Class Skill Bonuses to the Linguistics Skill do not provide additional languages and so are not relevant to this discussion.
Daw, I think you missed the point of the post. It's not a question of whether the class skill BONUS provides languages. That's not in question, as the text links ranks to languages known. Instead, the use of language in how the class skills BONUS is applied (insofar as the bonus "activates" when you "put a rank" into the skill) mirrors that of the language in the opening lines of the Linguistics skill. This implies (though it is hazy) that the presence of ranks is what is important, not how they were obtained or how they were applied. That's the argument. And I don't feel that you've addressed that. This matter is still not clear, Fuzzy. I can see both sides of the debate, and both of them from a RAW perspective.
I like the in-depth analysis here, but what say you to the link in the post above (referenced by Fuzzy-Wuzzy)? The wording and function of the spell "Borrow Skill" seems to indicate that "ranks are ranks," no matter how you are obtaining them. I do understand your logic, but I also see the contradictory point that sidewaysmonkey made in his/her original post. Nothing else in the game really cares about "putting in the rank," but instead notices whether or not you simply have ranks. Ranks in a skill indicate training, and your familiar shares your training. One would think, even thematically, that your familiar would also gain the knowledge of languages as much as they gain the knowledge of esoteric magic, extraplanar entities, and architectural history.
Not sure why the need to nerf the worst Summoner archetype, but that's another gripe. Moving on, ideas for boons:
A little vague, so I'll break down some scenarios. Hopefully you meant one of the following:A) HP10, damage = 8(NL). CLW heals 8, so HP remains the same, NL damage removed.
B) HP12, damage = 10(L), 8(NL). CLW heals 8, so HP will go up to 10 of 12 and NL damage removed.
It would certainly not be unreasonable to house-rule a form of Boon Companion to allow for scaling by eating feats, but that would be a house-rule. As-is, the previous posters are right. If you look at the top of the table that gives +1 arcane/divine class, it says "Spells per Day." Only your casting is augmented by PrC, making multi classing with a summoner a poor choice, generally.
Agreed. The discovery is not altering the magic item slots you have access to. It's just giving you different limbs. Unless it specifies that you are gaining additional magic item slots, you are still limited by the cap given in the CRG.
This is only true if the spell appears on the Paladin's spell list, though. And the paladin must possess the required CHA to cast, as well. So, a cleric-made Bull's Strength would be fine under Magical Knack at 4th level, provided the Paladin also possesses at least CHA 12. Without MK, she would have to wait until at least 6th level.
This one should get an FAQ simply because the book it appears in is hardcover. For now, you'll have to use interpretation. My reading is: since the prerequisite of the feat specifies "arcane spells," it would key off the highest arcane caster level you possess. So, a Bard3/Wizard5/Cleric3 would use CL5, as that is the highest arcane caster level that character has.
Unfortunately, you won't find anything "explicit." Cantrips/Orisons are spells by definition. They are 0-level spells. They didn't see the need to call them out specifically for any reason because they are spells, no matter how you slice the cake. Your GM just doesn't want to be wrong, even though that's part of the game. Even my GM I have to call out on rules problems (long story short: we're both the most experienced members of the group. He's good at feats, I'm good at magic when it comes to rules questions). Don't let the GM's power trip go to your head. You are right. The "proof" he wants will not materialize, because he wants something that is unnecessary to print. What he wants is a waste of ink. It's an obvious concept. 0-level spell is 0-level spell. If first level spells were also called smeerps, would we have a whole other debate about those, too?
Yup. The "appropriate ability score" ruling only applies to UMD. The rules for ordinary use of scrolls only say that the appropriate score be high enough, so the assumption is that the relevant ability score must be high enough for the caster to cast the spell, regardless of who wrote the scroll.
Yes. You can replace any spell you know with any other spell of equal or lower level, provided you are achieving a level that allows this. Cantrips/Orisons can be replaced only by other cantrips/orisons, but otherwise there is no restriction on this.
I cannot seem to find any rules for whether or not outsiders or constructs can "die" due to old age. As the answer to this question leads back to what caused the question: do elementals, mephits, imps, quasits, or homunculi (improved familiars) have the capacity to die of old age, or are they effectively immortal (barring premature death through violence, etc.)?
