William Brewer's page

Phalanx Soldier is a great option, because using a polearm or spear 1 handed and a tower shield is great way to fight. Now I was lucky with my guy because my GM also allowed one Special. This could be a (feat+trait, a class ability, etc) and I choose the Polearm Master's (same book the APG) to get first level ability PoleFighting which allows player to take -4 penalty immediate action to attack to use weapon as nonreach. with the negative reducing by 1 every 4 levels past 2nd. It was hard to choose between the 2 alternate class types, and I am glad my GM was able to give option.

I couldn't find another thread asking this question, so here goes:

Scenario: A druid is wildshaped into for instance a giant hippo which has grab on its bite, and he casts Magic Fang to get a +1 enhancement to his bite attack.

Combat Maneuvers wrote:

When you attempt to perform a combat maneuver, make an attack roll and add your CMB in place of your normal attack bonus. Add any bonuses you currently have on attack rolls due to spells, feats, and other effects. These bonuses must be applicable to the weapon or attack used to perform the maneuver.

So would magic fang:

A] Give the druid a +1 enhancement bonus on the free grapple check he gets from grab, but not on subsequent grapples? [i.e. the grab is made using the bite, but the subsequent grapples are not]

B] Give the druid a +1 enhancement bonus on all grapple checks.

C] Give the druid a +1 enhancement bonus on all grapple checks as long as he initiated the grapple using grab on his bite.

D] Not affect his grapple checks whatsoever.

B looks most correct to me (as long as he is 'using the bite' to perform the grapple, which he obviously can since he has grab). What do you guys think?

well C is the case. Since B and C are same really so long as he is in the wildshape. Because once he leaves wildshape he looses the benfit of the Magic Fang unless that shape also has a natural weapon attack.

Lobolusk wrote:

so has any developers ruled if using the shield is equipping it

The shield question has pretty much been conceded as valid - The person receiving the shield puts it on. This affects some people (Druids) more significantly than others... and there's still people out there who disagree with those side-effects.

The question evolved into (a)is acid considered a beverage, and (b) using this to disarm a THF.

The "Entice" part is yes the acid is good.

Druid1 : Cast spell
Fighter 1: Fails save
Druid 1: Here you look hurt take this Cure light!
Druid 1: Hands Fighter a bottle of acid.
Fighter 1: drops sword and accepts Gift.
Next action for Fighter: Drinks acid which he was enticed to belive was beneficial.

Not too hard to understand. People reading way way way too much into this. When you over think a something its bad. This spell is funny, and potentally one of the best spells i have seen since I saw a Bard spell back in 3.0 I belive. Was like 2nd level spell called Zev's Epic Song .. all i remeber is anyone in area that heard playing gave away to the bard all their money. The stipulation is after the song the people still felt good about decision and did not want money back. Bards need nice fun spells that are unique. iT makes them more playable.

Okay, sure, then let's not change the verbiage, but instead ponder the possibility that the willingness criteria was unwittingly omitted.

The main reason I feel strongly about it is how absolutely cheesy I feel it would be to have it any other way.

;)

That is why I think a good GM should explain that the helpless and unwilling creature is not subject to the penalty because like a God for clerics and paladins, the Spirit of Nature, etc, see the act as being forced upon and therfore as long as they take their action to remvoe the items they would not be subject. Yes it is not RAW... but RAW is BS when you consider that not every single action can be thought of and put into a book. I am confident that the writers of the books never took into consideration a person putting armor onto a knocked out druid.

As for the bard spell. This spell unfortunatly will bypass this and only this spell. because you have "Entice" the person and they use it knowingly, its only after they use it do they realize the mistake and penalty. If a GM really wanted to be nice they could allow a Int/Wis check to allow the Druid a final chance to become aware that they are about to break their edict. But again this is 1 spell and I dont know many bards or witches.

William Brewer wrote:

SO why not use this as an argument?

I think I'm just bristling about calling the hp absorption capacity of a brooch of shielding "charges", so that's why I'm not a fan of using that as a model. Maybe you could think of it as an item that loses 2-5 charges per MM attack, but that feels like a stretch.

I think a better model is something like Gem of Brightness

Yeah I was just trying to show that charged wonderous items exist. I know alot were trying to appear to argue that nothing like a wand exists in wonderous item category.. Gem of Brightness is another idea.. since its command work daylight spell...

