't make it official. :)

Plasma weapons are not the only weapons that deal two types of damage, even considering CRB only.

Leaving aside future-proofing, the CRB includes weapons that deal:
B+F
B+So
E+F
A+P
F+P

I wouldn't make any assumptions about energy type fusions not having the stated restrictions based solely on plasma.

A fair point HammerJack. I didn't consider the kinetic types of damage and was looking at energy types only given I was referring to energy typed fusions. To clarify, in the CRB only the plasma weapons deal two types of 'energy' damage. The rest all seem to be associated with kinetic damage types.

Plasma weapons do both electrical and fire damage. In the core rule book they are the only weapons that deal two types of damage. Both the Shock and Flaming fusions refer to placing that fusion on a weapon with two types of damage, but also note the fusion can't be placed on a weapon that already deals that type of damage.

It seems obvious there would be no point in placing such a fusion on a weapon that already did only that type of energy damage. However there would be a possible benefit in enabling a plasma weapon to produce all fire or all electrical damage by using such a fusion.

Is the reference in the Shock and Flaming fusion description to weapons with two types of damage irrelevant given there is only one type of weapon (plasma) that does such?

Or should the energy fusion text clarify that they can't be placed on weapons that only deal that type of damage (single, not plural)?

Note Herolab Online will not allow a Shock Fusion to be added to a plasma weapon, but it will allow a Shock Fusion Seal to be added to a plasma weapon at which point you can set the fusion to override the fire type of damage.

I'm guessing the energy fusion text just got copied from one version to another and perhaps the situation above was not considered. Though I am curious as to what the point of forbidding placing the fusion on a weapon that deals the same energy type is? That seems pointless, except in the case of plasma weapons.

Is Herolab Online in error or does the energy fusion text just need some clarification?

Here's the definition of "Caster Level" per the core rulebook.

Caster Level

A spell’s power often depends on its caster level, which
for most spellcasting characters is equal to her class
level in the class she’s using to cast the spell.
You can cast a spell at a lower caster level than normal,
but the caster level you choose must be high enough for
you to cast the spell in question, and all level-dependent
features must be based on the same caster level.
In the event that a class feature or other special
ability provides an adjustment to your caster level, that
adjustment applies not only to effects based on caster
level (such as range, duration, and damage dealt), but
also to your caster level check to overcome your target’s
spell resistance and to the caster level used in dispel
checks (both the dispel check and the DC of the check).

The first sentence notes that caster level equals class level for most spellcasting classes. I'm not sure that makes it any clearer, but it something to think about.

The text of Diverse Training talks about adding your class levels of EK to the class levels of arcane spellcasting classes in order to qualify for feats. Every other feat/ability/etc that adds to caster level specifically says that it does, while this ability doesn't do that.

It would have been very easy to word this ability by simply adding the word "caster" before "levels in an arcane spellcasting class", so the fact that it wasn't worded that way indicates that it wasn't meant to add to caster level.

Well that's much better. Thankyou.

Perhaps the next errata will clear up what was intended. However, I believe "caster" may have been intentionally left out to avoid indicating that the EK level actually affects the characters spell casting level with respect to effective spell casting level. Diverse Training clearly only applies to feat prequisits and nothing else.

He also adds his level to any levels in an

arcane spellcasting class for the purpose of meeting the
prerequisites for feats.

Would changing the feat prequisit descriptions to "caster class level" be clearer if it was intended to work the way I suggest?

I do agree that the wording needs some help somewhere else we wouldn't be having this discussion. I also agree that it's not really worth arguing over 8-P

Diverse Training may very well have been intended to work the way you want it to work. I don't think the wording of the ability reflects that intent, if it was meant to. However, you may rule it according to the way you read it. That's perfectly fine, and not overpowered at all (it's only a +1, after all, since the EK gets spellcasting levels at every level except the 1st).

I'm slightly offended by that response. Implying that my position is based upon "the way I want it to work" is incorrect.

Please explain how the wording of the ability reflects your position. Or perhaps how it fits into EK class description?

Don't give up and throw me a bone! I'm all about the debate.

I stand corrected there is one feat which requires 1st level wizard. However, once again it would be pointless to apply Diverse Training here since an EK must be able to cast 3rd level arcane spells to begin with. Besides, "Wizard X", isn't even in the Diverse Training text.

PFCRB p384-385

Because the road to becoming an eldritch knight
requires both martial prowess and arcane power, eldritch
knights almost always begin their paths as multiclassed
characters, such as fighter/wizards or ranger/sorcerers.
They may be found wherever studies of the arcane are as
prevalent as martial training.

