WascallyWabbit's page

According to the Revelation, Energy Body "Any undead creature striking you with its body or a handheld weapon deals normal damage, but at the same time the attacker takes 1d6 points of positive energy damage + 1 point per oracle level. Creatures wielding melee weapons with reach are not subject to this damage if they attack you. If you grapple or attack an undead creature using unarmed strikes or natural weapons, you may deal this damage in place of the normal damage for the attack. Once per round, if you pass through a living allied creature’s square or the ally passes through your square, it heals 1d6 hit points + 1 per oracle level."

It has been said in a game that I am playing that it seems to powerful of an ability that in the same round that you use the ability to heal party members of the party, you could also damage Undead.
The crux of the issue is that when I change into my energy form, and then move through allies squares to heal them, if an Undead enemy strikes me with an attack of opportunity, is it not too powerful of an ability that in the same round that I am healing with the ability, it also deals damage to an undead that has struck me?
The point has been made that a Cleric who is channeling energy, must state before the channel whether he is using the ability to heal allies, or to damage enemies. And that maybe a similar requirement should be called for when a Life Oracle assumes his energy form.

Any opinions would be welcome.

According to the rules "An alchemist can utilize spell-trigger items if the spell appears on his formulae list". From this it is fairly obvious that he can use wands that cast spells off his formulae list. However there is not a similar sentence anywhere within the "Alchemy" section for Investigators.
From this I am assuming that while Alchemists can use wands of those types without making a UMD roll, that Investigators cannot unless they DO make a UMD roll.
Is this correct? Or is it just a typo in the Investigator description?

With Spell Combat you get your regular weapon attack(s) provided by your BAB plus one spell, but all at -2 to hit. If the spell is a touch attack, you can choose to just do it as a touch attack or you can Spell Strike it with your weapon to hit vs normal AC.

So you were right; Spellstrike does by itself what they seem to think Spell Combat does - it lets you deliver a touch spell through your weapon so you can do weapon damage plus spell damage (the downside being that you hit normal AC, but on the plus side your spells have the same crit range as the weapon you are using, but they still only crit for x2 no matter what).

Okay. Good, that's what i thought.

I did just notice something else.........According to Spellstrike, it can be used in conjunction with Spell Combat, but there is no statement that it MUST be used with Spell Combat. So presumably you could cast a single touch attack spell, deliver it with a FREE melee attack, and then also move instead of delivering your normal attacks.

Hi. I am playing a Magus in The Jade Regeant, and a situation has arisen where I find myself in disagreement with the other players, and I would like some outside opinions.

When using Spell Combat my understanding of the rules is that in addition to my physical attacks I get to make an additional FREE melee touch attack with both my physical attacks AND that free attack taking a -2 modifier to their attack rolls. So that is two individual attacks, each with their own die roll.
And that if I use Spellstrike with Spell Combat the FREE melee touch attack is replaced with a FREE melee attack, both of which are still individual attacks.

As I understand the other players, they seem to think that if I am using Spellstrike with Spell Combat then the spell effects are just added onto my existing attack if I hit, and I do NOT get an additional FREE attack.

Which of us is correct?

WascallyWabbit wrote:

thejeff wrote:

Precise shot and Improved Precise Shot are still relevant.
Precise shot only helps against Cover. Seeking helps against concealment (or other miss chances). Improved Precise Shot works against both, but not total cover or concealment. Seeking would work against total concealment.

Apologies if I seem incredibly dense, but it sounds like you are saying that "Seeking" would make "Precise Shot" unnecessary, but "Improved Precise Shot" would still be needed to ignore ALL the problems of shooting into melee (and since "Precise Shot" is a prereq. of "Improved Precise Shot" you might be flummoxed anyways).

Precise Shot negates the -4 Attack penalty for firing into melee.

If that's all that's going on, nothing else is needed. Seeking does not help with this, since it's an Attack penalty, not a miss chance.
Improved Precise Shot also does not help, if no one has cover or concealment.
Simple Example: X is you, E is Enemy, A is ally.

X ---------->E
A
Target is in melee with a friendly, but has no cover or concealment.

It's not clear to me if Soft Cover from firing into melee past an ally stacks with the firing into melee:

X ----------->AE
Target is in melee and is covered by the Ally.
-4 to attack roll from being in melee and +4 AC bonus from Soft Cover?
Precise shot would remove the -4 penalty.
Improved Precise Shot would remove the +4 AC bonus.