Ok, so the debate on how good the MT is has beaten the horse to a bloody pulp. Not getting into that. My question is: are the bloodline/mystery spells considered to be class features and cease to progress with levels in MT or are they a part of "spells." My thinking is that they will not advance with the PrC, but I would like input to be sure.
I just read through the book, after having the same hangups. My biggest hangup was thinking that all of the new classes were as mindlessly complicated as the Kineticist. It's presented at the front of the book, so it sets a bad tone. So, I set it aside. I'm glad that the "Fashion-mancer" (Silksworn) bridged the gap that brought me into the Occult fold.
I'm the kind of DM that would rather ban races than ban classes. It's easier to fit a weird class into a world than magical robot people or flying owl people. Moreover, I found more issues power-wise in the disparity between ARG races and CRB races than I do the classes presented in either OA or even ACG compared to prior books.
I stayed away because of the new-ness. I'm glad, though, that I finally read through OA. It's not a bad read (aside from the slog that is the Kineticist). I like the new take on magic. It's basically the same, but with some special rules that take up all of 1/2 a page to feel fresh. Now I have to convince another buddy of mine to adopt it. He still thinks Psychics work like 3.5 Psions lol.
Sounds like you have more than enough melee. TBH, Trapfinding's main draw is finding magical traps, which is easily accomplished by a cantrip. I would just try to nab buffs to DD and Perception, and do a ranged character. Gunslinger would be fine, the gun paladin archetype, or just a bow fighter. Use traits and feats to beef up DD and Perception (and make them class skills), and you'll be fine. Even buffed up, traps shouldn't be much of a problem. Just in case, keep a 10-foot pole on you.
Not really, for a Spontaneous caster. The limit is low enough to not be too complicated for blasting. Plus, it lets you change blast shapes for using not-well-supported elements (such as lightning [or acid... grumble]) at earlier levels.
Anyway, blasting is simply not a good damage option. Sorry to say. Honestly, if you want to do something relevant with blasting, I'd recommend just switching over to the Words of Power system. It's utterly horrific UNLESS you are trying to make a blaster, necromancer, or non-Summoner summoner.
I have a Half Elf Oracle Arcane Lore Keeper that is taking Eldritch Heritage (arcane). Would I be able to take the extra spell known as a Favored Class Option (as a Human sorcerer) from either the oracle or the sorcerer/wizard spell list? Would it be one level lower than what I could cast from the arcane spell list?
Unless a class feature (specifically a class feature) is adding a spell to your Spells Known or something else specifically adds a spell to your class spell list (Samsaran Mystic Past Life), you cannot cast any spells not already on your class spell list. Eldritch Heritage does not make you a sorcerer. And to nip another probable problem in the bud: New Arcana taken through the Eldritch Heritage line will NOT give you access to Sor/Wiz spells. Unless something specifically adds a spell to your class spell list, or your class is adding spells to your class spell list (like Oracle mystery spells), you don't get to cast it.
Pathfinder Design Team wrote:
As far as I've seen, you can only take a feat if you have the ability to qualify for more than 24 hours. You can't be under the effects of Bull's Strength when the "XP bar" fills up and qualify for Power Attack, but you can use a Belt of Giant's Strength to qualify (losing the benefits of the feat should the item ever be removed). I would think the same logic applies here. You could only take Dimensional Agility if you had the ability to use the DDoor SLA for at least 24 hours straight, and you would lose the benefits of the feat whenever you lack a DDoor SLA. Thus, gaining temporary access to a feat that gives you an SLA would not give you the prerequisites to take Dimensional Agility unless that temporary access extended over 24 hours.
Unless otherwise noted, I tend to follow the "duck rule." And this screams of the same FAQ that allowed people to qualify for feats using magical items, but not duration-based buffs (although, I'm not sure that FAQ fully resolved what happens if someone extends a buff beyond 24 hours, but that's not relevant at the moment).
