YIDM's page

Question: Do temporary item enhancements to a weapon or armor increase an objects hardness and hit points? …such as those from a greater magic weapon or magic vestment spell, or a paladin’s Divine Bond (Su) ability?

Magic Armor, Shields, and Weapons: Each +1 of enhancement bonus adds 2 to the hardness of armor, a weapon, or a shield, and +10 to the item's hit points.

And per the small legend at the end of table:

1 Add +2 for each +1 enhancement bonus of magic items.

2 The hp value given is for Medium armor, weapons, and shields. Divide by 2 for each size category of the item smaller than Medium, or multiply it by 2 for each size category larger than Medium.
3 Add 10 hp for each +1 enhancement bonus of magic items.
4 Varies by material; see Table: Substance Hardness and Hit Points.

I think the answer hinges on what defines a “magic item”. If we take the literal stance, that a “magic item” is something created with one of the [Item Creation] crafting feats, then it is 'somewhat' clear (or an argument could be made) that a spell would not increase hp or hardness, since the item in question could just be a masterwork item with a spell effect on it.

There is already some precedent that temporary effects do not work the same as the real thing (see greater magic weapon and its inability to penetrate material and alignment DR like a real magic weapon of +5 enhancement, it only bypasses magic, regardless of bonus granted by the spell).

Lastly, if we just apply the RAW (Rules As Written), the temporary effects listed, i.e. greater magic weapon or magic vestment spells, or paladin’s Divine Bond (Su); don’t say they increase the hp or hardness of the items they are on. They only say they give bonuses to enhancement. And if we go directly by RAW, it only does, what the rules say it does…so it doesn’t add hardness or hp, since that’s not listed as one of the benefits that the spells/ability grants.

Thoughts? Or does anyone have a official answer to this?

YIDM

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/a/angelic-aspect
This is an 8th level cleric spell (CL 15), or a 4th level paladin spell (CL 13).

Question: So can one legally purchase this scroll in PFS play below seeker levels? (i.e. 11th level or less)

YIDM

Question: Does limited wish duplicating planar binding actually do anything without the magic circle spells? The relevant text that concerns me is in the planar binding series of spells (see link):
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/spells/planarBinding.html#planar-binding

“Casting this spell attempts a dangerous act: to lure a creature from another plane to a specifically prepared trap… To create the trap, you must use a magic circle spell, focused inward.”

This leads me to question, if you don’t have a magic circle spell, and cast planar binding, if the spell effectively fails because you don’t have the ‘trap’, and nothing actually happens.

YIDM

What are the RAW on the following situations and rules:

Question 1: Your party is in a 5 ft. wide corridor, you enter combat, and go to charge an enemy down the corridor… but don’t realize (or can’t see that) your invisible wizard friend has moved in front of you (earlier in the initiative order). What happens by RAW?
My take on RAW: You can’t charge thru a friendly square, so, it appears your charge would suddenly stop, your action would end, and you’d be moved back to the last legal square.

Interestingly, if this is so, seems like just moving around as fast as you can is one of the easier ways to find an invisible opponent (as soon as the GM stops you from entering a square, you know what square he’s at, and your party can hit it with glitterdust or faerie fire; until the invisible opponent moves anyway)

I’d I had to rule it in a homebrew game - - I’d convert the charge into an unintentional “overrun” attempt, possibly knocking over the invisible opponent, and giving it a 50% miss chance (since overrun is an attack).

Question 2: you are fighting an enemy, and your invisible wizard ally wielding a staff sneaks up (using Stealth), and positions himself directly behind and opposite the enemy; do you and the wizard get the +2 flanking bonus if the wizard remains hidden and doesn’t actually attack?
My take on RAW: It appears you would get a flanking bonus against the enemy, as the conditions for flanking have been satisfied (even thou, logically, you shouldn’t as the enemy doesn’t know the wizard is there and shouldn’t be concerned / distracted)

If I had to rule it in a homebrew game - - I’d probably rule it not give the flanking bonus, unless the enemy had reason to be concerned with an invisible opponent behind him.

YIDM

I’m trying to figure out if there has been any official clairification regarding calm emotions by a Dev, FAQ, errata, etc. and it’s interaction with rage.
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/spells/calmEmotions.html

Calm Emotions

School enchantment (compulsion) [mind-affecting]; Level bard 2, cleric 2
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V, S, DF
Range medium (100 ft. + 10 ft./level)
Area creatures in a 20-ft.-radius spread
Duration concentration, up to 1 round/level (D)
Saving Throw Will negates; Spell Resistance yes

This spell calms agitated creatures. You have no control over the affected creatures, but calm emotions can stop raging creatures from fighting or joyous ones from reveling. Creatures so affected cannot take violent actions (although they can defend themselves) or do anything destructive. Any aggressive action against or damage dealt to a calmed creature immediately breaks the spell on all calmed creatures.

This spell automatically suppresses (but does not dispel) any morale bonuses granted by spells such as bless, good hope, and rage, and also negates a bard's ability to inspire courage or a barbarian's rage ability. It also suppresses any fear effects and removes the confused condition from all targets. While the spell lasts, a suppressed spell, condition, or effect has no effect. When the calm emotions spell ends, the original spell or effect takes hold of the creature again, provided that its duration has not expired in the meantime.