The warrior Drops the sword he was holding... the spell description says he drops everything he was carrying. This includes a 1 hand sword board fighter letting go of the shield as well to take the new 1 hand sword. think of it as a gift where you accept it with both hands open type of action. This could be dangerous in case of an alchemist because him dropping a bomb or a splash weapon could cause it to go off when he drops it.

William Brewer wrote:

And the brooch of shielding

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic-items/wondrous-items/wondrous-items/a-b/brooc h-of-shielding
is a way to look at pricing such an item. It uses shield as its spell, has 101charges and costs 1500gp. it does not grant ac but instead grants the protection to magic missle. since its double normal charges it is double price. So if it had 50charges it would be 750gp or same as a wand, however you dont get ac. I would conclude that this will allow you to make wonderous items with 50charges that are same as wands, except that bonuses to ac or stats have to be calculated using the ac/stat part of magic item creation. But any other spells will add at no extra costs.

Brooch of Shielding is actually quite a different beast. It's a continuous use item that effectively protects you from ~30 magic missile strikes. A shield spell makes you immune to magic missiles and grants +4 to your AC for 1 minute.

I wouldn't link amount of MM damage prevented in a brooch of shielding to the number of charges in a wand of shield and infer that's why the price is 1500. It's apples to oranges.

But its similar enough that it warrants into part of the discussion. It has charges and is a level 1 spell, yes it is continous but it can be viewed as am example of using wonderous item creation and a level 1 spell in a way to create a charge item much like a wand.Yes it is not 100% but the book tells you to look for similar items and use them as a basis to go about creating new items.

Dont forget this part of the chart
Charged (50 charges) 1/2 unlimited use base price Ring of the ram
a ring is not a wand but giving an item 50charges is same as wand

This while not perfect is a good basis and should suffice to argue that a charged item is able to be done. Brooch of Shielding It also is a great way to look at cost as well because the formula it uses here is the break down. (spell level 1 x caster level 1 x 2000 gp for being continous)x 2 because its a minutes/level spell is 4000gp now because the spell is not 100% (no ac)can you now take into account reduction in base price of 25% (which looks like middle ground for price reduction options 10% or 30% that was chosen) so your price is 4000gp -25% = 3000gp then take 1/2 off because it is charged giving final price of item at 1500GP. which it appears is how the creators of book came up with the price. Now for most spells you would not need to reduce the price by 25% because the spell would be working as normal.

SO why not use this as an argument? I mean you have option of Command Word charged item. For level 1 spell that would be (1x1x1800) divided by 1/2 for 50 charges. which is cheaper than wand and be used by anyone. Or you can allow player to make item using spell completion so (1x1x750) and it is usable only by those with spell unless a UMD check.

Noah Fentz wrote:

You're opening a whole new can of worms if all synonyms now count in interpreting rules.

Not a good idea.

My point is that you continue to attempt to use new verbage to describe actions that doesn't exist inside the ruleset. You're pulling synonyms like "having on" to describe the act of wearing armor to differentiate willingness, when at no point do the rules describe any sort of difference between "having on" armor and "wearing" armor.

You're trying to argue the definition of the word "use" does not actively include a specific word, because it utilizes has more commonly used synonyms then "equip", "don", or "wield". You can't say the definition of "use" is "to use something", because you can't use a word to define itself in a dictionary. It's like the famous (oft misinterpreted) quote from President Clinton "that depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is. What he meant by that is "what synonym are you thinking of to describe the verb "to be".

Again arguments sake, uncoincess and helpless creatures and people lieing prone still have to add ac from armor. regardless of intent to have it on, it is there and counts toward ac, unless they have an armor bonus from another source that is overriding the ac. At that point it can get grey. I mean really, I do not want to ask a fighter every time I attack "Are you currently using your armor or is it just being held by your body?". I mean really how much rules lawyer'ing do we need to create for a Fantasy Game? I mean this is crap that ties up games for hours while the Raw player acts like the lawyer because he read the book and therefore "knows" the intent, while the players who are trying to have fun have to sit back and watch the Gm who is the only judge/jury/lawyer/etc tries to get the guy to shut up and understand they are playing a game, and its not real life.

Chris Ballard wrote:

Diego Rossi wrote:

No boys, the spell don't compel anyone to use an item.

Yes, it does.

Beguiling Gift wrote:

The subject is under no obligation to continue consuming or using the item once the spell’s duration has expired, although it may find a cursed item difficult to be rid of.

Emphasis mine.