It's also not clear if, in that situation, the Ally would also provide concealment. I'd say not, since it's never explicitly stated like it is with Soft Cover.
If the GM rules that way, then you would have, in addition to the attack penalty and possible AC bonus, a 20% miss chance from concealment.
Either Seeking or Improved Precise Shot would remove that.

Improved Precise Shot also helps against anyone with partial Cover or Concealment from other sources, walls, fog, undergrowth, etc.

Seeking helps with Concealment from those sources, but also helps with...

Okay. Cheers buddy. That helped me understand it a lot better. Thanks.

I'm guessing you are reading "acts in all ways" as "acts in all ways except one". If that's the case, then you are correct, it wouldn't have weight. If you are reading "acts in all ways" as "acts in all ways", then it has weight. It has weight because weight is a manner in which normal armor acts; especially since encumbrance is a way armor acts on a character.

Cool it, dude. I'm sorry if it sounded like I was being petulant. That was not the intention. No need to get all "lecturing adult-like" on me.

Regarding how force has weight, it doesn't. However, force can act as weight. Have you ever pushed on a scale with your hands? As a child, I always liked to see if I could make an analog bathroom scale roll all the way back around to zero by pushing on it hard enough. Now, I know for a fact that seven year old me didn't weigh over 300 pounds, but I know that I could apply that much force to a bathroom scale. So, the force armor created by the conjuration (creation) spell Instant Armor applies force on the user. It just so happens that this force is equivalent to the force encountered by the weight of the armor it is emulating.

That makes more sense. And I can definately understand how it would still inflict ACP's on characters. I'm just not sure I agree with you about the "downward" force. The way I understand "force effect" is as an energy field surrounding something. If you have an energy field surrounding parts of your body, surely the "upward force" (from the parts underneath you) would negate the "downward force" (from the parts above you). You would still suffer the ACP problems with Climb and/or Swim, but the weight that would slow your movement down wouldn't really apply. Would it?

Precise shot and Improved Precise Shot are still relevant.
Precise shot only helps against Cover. Seeking helps against concealment (or other miss chances). Improved Precise Shot works against both, but not total cover or concealment. Seeking would work against total concealment.

Apologies if I seem incredibly dense, but it sounds like you are saying that "Seeking" would make "Precise Shot" unnecessary, but "Improved Precise Shot" would still be needed to ignore ALL the problems of shooting into melee (and since "Precise Shot" is a prereq. of "Improved Precise Shot" you might be flummoxed anyways).

Cover counts as concealment as well (since you cannot be seen if you hide behind a wall), but not the other way around (you can hide behind a bush and not be seen, but it provides no protective bonus from ranged attacks).

Seeking negates ANY miss chance, however, the attacker must aim at the correct square (in the case of invisibility, for instance) to gain the effect. So I would say that enemies in hand-to-hand with allies would not benefit from being in melee.

Would you then agree that "Seeking" essentially makes the Feats "Precise Shot" & "Improved Precise Shot" un-needed and possibly irrelavant?

"Acts in all ways" seems to suggest it does. The "and so on" part of the list means that it's not an exhaustive list.

Bracers of Armor grant an armor bonus. Armor (including Instant Armor) grants an armor bonus. Like bonuses don't stack. Amulet of Natural Armor grants an "enhancement bonus to natural armor" so it stacks with an armor bonus and with natural armor (the same as the +5 enhancement bonus on a +5 breastplate stacks with the +6 armor bonus from the breastplate).

Not sure I agree with that. If Instant Armor is a Force Effect how can it have weight?

Firstly, does cover count as a type of concealment? Or does Concealment count as a type of Cover?

Secondly, if you add the magical ability of "Seeking" to a bow, does it ignore ALL cover and/or concealment, including that provided by enemies in hand-to-hand combat with your allies?

According to the spell description, "Instant armor acts in all ways as armor typical of its type (armor bonus, maximum Dexterity bonus, arcane spell failure chance, and so on). Since instant armor is made of force, incorporeal creatures can't bypass it the way they do normal armor."
It does not however say weather Instant armor has any actual weight?

Also, can the benefits of Instant Armor stack with Bracers of Armor and/or Amulets of Natural Armor?

If the target has 0 conditions or effects, it regains an extra 1d6 HP.

It's alright for a feat, but not great. It's just an extra 3 health most of the time you use LoH, which is.. meh.