Emphasis mine.

Based on the limited use, the spells concentration requirement, and the “automatically suppresses” text of the second paragraph, I’m inclined to go with interpretation #2.

I found these other two forum posts regarding this subject:
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2lm1m?Calm-Emotions-Rage-Killer
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2n2cm?Calm-Emotions-attacks

Has anyone else got anything more definitive about this subject?

YIDM

I had a specific question related to detect evil.
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/spells/detectEvil.html

Question 1) Could someone use detect evil to sense an ambush? (provided he looked / put his cone in the right direction); This based on the text “Creatures with actively evil intents count as evil creatures for the purpose of this spell.”

Question 2) What classifies as an aligned magic item? Is there a formal definition somewhere? Examples would include a Sihedron medallion? (also known as a star medallion), what about a +1 unholy longsword? Now, how about a black robe of the archmagi? Are any of these items really “evil” and as such, detectable by the detect evil spell as an aligned magic item?

My question is if magic items produce spells and spell-like effects can they be used in conjunction with the Shadow Gambit feat (similarly to Augment Summoning and the summoners summon monster spell-like ability).
1) Scrolls? (spell completion item)
2) Wands & Staffs? (spell trigger items)
3) Deck of illusions? (use activated item creating spell-like major image spell-like effect)
4) Ring of decoy? (use activated item creating a mislead [and by reference a major image] spell-like effect)

My question is regarding the Shadow Gambit feat
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/general-feats/shadow-gambit

Shadow Gambit

Benefit: As a standard action, you can draw upon energies from the Plane of Shadow to cause an ongoing figment spell you cast to damage a foe as if the illusion were real. The illusion must be one you retain ongoing control of, such as minor image, and the target must be both visible to you and within or adjacent to the area of your illusion. Using this feat immediately ends the figment’s duration.

And spells and spell-like effects created by magic items (see Saving Throws paragraph)

Saving Throws Against Magic Item Powers

Magic items produce spells or spell-like effects. For a saving throw against a spell or spell-like effect from a magic item, the DC is 10 + the level of the spell or effect + the ability modifier of the minimum ability score needed to cast that level of spell.

So, what is the consensus here? Has a developer spoken to something about this sort of topic?

I'm pretty sure #1 thru #3 are valid as scrolls, wands, and staffs create spells, which are cast by the creature using the item. (and could be counterspelled)

YIDM

Okay, so what happens if you have two spellcasting opponents (A and B) who go in a surprise round, and ignore others party members / enemies that don’t. Both spellcasters ready an action with the clause “If the other spellcaster does anything other than stand there, I cast magic missile at them”?

The spellcaster character A has higher initiative, and on the first round of combat continues his ready action (taking a standard to do so), but then goes to move to get closer to spellcaster character B.
Character B has a readied action, and now goes to attack and cast his magic missile spell, but Character A also has a readied action for the same thing (against character B). Now, who goes first? Is it simultaneous?

YIDM

I have TWO different PFS 4-star GM’s arguing with me about an issue that seems clear by RAW and yet they insist that I am misinterpreting the rules. I have presented my arguments to the contrary but they just tell me that we’ll “agree to disagree” and they’re going to run it the way its “supposed to work” by their viewpoint.

The topic: detect magic vs. invisibility

I interpret the RAW to be the following:

Item #1) detect magic can sense the presence of the magic aura of the invisibility spell within its cone (round 1); determine the number of auras within the cone, if there were multiple auras present (round 2); determine the strength of the aura (faint aura, as invisibility is a 2nd level spell, according to the chart referenced in the spell), determine its school of magic with a successful Knowledge arcana check, and pinpoint which square the aura was in (round 3). The invisible creature or object would still have total concealment (50% miss chance vs. any attacks however)

Item #2) detect magic could sense this faint aura even in total darkness, with a blind spellcaster, or if the invisibility spell had total cover from the detect magic user, up to the limits of the spell (up to 1 foot of solid stone, 1 inch of metal, etc., according to the text of the spell)

Item #3) After determining the strength and location of the aura (3rd round); successfully identifying the school of magic with an Knowledge (arcana) check (and identifying it as illusion), the detect magic spellcaster could then also make a follow up Knowledge (arcana) check, and if successful, identify the illusion spell detected (with the faint aura [3rd level or less]) as the named "invisibility" spell.

I presented the RAW text on all of the following:
detect magic -
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/spells/detectMagic.html#detect-magic
invisibility -
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/spells/invisibility.html#invisibility
the “invisible” condition –
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/glossary.html#invisibility
(namely at the bottom where it says invisibility doesn’t thwart divination spells)
mythic invisibility -
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/mythicAdventures/mythicSpells/invisibili ty.html#invisibility-mythic
(which specifically states that it thwarts detection by detect magic)

All of the above as evidence, but they have disregarded it saying that’s what the see invisibility spell was created for and a simple 0-level cantrip cannot trump a 2nd level spell (citing RAI for justification). They are stating they will not rule it as I have presented, and detect magic will not (or should not) detect a creature or object under the influence of the invisibility spell. I debated that it’s very situational, taking 3 rounds to do (unless you have arcane sight spell on, or the see magic arcane exploit). They have also said unless a Dev comments on it (or it gets added to the FAQ or errata), their ruling is final. I strongly believe their ruling is not correct by either RAW or RAI.