The whole text of the spell:

PRD wrote:

You offer an object to an adjacent creature, and entice it into using or consuming the proffered item. If the target fails its Will save, it immediately takes the offered object, dropping an already held object if necessary. On its next turn, it consumes or dons the object, as appropriate for the item in question. For example, an apple would be eaten, a potion consumed, a ring put on a finger, and a sword wielded in a free hand. If the target is physically unable to accept the object, the spell fails. The subject is under no obligation to continue consuming or using the item once the spell's duration has expired, although it may find a cursed item difficult to be rid of.

Step by step:

- You offer an object to an adjacent creature, and entice it into using or consuming the proffered item. generic description of the effect

- If the target fails its Will save, it immediately takes the offered object, dropping an already held object if necessary. On its next turn, it consumes or dons the object, as appropriate for the item in question. game mechanics, the actions the target should do if he fail the ST

- For example, an apple would be eaten, a potion consumed, a ring put on a finger, and a sword wielded in a free hand. example of the actions, all about equipping (great suggestion for the right term Cartigan) or consuming the item, nothing about using it

- If the target is physically unable to accept the object, the spell fails. game mechanic.

- The subject is under no obligation to continue consuming or using the item once the spell's duration has...

I think the grey area of the spell is the Entice part. The entice part can allow you to hand a flask of acid and "entice" the person to consume it has a potion. (Bard says :Hey you look hurt take my Cure light) Because hand a person a cure light or potion means nothing because unless they can identify it as such they wouldnt consume it till they looked. So the Entice part will trick the person into doing something, like drinking acid. They accept the gift beliving it to be beneficial and therefore use it accordingly.

wombatkidd wrote:

If he's buying it I agree. If he's making it though? I mean, I did make him take two feats... I think that augments the cost enough for me. :P

In other words, ask your DM. :D

If he only used these feats to create this item, then I'd feel differently. :-).

A wearable wand doesn't normally exist, so crafting it yourself is the best (only?) option. Doubling the cost means he could either buy a wand of shield for 750, take one feat and create a CL2 wand of shield for 750, or take two feats and create a brooch of shield for 750.

That feels about right.

It may be true to some extent. But there are several different options to have wand inside an item and it function without having to be held.

And the brooch of shielding
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic-items/wondrous-items/wondrous-items/a-b/brooc h-of-shielding
is a way to look at pricing such an item. It uses shield as its spell, has 101charges and costs 1500gp. it does not grant ac but instead grants the protection to magic missle. since its double normal charges it is double price. So if it had 50charges it would be 750gp or same as a wand, however you dont get ac. I would conclude that this will allow you to make wonderous items with 50charges that are same as wands, except that bonuses to ac or stats have to be calculated using the ac/stat part of magic item creation. But any other spells will add at no extra costs.

Jeff1964 wrote:

Wands may be cheaper, but only someone with the spell on their spell list can use them easily, and even with UMD, it takes a pretty good roll to activate at low levels. Whereas a ring can be worn by anybody, always works, and doesn't need to be activated (unless it has charges, which just requires speaking the right word or phrase to do so).

Quite correct, just wanted to point out that an item can be word activated and have unlimited uses/day. A ring of invisibility, for example is both.

correct and the price on that ring follows the magic item creation. I just dont see why mage armor or shield should be treated different. But I dont care anymore, after posting I have decided I will go with wands, no point in trying to come up with a magic item since it appears its a random choice on which spells somehow are different, even though they are not. regardless of rules in the book.

William Brewer wrote:

Now here is where I love my wife. Her opinion on this is simple,(...) Same goes for Paldins that are forced to break their codes because of spells that are mentally affecting them that is why there is the whole Willingly clause for them.

No offense is intended, but your wife's opinion on the subject is not really relevant without RAW evidence to support it, especially when she starts talking about how a cosmological entity would choose to view things. What is relevant is the information that is actually printed in the book from a RAW standpoint. To sum up why this is the case, your wife is incorrect from a RAW standpoint on numerous things in this paragraph, but she is using her GM perogative to hand-waive numerous things that are commonly hand-waived. There is nothing wrong with this, but it is NOT RAW. A paladin who breaks their Paladin code while charmed loses all paladin abilities, period. The difference is the Atonement spell that is required does not require the expensive material components. The only protection against being unwilling is for "committing evil acts."

There has already been a minimum of 5 pages about willing versus unwilling in the "Hand a druid a steel shield" thread. Let's try to keep this one on the subject of RAW instead of "here's how I think it should work."

