Search Posts
Sorry, you're right. I don't know why, I also counted the +4 racial skill bonus, which only applies to Perception. So it should get +22 Perception and +18 Sense motive. As Dragonchess Player wrote, it really looks like Alertness feat is missing here.
You'll find lots of little errors, especially in skills, within the bestiaries. Ultimately its up to you; while perception is definitely one of the more "important to have correct for combat" skills, its also still just a +4 difference in both cases, and I wouldn't be surprised if the Movanic deva was supposed to have alertness and they forgot to put it in (judging by the +22 sense motive without +4 racial for that too, it would seem so)/traded it for some other "more important feat" and forgot to adjust skills, and likewise forgot to add at the end the racial skill bonus for Astral. So there is no official answer, and it's probably too late to ask for an official errata here. I think I'll change the movanic deva perception to +22 (that's the less impacting for the game).For the astral deva, as I wrote in my last comment, it depends on what is considered as the race here. If the race is deva, then all devas should have the +4 bonus. If it's a specific kind of deva, then maybe it's time to accept that lesser deva have better perception than the greater ones. Thanks for your insight on this question.
Actually the +22 Sense Motive is correct for the movanic deva. Only the Perception score needs to be adjusted. For the astral deva, this rises another question: to what part does the racial apply? Angel? Deva? Astral? I think it's the later, but is there a clear rule for this?
I recently focused on the Perception score of Movanic Deva (+26), because my players got the help of a small group of these angels.
To me, it looks like some kind of typos and I intend to change these Perception scores to +22 / +29 / + 30 for the 3 Deva species.
LazarX, while I agree with your general reasoning, the rules follow their own mechanics. We have similar other examples of real-life inconsistencies (like the disintegrate spell that can totally destroy a creature but leaves her equipment unaffected). I think this is a deliberate choice from the designer team. This avoids situations where items are regularly destroyed because it induces the need for more treasure (either money or magic) to repair or replace lost possessions. I game terms, the increasing rate of change in equipment slows the playing rhythm as many items impact vital stats of the character and force players to recalculate lots of numbers (characteristics, AC, combat, spells, etc.). So to keep up game fluidity and the best thing to do is finding a way to minimize loss of equipment, even if it means to have less realistic situations.
Thanks Numarak, that's exactly what I was looking for ! I just can't believe I didn't find it sooner.IMO, it completely answers my initial question. Of course one can argue how this can be devoid of logic, but in a fantasy world where dragons do exist, we can also accept that our real-world logic is sometimes irrelevant. Thanks again for all you who helped me with this topic.
What you actually need is a general rule to show that things which affect characters also affect items. However as I already mentioned the game has specific rules telling you when items are affected. You have no rule nor precedent for whatever kills/destroys a character affecting an item as the default. The specific ability in question also only calls out creatures. So like I said before since you are making the claim it is on you to find the proof. Your players are the ones you have to convince however so they may just accept it. However if they don't just accept what rules do you have to show that your idea is the intent? You can try asking Mark (a dev), but I don't think he will agree either. However if he does at least you will have an unofficial answer. You are right : the game has specific rules telling us when items are damaged. This rule applies to spells (and unless you have a quote telling me the contrary ONLY to spells). While I can understand the logic of your reasoning and somewhat even agree with it, we have no general rule that clearly states that items are not damaged by special abilities or specific powers. So you try to convince me that your interpretation, that I consider more RAI than RAW is the only one possible.Now, I think the only way to close this thread is to agree that the text about Items Surviving after a Saving Throw should be interpreted like this: Unless the descriptive text for a spell or a special ability specifies otherwise, all items carried or worn by a creature are assumed to survive this attack. There will be no ambiguity left if the text was written like this and I want your opinion about suggesting a modification to the official team.
Your first quote and your emphasis, clearly proves that supernatural abilities have their own rules mechanisms. So it's not because spells and supernatural abilities share some rules that they should be the same thing. You also got a point with the target of incinerate. I tried to find other abilities or effects in the same vein that affect a creature to compare with incinerate. I found that disintegrate was quite close :A thin, green ray springs from your pointing finger. You must make a successful ranged touch attack to hit. Any creature struck by the ray takes 2d6 points of damage per caster level (to a maximum of 40d6). Any creature reduced to 0 or fewer hit points by this spell is entirely disintegrated, leaving behind only a trace of fine dust. A disintegrated creature's equipment is unaffected.We can also compare with flesh to stone: The subject, along with all its carried gear, turns into a mindless, inert statue. As you can see, the text gives precise descriptions about the equipment of the target, despite the fact they're spells. In my opinion, disintegrate adds the bold text because the total destruction of a creature legitimately makes the reader to ponder about gear and items worn. In the same way, flesh to stone tells us what happens to equipment because items are often unaffected by spells that target creatures. I could also have used the destruction spell instead of disintegrate... Back to incinerate: In the light to these 2 examples, I think the supernatural ability should contain precise information about the gear of the ash-turned creatures. If disintegrate has the info, incinerate should have too.So my question is still unresolved: where in the rules is it written that a supernatural ability that destroys a creature leaves her equipment unaffected ?