Agreed that it makes for a good FAQ candidate, but I'll have to be on the other bench for this one. The entry in "Familiars" states that the HP are wholly replaced by one half of the master's HP. There's no exception made in the initial entry for feat bonuses, Con bonuses, etc. It's just a find-and-replace. So, if the familiar has Toughness or benefits from Bear's Endurance, it's hit points are still equal to half of the master's HP. Unlike HD or skills, it does not have another line of text that allows for difference ("whichever is better"). Toughness would apply to the base calculation of HP (as would HD, Con, etc.), then becoming a familiar would override this value.
I've asked a question that hit on this point before: as a part of the class, the Patron feature is more akin to a Wizard's choice in school than it is a Cleric's choice in deity. So, while you could worship a deity and have a Patron that fits that deity's portfolio, none of your class features have anything to do with said deity. You don't receive spells from said deity (in fact, you don't "receive" spells at all as an arcane caster), so anything with that specific requirement can't be taken. However, anything that simply requires you to worship that deity is legal, as it would be for any other character that worshipped that deity.
However, it's not unreasonable to have that be a part of a home-brew world. It's just not really "legal" in a RAW sense.
Not sure I see much point in suggesting spontaneous archetypes for the Magus, who gets Spell Recall. You can prepare your "spells known" list daily, or just use the same one over and over. Either way, you have more than enough "spontaneity" for the normal adventuring day without gutting your ability to cast things not on your list of go-to spells. In fact, most levels you end up with the same amount of spells either way, so why say that the list of spells you're picking is the ONLY list of spells you will ever cast. Once you get access to Knowledge Pool at 7th, the regular Magus can have ALL Magus spells jotted down in their book and still only be casting from the standbys list until you need to think outside-the-box. Could have sworn that was the basic Magus strategy to begin with, though...
Always remember that "aggro" doesn't exist in the game. Reach weapons, as suggested above, help make that concept more viable. It helps to grab the feat (whose name I can't currently recall) that stops movement on OAs. The only way to "aggro" is to be a threat yourself, making it painful to let you move unchecked.
I've DMed a game where one player did monoMonk and got crazy high AC and saves. But did no damage. His back line did not appreciate his inability to die when he couldn't prevent THEM from dying.
Just your average clone wrote:
I actually prefer to do Oratory first, since getting a massive boost to Diplomacy and Sense Motive starting at level 2 is a really nice bonus. You can get a masterwork tool for literally anything, so it's available for Oratory, too.
How do you "bard"? Elementary! You're still a 3/4 class, so your feats will largely be the same as those you are familiar with. However, now you have access to bardsong and limited spellcasting. Your spell selections should help you get into favorable positions, since after round one you probably won't want to cast. Bardsong will fill the gap between 3/4 and full BAB, with the added benefit of giving the same bonus to your allies. Be sure to invest in Perform skills, since they pull double duty for bards. Versatile Performance will make you the star player in skill challenges. So, pick a combat style (I prefer archery) and tailor your feats to that style, grabbing Lingering Performance if you can find the room.
This comment only furthers my argument: though potions are inefficient monetarily, they provide a wonderful emergency button for any party member to administer magical aid to themselves or others.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Not really. Condition removal doesn't take someone dedicated to the role. It just requires it to be available when necessary. I agree that condition removal > hp recovery as levels increase, but the notion that it falls on a single party member to provide it IS a wasteful view.
I feel I'm in the minority when I say that a distinct role of "healer" is unnecessary. It should be a job for the party as a whole to lick their wounds, not force a single character to invest their resources to fixing boo-boos. If your party has a cleric, their spell slots tend to be better used smashing faces than they are fixing the fighter. That's what scrolls are for. They have a numerical value, and everyone can contribute to the cause. Sure, you need people able to activate those items, so a low level party is better off with someone who can do that. Hit mid-level, and anyone with a UMD score should be able to pitch in, too.
Honestly, the easiest method is to do as was suggested above: use "loadouts" and keep open slots. If the DM is yelling MOVEMOVEMOVE, spontaneous would have been a better option in the first place. It also has to do with attitude. Prepared casting is not for everyone. It takes time and work to make the spell list for the day. It's the price you pay for essentially being able to make a new CHARACTER every day. If you aren't willing to put in the work to think about it, then "ultimate cosmic power" just isn't for you. Not trying to be discouraging, but from what you're saying: you'd probably be more comfortable playing classes that focus on features not spells.