Any GM who uses RAW only as there rules is going to find themselves in trouble. Again I have said it before, the books cannot come up with every scenario that can occur in a game, and this is what a Good GM has to consider. IF you want a great example, grab the core book and find rules on missing with splash weapons, it somehow was left out, so you have to grab a 3.5 book to get the little chart showing how to calculate misses. And this is just 1 of many errors or missing info that should be there.

Kinithin wrote:

Hi,

I saw someone imply that teleportation spells do not trigger an AoO because the caster won't be there to receive the blow.

Assuming the spell has a casting time of one standard action (such as Dimension Door and Teleport), is that truly the case? I would have thought that the AoO would occur during the casting action, and thus before the actual teleport.

prd wrote:

Generally, if you cast a spell, you provoke attacks of opportunity from threatening enemies. If you take damage from an attack of opportunity, you must make a concentration check (DC 10 + points of damage taken + the spell's level) or lose the spell. Spells that require only a free action to cast don't provoke attacks of opportunity.

Thanks

AOO's are resolved before the action that triggers them. Not only would casting provoke, but if the enemy had combat reflexes, the caster could take a second one for leaving the opponent's threatened square.

Sorry but even with Combat Reflexes, only 1 AOO on a person per round. the Combat Reflex feat allows you to hit mulitple targets that are provoking AOO. But you can never hit same person more than once in a round because of AOO.

Now here is where I love my wife. Her opinion on this is simple, in the case of the druid being knocked out or helpless when you "Don" the items. or being cohersed into using it, (charm person etc.). The Nature spirit would most likely see the actions and no harm would befall the Druid so long as they removed those items on their action (once they get one). Same goes for Paldins that are forced to break their codes because of spells that are mentally affecting them that is why there is the whole Willingly clause for them. I think its something that has always been Ommitted from the Druid. I mean really its hard to get a person to do something they wouldnt normally do.. most mind control spells actually say that if doing something that they would not normally do (like wear metal) they get another save etc.. That is why most people on this subject are discussing helpless foes. A GM is the final say so. If they rule the Nature spirit saw through the ruse and does not penalize that is their choice. if they rule it stops druid.. then it stops. I would use the rule that it will not work..except for the 1 bard spell that is broken.

I think people also forget. Being knocked out or helpless is not actually 100% the case. A person who is knocked out and laying on the ground does not change the ac of the person other than dex and the negatives etc for being prone. A person trying to stike or attack that person will have to hit an ac that calculates the armor being worn. So as soon as it is Donned and in the case of a shield, held, it adds ac. period and therefore is being used. Now the shield laying on the ground in a persons hand is not being used since a shield has to be held and manipulated to get ac. That is why you cant just strap a shield to your back and get its effect. The only execeptions would be Place a hand on a Tower shields straps so as to holding it while at the same time positioning shield to have cover. Again these are the only really passive use of a shield. Which that in itself can be interesting if a GM really wanted to dick a player druid, penalize him for ducking behind a tower shield since it could be inertpreted as using it,(to get cover) regardless of the person actually holding it.

(if that works.. why go through trouble of knocking guy out and then giving him items, could theoretically just run up to him turn shield on everyone else and have team member fire an attack which would be affected by the shields cover.) The problem with rules is they are never 100% clear because you can never anticipate what the players may do.

Wands may be cheaper, but only someone with the spell on their spell list can use them easily, and even with UMD, it takes a pretty good roll to activate at low levels. Whereas a ring can be worn by anybody, always works, and doesn't need to be activated (unless it has charges, which just requires speaking the right word or phrase to do so).

correct for low levels it is harder.. but this is for a wizard and at level 6 or 7.. so the issue is trying to find the most cost effective way. Personally I have always felt wands were to easy to use. That is why I was looking at a magic item other than wand. But after seeing all the posts on the idea of using the craft magic items and it working differently for those 2 spells, (even though truthfully its way to gray, I mean you could make almost any other spell command word and not change cost) I think wands will be the best way to go. Its cheaper and I get same effect.

First off, the price for a continuous Ring of Mage Shield should be 32000, as it is an AC (deflection) bonus, not a continuous spell effect. The continuous Ring of Shielding should be at least 10,000 because it provides a shield bonus to AC as well as stopping Magic Missiles cold. As for combining them into one ring with 3 charges each, that would be 19,200 for the Mage Armor, plus 6,000 for the Shield, plus another 3,000 for an additional (similar) effect on an existing item, for a grand total cost of 28,200 gp, slightly cheaper than a Ring of Protection +4.

still seems rather dumb math.. since wands are so cheap.. for same effects.. and more uses.. and even if they run out of charges. I can get new wands or craft my own even cheaper... this is the problem with magic items.... why cant we just go back to 2nd edition..