Diverse Training: An eldritch knight adds his level
to any levels of fighter he might have for the purpose
of meeting the prerequisites for feats (if he has no
fighter levels, treat his eldritch knight levels as levels
of fighter). He also adds his level to any levels in an
arcane spellcasting class for the purpose of meeting the
prerequisites for feats.

Are and Cold appear to be defining feat prequisits citing "caster level" as actual spellcasting level.

I believe that "caster level" in the feat prequisits is caster class level. It would apply to gaining the Aracane Armor feats as well as the item creation feats.

The point I've been trying communicate is that there is no useful application of Diverse Training on the arcane spell caster side (sorcer/wizard) given Are and Cold's interpretation. There would be no point in referring to arcane caster class in the Diverse Training description at all.

The EKs text describes a fighter/arcane caster hybrid. The Diverse Training text clearly reference both and that it only applies to feat prequisits.

Are wrote:

Not as far as I can tell. Diverse Training works for prerequisites that say "Fighter level X" or "Wizard level X" or similar. Caster level would not be a part of what Diverse Training would work on. However, as soon as he gets his next caster level (EK level 2), he could take Arcane Armor Mastery as his caster level would now be 7.

Note that none of the feats say "Wizard level X", they all say "Caster level X". The obvious reason is that there is more than one type of caster. Read the text for Diverse Training (page 385):

"He also adds his level to any levels in an arcane spellcasting class for the purposes of meeting the prerequisites for feats."

Diverse Training, however, does not allow the character to gain an actual new caster level relative to spellcasting or the number of spells per day. See the Eldritch Knight progress table. Note Diverse Training is gained at level 1 but actually spell casting ability does not go up till level 2.

Based on your explanation above, Diverse Training would be pointless on the caster side as none of the feats specifically state 'Wizard Level X". Whereas the Diverse Training description clearly indicates that it includes spellcasting class as well as fighter.

Note this information is based soley on the base book and does not include information from any expansion books.

Table 7-7,Hampered Movement, lists the condition "Obstacle*" with an additional movement cost of x2 where "*" notes "May require a skill check". Assuming a trap to be the obstacle and perception to be the required skill check, it follows that a PC looking for traps could move at half speed and make one skill check for the distance covered.

For example, Giblet the rogue with a move speed of 30 could search 15 ft of hall for traps per move action with a single perception skill check.

The perception modifiers listed in the perception skill description (p 102) list a modifier of +1/10 feet to the source object.

For example, say there is a trap with a DC of 20 in the hall being searched by Giblet. The trap DC would remain 20 so long as it were in the first 10 ft. However, the DC would raise to 21 were the trap to be in the last 5 ft (given Giblet can only search 15 ft at a time).

Giblet could choose to move slower and only search 10 ft at a time knowing that his chances to notice things beyond 10 ft were slimmer, but he might take the chance at 15 ft if time were of the essence and he needed to move quickly.

The closest trap would be noticed first on a successful roll. Subsequent rolls would be required to notice additional traps beyond the first discovered. It would be up to Giblet to determine if he wished to continue searching beyond the first trap discovered.

Encumbering trap spotters with perception checks every 5 ft slows the game down significantly and generally discourages using the skill. While some may get a giggle out of plunging PCs into every available trap, the joy is definately one sided.

Dilvish the Danged wrote:

Diverse Training is specific. It only helps to qualify for feats.

Personally, I'm still thinking that particular phrasing is a mistake, since there are no wizard-specific feats, let alone any level-dependent wizard-specific feats. In my game, I'm houseruling it, and I'm really hoping for some sort of clarification on this one soon.

Another suitable answer would be "There will be level-dependent wizard-specific feats in the player's guide next GenCon." ^_^

Jeremy Puckett

The Craft feats are essentially wizard specific feats requiring a certain caster level for which the Eldritch Knight levels would apply.

Exavian wrote:

I just wanted to be certain on this one.

Since the Spells section in Wizard does not contain the information of Specialization, and the Arcane School section does, do spell progressing prestige classes still progress the bonus spells from specialization?

Along similar lines, and also to be certain, do such prestige classes progress the school powers from the Arcane School section?

Yes to your first question, and no to your second. This is because bonus spell slots are tied to spell progression, which the prestige class grants. School powers, however, are tied to wizard level.

Would the Eldritch Knight be an exception since their Eldritch Knight levels count as both Fighter and Wizard due to Diverse Training?

Given a PC with Weapon Focus (longsword) and Weapon Specialization (longsword) due to levels in the fighter class as well as being a Universalist Wizard, would the feat bonus of +1 to attack and +2 damage still apply when using Hand of the Apprentice to attack with the longsword at range?