Side note: if 6 pages of spell notes is too much for you, a) you'd be terrified of my wizards, and b) maybe spellcasting on the whole isn't for you. 6 pages is rather light (for a midlevel caster), unless you're compressing them in a word document.
The problem with this logic, then, is: if (somehow) the item got removed, would the character (fish) immediately fall unconscious forever? I'm not so sure about that. I think the intention of the "permanent bonuses" rule is to simplify play for ordinary circumstances. It helps to reduce paperwork and missed numbers, etc. This doesn't really qualify as an "ordinary circumstance," though, so I'd start parsing numbers.
The ability for the exploiter wizard still follows language for other archetypes that hack abilities out of other classes. It says you get the ability, and the ability says it refreshes every day. My guess is that they wanted to save a line or two spelling out EVERY SINGLE TIME your wizard level overrides you arcanist level in regard to the ability. Follow the "duck rule" unless told otherwise. If the archetype gives you the ability, assume it works the same unless noted otherwise. In this case, it's replacing "arcanist level" with "wizard level." I guess it could have been worded better *shrug*, but the intention and reading are rather clear, IMO.
Follow the "Forge of Combat" model. You have a Cleric (arm/hammer) and a Monk (hammer). Your best bet would be to fill the "anvil" role as a full arcane caster. Witch almost seems unnecessary, since you don't need the wizard/druid fusion list the Witch inherits. Rather, you need a bit more arcane "oomph." Play something with access to the Wizard/Sorcerer list. Necromancer's not a bad idea to shore up your ranks a bit (action economy, and all). You could also style yourself as a Diabolist, specializing in Conjuration and summoning fiends. It just depends on if you prefer your minions to give you a little lip ;D
You'll need to provide the ideal circumstances for your party to succeed. The monk wants to full attack, so you need to arrange the field so that they are next to the enemy at the start of their turn. A horde of zombies is great for this, by preventing enemies from sharing their squares ("wall [hall] of horse" logic). You can create walls, disable some foes to take on the hordes piecemeal, make holes or difficult terrain, etc. Here's where a witch would end up with problems. The witch spell list is better at doing utility magic and ending the encounter against mostly single-targets with minds (lipstich, hold person, insanity, Slumber, etc.) The wizard list is better for battlefield control, since they have more spells designed for multiple targets and more spells that offer no saves.
A Knowledge (history or local) check could be called for to know the history of the area and drop some plot hooks. Daw had some good ideas for party information sources.
As for destroying the haunt: Who is the dominant personality in the haunt? Haunts tend to have a dominant force. So unless each individual scarecrow has to be dispelled, you need to figure out what is tying them together. If they are persisting as a kind of punishment, do they dissolve when the peacemaker's wishes are fulfilled?
From the story you gave, this sounds less like a haunt and more like an eternal Sisyphean punishment that has no "out." Not sure that haunt rules would really apply in this story, since it's not vengeful spirits of the dead. It's a fey curse. I'd almost use some fusion of the haunt and curse rules, and just make there be no escape. The fey are known to be merciless and cruel to those who cross them.
I have to wonder the ages of the people involved in this interaction. It might simply be an issue of maturity that will dissolve in a few years. However, if these are all adults, I would avoid like the plague! Hang out, if everyone is friends outside of the game. But, the game's never going to be fun if one person screams and rages whenever they're told "no." Go to the local game store, or check out PBP here or elsewhere. Or, try getting takers for a roll20 or Tabletop Simulator game.
"No gaming is better than bad gaming." Additionally, "You can't fix stupid."
I was always under the impression that, since outsiders are body-and-soul made of the planes they come from, you can't raise them like you do mortal creatures. Outsiders are described as being nondualistic, meaning they don't have a distinct "soul" or "body." That's why you can't raise them normally, outside of very high level magic: the existence of their bodies IS their entire existence. There's no "self" outside of the body for an outsider. So, what would be used as an animating force for the undead?
The undead magical mechanics aren't very clear and are occasionally contradictory. Example: Why can't someone be raised using a resurrection spell if their body is being used as a mindless undead? If their soul had nothing to do with the undead, it should be free to return to another body. However, even the best resurrection magic available (True Resurrection) cannot return life to anything that has been made into undead (at least, not until it's been destroyed). There's an implication that even mindless undead have some kind of soul animating them. But, Magic Jar dictates that only intelligent undead "have or are souls." So many things do not make sense, here.