Why would a Great Wyrm Red dragon want an ability that deprives it of additional loot for its hoard? It's because dragons love treasure and the taste of juicy adventurers that they are so formidable opponents in physical combat : high armor class, good damage and many spells to improve this further. But sometimes, he wants to teach a hard lesson to assumptive adventurers. Turn their body and equipment into ash to be sure that the survivors won't come back the next day fresh and ready for a new fight.
That's not because supernatural abilities tends to follow some of the spell rules, that they have to stick to all the spells rules. There are many differences : spells do provoke AOO in combat, supernatural abilities don't, spells can be dispelled or countered, supernatural abilities, can't... Breath weapons and spells have as much similarities than differences, but nothing in RAW tells us that breath weapons should follow spells rules. Of course you can argue that nothing tells the opposite, but this will lead nowhere.Wraithstrike, your answer makes sense for me but I was looking for a clean answer that no player could argue at the gaming table. Obviously there is still room for debate here, and that's why the GM exists : to make a decision.
By the rules gear is not affected unless a nat 1 is rolled. Can you quote the exact rule please ? I've found this:
However, the text talks about spells. Breath weapons are supernatural [Su] and not spell [Sp]. So if you go RAW, can it be applied for breath weapons ? I would say no, but as English isn't my native language, I may have misunderstood something.
I'm having trouble finding the rules quotes, but attended magical items (which they are until the characters are dead) are only ever damaged when a character rolls a natural 1 on a saving throw. And then only 1 item at a time, and there is a table to roll on to determine which it is. Claxon, this rule is about a failed saving throw and it seems very logical : you hard failed with a natural 1 and have to roll for your gear. With incinerate, you can pass the save for the breath attack, but even if you succeed and your hp go down to 0 or lower, you have to make a Fortitude save to avoid being reduced to ash. So you can pass the Reflex save, avoiding part of the breath attack, still be alive (e.g. unconscious at -1 hp) and nonetheless be utterly destroyed by this ability because you fail the Fortitude save.Imagine a spell caster with no armor (mage robe) caught in the breath while reading a scroll. The poor mage is reduced to fine gray powder BUT the scroll and the robe are still intact ? I have to find some way to explain how this is possible. Maybe the Great Wyrm breath attack secret is some kind of matter porosity : the flames go through armor and clothes, directly burning flesh, leaving astonished and horrified enemies at the sight of cooked corpses...
My gaming group encountered a Great Wyrm Red dragon. During the fight, the fiery dragon breath brought some players under 0 hp, activating the incinerate special ability.
Incinerate (Su) A great wyrm red dragon can incinerate creatures in its fiery breath. A creature reduced to fewer than 0 hit points by its breath weapon must make a Fortitude save (using the breath weapon's DC). Failure indicates that the creature is reduced to ash. Creatures destroyed in this way can only be restored to life through true resurrection or similar magic. As the creature body is reduced to ash, it may be logical to roll saves for equipment and worn items, particularly for low ignition point materials items like scrolls, capes or robes. Of course, this is not RAW, and I've found nothing in the rules to back-up this. So what do you think about this situation and do you know if there is a rule that can help me in one way or another ? Thanks
If you crit with MPA, your PA bonus is doubled. With +9 BAB and two handed weapon your PA bonus is+3 x1.5 (2-handed) = +4.5 x3 (for +9 BAB) = +13.5 rounded down to +13. On a critical hit it becomes
And finally your crit with your large nodachi is (2d8+27+9)x2 = 4d8+72.
Yeah, it's quickly becomes many numbers crunching and I advise my players to have a sheet with all possibilities calculated ahead in advance in order to save time during combat situations.
That's also what I think, but that can be argued, since both entries could be legitimate.
On Mythic Adventures, the base mythic abilities chapter lists Force of Will as a 6th tier power on the table, while the power description lists it as a 7th tier power.
Thanks for the answers. However I still need precisions with yours.
I have a few questions about this : 1 - Who is allowed to dismiss the spell ?1a - Only the caster 1b - The target 1c - Both 2 - You must be within spell range. Doest it mean that you have to touch all targets in order to dismiss a spell with range of "touch" ? 3 - Do you need to have line of effect / line of sight to dismiss spells with a range ? 4 - Wind Walk (maybe other spells) has (D) in duration meaning it's dismissable. As you can't talk while you are in gaseous form, does it mean you can't dismiss it and have to return to solid form before (which lower greatly the use of dismissing the spell, because one of its drawbacks is the 5-round delay to change form) ? Thanks for your answers.