Your math may be correct, but your method isn't. The guidelines for custom magic item pricing are just that- guidelines. Any time they create something that seems cheaper than an equivalently-powered item, then you need to change the price to more closely match the equivalently-powered item. Giving permanent spell effects (or at-will spell effects), ESPECIALLY for spells that give bonuses to statistics, is NEVER a good idea by those guidelines, for multiple reasons. Example: Bracers of Armor +4 are a magic item staple, and they cost 16,000 gp (bonus squared x 1000). An item that casts Mage Armor at will is, for all intents and purposes, the exact same thing- so therefore, any method that prices less than 16,000 should not be used, because static bonuses have their own formulas. Same (except some would say even moreso) for an item of Shield at will- even doubly so for an item that does both. An item that gives Mage Armor and Shield both at will gives effectively a +8 armor bonus to AC, which means it should be AT LEAST as expensive as Bracers of Armor +8. (In other words, 64,000 gp.)

In my opinion, if you don't know very much about pricing custom items, then either don't allow them, or only allow ones that you've designed yourself to be given to PCs (and don't allow them to be sold). The game is 1,000x simpler that way.

Ok so what would you see as a price for say this item but charges per day.. say 3 charges per day.. of course per spell.. so 3 charges shield and 3 charges mage armor... would something like this be under same rules... since math wise it would be around 3000gp. Or is this still doing something that while within rules is considered "overpowered".. i mean I can get 2 wands with 50charges each and do same thing..and for half the cost..

I have a simple question. I am horrible at pricing magic items. I am trying to figure out if it goes against the rules to Create for instance a Ring with Continous Mage armor and Ring of Continous Shield?. Now I have tried to follow the rules in back of book and the price I keep coming up with is Base price 4000gp (spell level 1 x caster level 1 x 2000)x2 for the Shield and 2000gp for the Mage armor since its duration is hours there is no added multiplier. (x4 to price for rounds/level, x2 for minutes/level, x1.5 for 10minutes/level and half price for effects last 24hours or more). I also thought about combineing both onto one ring since they are similar effects that add ac, so one ring would have price 5500 (4000 for first effect and 75% for second effect or 1500). Is my math correct? or should I consider command word effect? help is needed, I want to get this right and I hate the magic item creation.

Well after reading this I now know of a spell that I will keep handy if I ever come across a time when a druid encounter may occur.

Also after reading the spell i am also considering a Bard/Alchemist idea. since Alchemist can make poisons easy and to top it off there is Always the Mutagen and its rule "A non-alchemist who drinks a mutagen must make a Fortitude save (DC 10 + 1/2 the alchemist’s level + the alchemist’s Intelligence modifier) or become nauseated for 1 hour—" This would be really evil way to take care of foes.

--here drink this.

CConsideringthe caster level is integral to the pricing, yes it would be unreasonable. Especially since you can make an item at a higher caster level, it just increases the dc.

And the change in the feat prereq doesn't change the level of the spells needed to craft the specific ring.

Now im going with the idea that You still must meet all other requirements like spells so would need the level neccesarry to cast the spells (unless you add +5 to dc or pay to have spell cast from someone else). however I do not see how caster level plays into the cost of the item. when you look at the magic item creation rules it only indicates that creating rings is hard to come up with price and to use the Table: Estimating Magic Item Gold Piece Values to come up with costs of rings not listed in the magic items section for rings. So changing the Caster level I dont think would change any prices. All this will do is allow my Wizard to use his Forge Ring Feat when he gets it. And not have a feat that takes 5 levels before I can use it.

Ok I have been going over the change to Forge Ring in Pathfinder Core book and on the website http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/item-creation-feats/forge-ring-item-creation- --final which have Forge Ring now caster level 7 to make. However I notice that they did not change the caster level requirments of the rings themselves. So my question is, would it be unreasonable to request that the caster level be dropped on rings to indicate the new requirement for feat?. so example: Ring of Wizardry1 will be Caster level 6 not 11 as it is (old forge ring 12 - new forge ring 7 = 5 level drop) so (all caster level requirments drop by 5 to a minimum of 1). The prices will not change. Just the caster level to make. Is this unreasonable to request this to a GM?.