artmarks7's page

I always assume that a good magic trap has Magic Aura used on it. Given that a magic trap has to have detection magic and the spell effect's magic school, adding a low level illusion shouldn't be too much of a stretch to what already has to be a magic mix.

So for me it comes down to the skill and mentality of the creator. If the trap was crafted right, it would be hidden in every way it needed to be done. If it was done hastily or by a less capable mage, or on the cheap, then let detect magic work. Ruins for magocracy societies might let magic traps be detected by the elite mages of the day, adding to their power and mystique, with hidden vault areas designed to stop rival mages suddenly hiding the aura.

I've had fun with a middle road, area traps that return as magic circle or illusion magic, something interesting to draw the party but not immediately thought of as harmful, or door traps that show as alarm or arcane lock spells.

I see it as order of operation of rules. Any general spell that does damage is subject to incorporeal. In this instance we have a spell that heals but has specific special rules when effecting undead specifically. The universal rule should be superseded by the spell specific rules for a valid target. The cantrip that deals damage to undead specifically should also bypass incoporeal, it's undead specific and the target is valid so the general incoporeal rule gets bypassed by the special spell rules that say this is a valid target. PF can't put every exception for every rule everywhere so I really think these rules in spells that specifically target a type of creature should override that creatures more general rules unless the spell in question is called out by a power or feat of the monster. I mean, you can't rule out positive energy resistant undead.

I really doubt you'll ever find a rule for magic like the type used in this story hook. There has to be more magic in the world than what the PCs can do, so some things have to fall outside the explained rules. Lets face it, most magic for PCs is combat magic, it's quick, easy, and portable. For NPCs and enemies GMs can add magic that is not portable, not cheap, not quick, and therefore not in the rules for PCs, but it's legal cause the GM said so.

I haven't read the story, but I've always used the combat magic vs ritual magic for magic I don't want PCs doing. It sounds like this guy has a set location and has magic that only works in the location. Explaining it beyond that is fluff. A set of magic circles around each cage, an item linked to the circle magic that only works within the runes set into the building walls. It's only available in a set location, add expensive and lengthy rituals to maintain the pattern of runes and it becomes a simple, easy to explain magic, that is less than desirable for PCs to use or copy.

As for the question of the practical side for keeping a black dragon, a golem and whatever else... Given that it's this AP, stasis chambers for holding powerful magical creatures without issue comes to mind. If you want to go with the money is no object and location specific explanation again, dominate monster (control construct) magic set into each cage could control what a prisoner can and cannot do while in the cell. If you get argued that you can't use the permanency spell for such magic and don't want to use the expensive ritually refreshed rune explanation, then change it to magic items. If you upgrade to artifact level items you can do whatever you want almost. Ancient master/slave binding artifacts, slaves get collars and master gets a ring, dominates slave and allows master to use a slave's ability. Artifact destruction conditions don't have to be hard to meet, so add destruction for the master ring as removal from the location it was made to work in, and it becomes useless to the PCs. If the PCs want to do stuff like this, it should be reserved for when they can create magical artifacts themselves.

Power in illusions, let me know if I'm reading this right. The standard illusion, like silent, is not an attack and is only saved against if interacted with, and is not one of the illusions that is mind affecting. So you could use it to make a wall between enemy casters and main fight, cutting off their sight for spell targeting unless they move up and try to move through the wall, putting them closer to the fighters? And it would work to cut off sight for even mindless undead? I mean, I don't see anything about trying to disbelieve, it says interaction, so the visual component is always there?

I think I remember the article. It predated Paizo, it was originally for 2nd ed. Looking through the index, I'd guess "Magic Miscibility" James R. Collier 229(8) D&D2. And checking unsecured online files, that looks like what you are looking for. Too many magic items results in abad effect on the wearer?

I thought originally it might be Magic gone Haywire, but that is quirks for magic items, which make really good alternative minor curses on items.

I came looking for the Sword of Oaths info also, just to see if there is any, and I also was totally thrown by the line IN the module "If he(Brambleson) can fulfill his story’s quest and find the other half of his broken sword of oaths among the dragon’s hoard, all the better."

I put it there and spun an whole side quest out of it. Mending just gets you the unbroken listed +2 short sword, but I offered quest for proper reforging and I gave the group a weapon worthy of a name. It's ended up being fun so far, but now I need to decide what the sword stats will be. I think I'll have to make up my own and make it useful for they're next adventure since they have put some time and effort into it at this point.