It's true that Two-weapon fighting does not allow for additional attacks for higher BAB. But I disagree for for Improved/Greater TWF feats, whose are exceptions to this general rule. If you look at the feats prerequisites, you must have high BAB (+6 for Improved TWF and +11 for Greater TWF) to choose these feats, thus allowing you to make additional attacks when you take the feat. So technically speaking, the Improved/Greater TWF feats allow the character to make additional attacks as they reach high BAB. The difference being that it's keyed to a feat instead of being automatic. For me, this qualifies these additional attacks to receive bonus from Mythic Precision. The monk Flurry is another problem. If you look at the Monk FAQ, your can see that Monks can Flurry with only one weapon. So it's not because calculating the numbers follows the same rules as the TWF feats, that this is Two-weapons fighting. I would also allow all the lesser bonus attacks from flurry to benefit from the +5 bonus from Mythic precision.
Yeah, you can't actually dispel spell turning with dispel magic unless you use greater dispel magic, which has an "area dispel" option. That one gets by on the technicality that spell turning can't affect area spells. At that point, you just hope that spell turning is one of the highest level spells currently affecting the target (at 7th level, it probably will be!) since greater dispel checks against spells from highest to lowest level. Sorry to necro this thread, but it's exactly the question I was looking for. If you read the Dispel Magic description, the text of Targeted Dispel allows to target a spell effect :Targeted Dispel: One object, creature, or spell is the target of the dispel magic spell. So I'd rather think that dispel magic or greater dispel magic work against spell turning. The main problem for the dispelling caster, is to know that the spell turning is active.
Sorry for the delay, I've been unable to connect for a few days.
1) I understand that the common meaning of a strike is a solid hit (successful attack roll, allowing to roll for damage). But the rules should use the same terms for identical actions and avoid, as far as possible, any (mis)interpretation. The text of Fire Shield is more clear as it uses attack instead of strike, which is more logical regarding the spell's effects.
2) I think that Large creatures having a 10 ft reach or more AND using appropriately sized non-natural weapons, should be treated like Medium sized creatures with reach weapons. Actually L creatures have an advantage in this case, because they can still attack adjacent enemies whereas reach weapons from M creatures usually can't. Unless someone direct me towards an official ruling telling I'm on the wrong side, I'll play it that way.
In the Barbed Devil description, the creature has a special ability named Barbed Defense :
Barbed Defense (Su) A creature that strikes a hamatula with a melee weapon, an unarmed strike, or a natural weapon takes 1d8+6 points of piercing damage from the devil's barbs. Melee weapons with reach do not endanger a user in this way. 1) Does "strike" mean an attack attempt - whatever the result of this action is success or fail - or does it mean a successful hit ? 2) Are large creatures with L size weapons considered to have reach and avoid the damage from the barbs ?Thank you for your help. Alain
Your comment about the immediate expend as a result of the failed will save makes sense. The spell could have been more clear about this, as the term "expend" seems to indicate a willing action from the creature.
Hello,
No.
Yes.
The globe is not an object it's a spell that can be targeted with dispel magic. Targeted Dispel: One object, creature, or spell is the target of the dispel magic spell.
Even if the globe was an object, the light emitted by an invisible source is still visible. So all you can get is a globe of shimmering "invisible" air. Invisibility : Light, however, never becomes invisible, although a source of light can become so (thus, the effect is that of a light with no visible source).
Detect Magic will respond to the magic of the globe, but not with that lies within. Detect Invisibility won't detect anything inside the globe.Arcane Sight functions like Detect Magic. Hope this helps.
So, what happens if an invisible target of Glitterdust casts another Invisibility? You should rather consider the dust as thousand of light sources. So the target of the spell is outlined with tiny points of light with such accuracy that you can make normal attacks on her. Casting another invisibility spell doesn't help because invisibility doesn't hide light. The tiny lights outlines the target event if she casts dozens of invisibility spells. Jason didn't write that the spell cancel or dispel invisibility, it just renders it useless because of the impossibility to hide the light that reveals your shape and because you get -40 on stealth checks. However, if you are invisible and immobile, you still gets a +40 bonus on stealth and you can try to hide with your base stealth. Of course, if you move, invisibility gives "only" +20, so the glitterdust is really a major hindrance to anyone trying to move while the spell effect is active.
So I suppose the key answer is with the calling descriptor of Planar Ally. I should also have read the AMF more carefully :
The effects of instantaneous conjurations are not affected by an antimagic field because the conjuration itself is no longer in effect, only its result. As the Planar Ally has an instantaneous duration, the answer is clear: the creature doesn't disappear and the spell can be cast. To Wraith235 : I don't think the AMF will stay behind if the creature is dispelled because the spell description states : An invisible barrier surrounds you and moves with you. So if the caster disappears, the AMF does too. Thanks for your answers.
What happens when an invoqued Planar Ally has the possibility to cast Antimagic field?
The PFSRD (energy drain and negative levels) give you the answer on the last paragraph. If you are 1st level, you loose 2 Con pts. If you are 2nd level, you loose 2 permanent level and need a restoration spell (on the following round, effectively bringing you back to level 1.If add all the expensive material components (5000 + 1000 gp), low level characters should have a the hard time to be raised and will probably RIP ! |