Can we get a Dev to comment on this topic - - please???

When did this happen? I just saw the Additional Resources page and noticed it...as was the "darkvision" replacement trait.

They let Aasimar and Tieflings be grandfathered in, and other core races (like Dwarves) have darkvision, so - - what put everyone's panties in a wad about dusk elves?

YIDM

I recently came into debate during a game about what an unseen servant can / could do per RAW.

Per RAW (unseen servant – http://paizo.com/prd/spells/unseenServant.html)
It cannot:
1) Do anything that requires a Strength higher than 2.
2) Can’t perform a task with a DC higher than 10.
3) Can’t perform a Skill that requires you to be trained.
4) Cannot attack in any way (“attack”, per RAW, is defined as something that would break an invisibility spell); generally this involves a d20 attack roll which it cannot make.

Per RAW:
1) Reloading a crossbow (or) firearm - per RAW - - does it require a Strength higher than 2? (No); Does it require a task of higher than DC 10? (No); Does it require a trained skill? (No); Does it require an attack roll to reload the crossbow? (No)
**Therefore, I conclude it can perform the above action – correct?
2) Can it prop up a darkwood towershield (22.5 lb.) resting on the ground, for a character to hide behind and take cover? Physics tells us, half the weight is resting on the ground (11.25 lb), and the other half (11.25 lb) would be propped up by the unseen servant.
**Therefore, I conclude it can prop the shield, or a similar weight plank of wood up, drag it, but couldn’t lift it off the ground. Propping it up with someone hiding behind it would be sufficient for cover.

What are your thoughts on my claims #1 and #2?
Do you agree?

YIDM

I think I know the answer, but I'd be curious what others think.

Q) What's the ruling on this interaction:
An arcanist either knows (in his spellbook), prepares, and casts a Mnemonic Enhancer spell, or uses UMD to cast a wand of Mnemonic Enhancer. What's the outcome? Can he now prepare additional spells?

YIDM

I have two rules related questions and would like your assistance with interpretation of RAW (Rules As Written), for a Pathfinder Society game:

#1 Question: Does flanking (Core Rulebook page 197) take into account an opponent on higher ground? (page 195)

Example (characters A, C, enemy B): A B C

Characters "A" and "C" are standing and attacking/threatening on opposite sides of enemy "B", however enemy "B" is standing on top of a 5 ft. high pedestal.
Is this still considered flanking despite the elevation difference?

#2 Question: Can a tower shield (Core Rulebook page 153), granting "total cover" in an open doorway, block a spells "line of effect" (minimum opening 1 square foot per Core Rulebook page 215) for a different character, positioned directly behind the tower shield user.

Line of effect (page 215) reads "...a line of effect is blocked by a solid barrier." (like a tower shield positioned in an open doorway)

.........................................................│
.........................................................│
Example (characters A, C, enemy B): A C. . . B
.........................................................│
.........................................................│

Character "C" is using a tower shield for total cover in an open doorway; character "A" is directly behind him, and the enemy spellcaster "B" is 5 ft. above the ground flying and attempting to cast a spell through the door, beyond character "C" (whose using the tower shield for total cover) on character "A"; does the enemy spellcaster "B" have the necessary 1 ft. square opening required for line of effect to character "A", considering the tower shield cover?

Thank you for taking the time to respond to my questions.

YIDM

Basically, I left the magus class as is, and used only two Kensi archetype substitutions (from Ultimate Combat) to remain as “official” as I can. This is all that is really needed, however, in staying true to the bladesinger flavor, I am also proposing adding one minor and one major ability from the original 3.0-3.5 prestige class.

In summary (Bladesinger Archetype):

http://www.scribd.com/doc/63513862/Blade-Singer
1st – as kensi (diminished casting, weapon focus, canny defense, etc.)
2nd – as magus
3rd – as magus
4th – as magus
5th – as magus
6th – as magus
7th – as kensi, then replaced kensi "perfect strike" with 3.0-3.5 "lesser spellsong" ability
8th – as magus
9th – as magus
10th – as magus
11th – as magus
12th – as magus
13th - replaced magus "heavy armor" with "light armor" magus ability
14th – as magus
15th – as magus
16th - replaced magus "counterstrike" with 3.0-3.5 "song of fury" ability
17th – as magus
18th – as magus
19th – as magus
20th – as kensi (fighter weapon mastery)

I could replace 15th magus arcana forcing the archtype to take Quicken Magic as the bladesinger “song of celerity”.
What are your thoughts on this conversion? Is it balanced and true to the flavor of the original bladesinger?
To me this seemed better than trying to make a prestige class out of it.

Your Immortal DM