I will second the request for the stories for each module encounter. Maybe quick snippets of the text edited out from the first draft could really help? I was really put on the spot a lot when they questioned NPCs, especially when it was about their own story. And the first friendly NPC has a lot of information and can tag along for the whole thing, so having him come down with memory loss just didn't seem an option. I did my best and everyone said they really loved the adventure, the visuals, and the stories I did try to come up with. But as the DM, I would have really loved to have been able to find some info on the stories alluded too rather than have to make it up on the spot so often.

Maybe an E-book is in order, a nice cheap supplement for the module if you already worked up some draft stories? I'd buy it, and I'd think most people using a Harrow Deck would even if they aren't playing the module.

Yes, it is only listed as a +2 short sword with the broken condition and you are given no other information other than where the other half of the weapon is. So in the end the group can leave the module with both halves of a broken named weapon that functions as a +2 short sword when BROKEN.

It's a seed for imaginative groups to use if they want. I got a whole side quest for reforging the blade correctly and creating a unique item for the group out of it. No simple mending would properly re-enchant the special properties of the blade beyond the simple +2 short sword, but with a quest it became a item worthy of a name. I even enjoyed throwing in an immortal so I could imply this was a thing of dreams made real by the belief of those thousands that still tell stories of that sword.

I'd be interested to know if anyone else who played this module used that seed as something more than a broken +2 short sword. I used it as a sword of kings, intelligent and lawful but just empathic, with the power of geas for any that swore on it and grants Shield Other to those under geas if within 30'. I required an oath from the swearer and the blade holder, made the blade unbreakable unless the wielder broke his oath to those under geas. I figured it was good tale for the rabbit prince's chaotic nature to break the sword when he attempted to become king after his father, and a useful sword for kings and my players who really liked keeping NPCs around.

Charender wrote:

As a confusing addendum....

You could cast cure light wounds, and hold the charge. Then, on your next turn run up to a friend, touch them, cast another cure light wounds, and touch them again or some one else, and effectively get 2 CLW off in a single turn. So that is one way you could get 2 touch spells off in a single round.

That reminds me, I need to start holding a charge of a cure spell on my cleric to use as an emergency heal in combat. Being able to heal yourself or a friend as a free action is nice.

I believe that touching somebody (even an ally) with a held charge would be a standard action (this is shown by requiring a touch attack against an unwilling opponent). There for even by holding the charge you couldn't get off two CLW in the same round.

An interesting question on the rules. Is a touch attack considered a standard or swift action? And how is that action reconciled with the casting action of the spell itself, since you can't do two standard action s on the same round normally? Move action?

Personally I think it should be ruled to be part of the standard action of casting for any specific touch attack spell and an attack action on any other round (in case you miss and hold the spell). Because every game I've played in the touch was done as part of the spell casting and those spells would be far less useful if you had to cast then couldn't attack until next round.

I don't think the intent was that alchemists could ever make classic potions. Wizards, sorcerers, clerics, etc. cast spells, but alchemists know formula for extracts. Potions have a spell component, alchemists do not know any spells, so craft potion should be useless to them. No where in the alchemist does it ever say the word spell, it very specifically does not use the word spell for this class at all. Potions require xp costs but extracts don't, so the alchemist is one up on the casters in that regard in my opinion.

The creation of an extract others can use is covered in the discoveries (infusion discovery), so the earliest you can get it is 4th level. After that any infusion you make can be shared with others, and most formula are personal effects so they bypass that potion rule by not being potions. So, not at third level but at fourth level you get to have everything you know usable by the party for no xp cost or any extra time than what you are already spending, and mostly these are effects that can't be made into potions... seems like a fair trade off.

Rules wise, I don't think you have a leg to stand on. Now for individual campaigns and such, DM rules can easily override this and let an alchemist create any potion he wants so long as he pays the costs, or let him create potions faster and easier with the feat but having another party member cast the spell at the right point. These would be house rules. And if you using house rules anyway, why care what the designers think?

Personally I use an old bonus potions PDF for new formula, alchemical items, and as ideas for rare ingredients that will yield so many vials of effect X. I think distilled light and distilled darkness make interesting new alchemical items without having too much impact in most campaigns (light and darkness are such low level spells), especially if it's not introduced at first level but is a new discovery later on.

I'm working off the playtest PDF here, so if the final rules mention potions I'd be interested to know what specifically was stated to allow the alchemist to make those items.