Okay. That's what the rest of my group said, but I wanted to get a second (outside) opinion. I misunderstood it when I initially took that Feat. Although I probably would still have taken the Feat, even with it not being quite as powerful a boost as I had thought, because Greater Mercy is still a pre-requisite of Ultimate Mercy, and I definately want that at the first opportunity.

According to the Feat description.......When wielding a scimitar with one hand, you can use your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier on melee attack and damage rolls.

This is a feat that has a prerequisite of "Weapon Finesse".

And yet, a scimitar is NOT a weapon that can be used with "Weapon Finesse"

What it sounds like it's saying is that you need to have Weapon Finesse, and be using a Scimitar, to be able to use the feat, and yet you can't use a scimitar for the feat because you can't use Weapon Finesse with scimitars. And you can't use Dervish Dance with any weapon except a scimitar. Sounds to me like a feat has been created that cannot be used without violating another rule.

Any opinions?

How do those two work together?

Say I'm doing 1d6+2+4d6 damage against a monster with DR 10, is that -10 applied once to the total, or to the 1d6+2 and the 4d6 seperately?

My understanding of it is that the base attack damage (1d6+2) has to get past the DR on it's own before any sneak attack damage can be applied.

Is there any class that has the ability to use a Magic Device at their own level instead of the using it at the items level or the item creators level?
Also, is there any feat that would allow this to occur?

Only in my dreams.

As the Question asks...what would you do with a million dollars?

Change it all into pennies.

Sorry. I didn't see this thread when I posted my original query.

So I'll repeat it here.............

As I understand it, in the Pathfinder World, when you shoot an arrow only about one third of them (a 1 or 2 on a die 6) can be recovered and re-used. Now, the reason for that is that wood breaks easily. And the reason they did not use Aluminum arrows during medieval times was that the technology did not exist to create them.

Now surely Aluminum is similar to Mithral in properties (at least in a Fantasy world). Does it not seem reasonable that smiths could make arrows out of Mithral, and therefore have their durability massively increased?

Granted, this would of course, considerably increase the cost of the arrows, but I think most archers would love the chance to get a hold of some arrows that they did not have to continuously replace.

Oh yeah!
I'm one of the original Sex Pistols anarchists. I was actually on the Thames River Boat. I was only 10, but I was there.

Putting sharp objects into a Bag of Holding probably isn't a good idea. And the Efficient Quiver doesn't "create" arrows, just holds them.

They would not be dumped into the bag. They would be inside of a quiver.

That would be a reasonable assumption, since, if you look at the equipment lists, there is no entry for just a quiver on it's own.

Shadowspawn1965 wrote:

As I understand it, in the Pathfinder World, when you shoot an arrow only about one third of them (a 1 or 2 on a die 6) can be recovered and re-used. Now, the reason for that is that wood breaks easily. And the reason they did not use Aluminum arrows during medieval times was that the technology did not exist to create them.

Now surely Aluminum is similar to Mithral in properties (at least in a Fantasy world). Does it not seem reasonable that smiths could make arrows out of Mithral, and therefore have their durability massively increased?

Granted, this would of course, considerably increase the cost of the arrows, but I think most archers would love the chance to get a hold of some arrows that they did not have to continuously replace.

I guess it would not break anything, but the efficient quiver and/or a bag of holding are probably cheaper in the long run.

Putting sharp objects into a Bag of Holding probably isn't a good idea. And the Efficient Quiver doesn't "create" arrows, just holds them.

As I understand it, in the Pathfinder World, when you shoot an arrow only about one third of them (a 1 or 2 on a die 6) can be recovered and re-used. Now, the reason for that is that wood breaks easily. And the reason they did not use Aluminum arrows during medieval times was that the technology did not exist to create them.

Now surely Aluminum is similar to Mithral in properties (at least in a Fantasy world). Does it not seem reasonable that smiths could make arrows out of Mithral, and therefore have their durability massively increased?

Granted, this would of course, considerably increase the cost of the arrows, but I think most archers would love the chance to get a hold of some arrows that they did not have to continuously replace.

It has occurred to me that there is no game dynamic to explain what benefits (if any) there are to gaining a critical hit when you perform a special attack such as Disarm or Trip.
If you score a critical in normal combat you do additional damage, however what happens if you score a critical when attempting to Disarm or Trip an opponent? I know that it counts as an automatic success, but that seems like it isn't enough reward for getting the critical. Any thoughts?