Now, on the specifics of what you ask: juju zombies still count as zombies. They're mindless undead that lack any abilities that they had previously. Spellcasting, as it is a mental activity, is right out the window. Spell-Like Abilities are also activated mentally, so mindless things can't use them, either.
EDIT: Correction. Further review shows that Juju zombies do not inherit the "mindless" quality. Other points still stand. Carry on.
Darker, The character is a 10 year old kid (Oracle, Child cursed, we just decided to say screw it and go whole hog with it, he's ACTUALLY a kid, just coming into his power). Lead armor, or even the previous idea of lead-plating sandwiched between steel plating, would be too heavy for him. (Str 10, small-sized - again, we took liberties with the curse's wording - so 75% carry). Anything ELSE, as far as lead would go, would be non-portable. I GUESS I could buy a wagon and have it lead lined... but that kind of custom job would be suspicious. It would ALSO be suspicious for the 10 year old to just up and vanish for a couple weeks. :P
I mean, if we want to play by the rules: technically characters that are not fully adults cannot take regular class levels. I see that you've house ruled it, but just sayin'. Anyway, at level 5 you're pretty screwed. Scrolls and magical items (which I assume is what you're looking for) are simply WAAAY out of your price range for WBL. On the other note, technically is says a "thin layer of lead." You only need enough to cover. You don't need an inch around you. Lead's heavy. It's not THAT heavy. You'll only need a couple of lbs. to line a child-sized suit of armor. So, I guess hit the gym or have some potions of Bull's Strength on tap if you can't afford, say, 30 lbs of weight to account for the base weight of low-tier armor (using chain shirt as base) plus the couple of lbs of lead to line it.
Lord Lupus the Grey wrote:
Only "bottled spell" effects require the spell to be cast during creation (though it does not need to be the crafter that provides the spell). Scrolls, Potions, and Wands (as well as any other Spell-Completion or Spell-Trigger items) are called out for this requirement. Pages of Spell Knowledge are slotless Wondrous Items, thus they don't require the spells to be cast during creation. Instead, you apply a +5 to the Craft DC, since the spell on the Page is the requirement you don't meet.
To make this clear: you do not need to provide any requirements for crafting an item other than the crafting feat, as long as the item is not considered spell-completion, spell-trigger, or a potion. For each requirement you do not meet, you add +5 to the DC of the Craft check. Most casters, if fully invested in Spellcraft, can succeed on most crafting checks by simply taking 10. If you're very concerned, use the Sage wildblooded archetype to have an excuse to boost your Intelligence and get a bonus to the Spellcraft check.
On a Meta level, it would be extremely odd to create a Page of Spell Knowledge for a spell you've never known existed. RAW, you can make it. Doesn't matter how or why, you just can. RAI/Rules-As-I-Judge-Them, you'd either need to see the spell and identify it with a Spellcraft check, or have seen the spell written somewhere (in a spellbook, on a scroll, etc.). You could also have someone tell you about the spell, or you could maybe make a Knowledge (arcana) check to know what kinds of magic exist.
Sadly, no one answered it, Ravingdork. Good to know we're on the same wavelength on this, though.
The intention for the Binding is to effectively cease aging and create ludicrously expensive items one could normally not craft due to time constraints while sticking to Core-Only. Any familiar that is incapable of dying (Homunculous) can move you to a populated area for you to "borrow" bodies while you "keep your Intelligence, Wisdom, Charisma, level, class, base attack bonus, base save bonuses, alignment, and mental abilities." Crafting feats, the Spellcraft skill, and your own spells seem to fit within the confines of what you keep.
Additionally, Minimus Containment simply says that you are shrunk down and trapped in your container. It even recommends a jar, so I don't know that you are considered unable to move or speak, as you are under Metamorphosis.
Plausible Pseudonym wrote:
I'm pretty firmly in the "no to all" category. The purpose and function of Binding is to imprison the subject as a plot device for outsiders to rescue.
Besides the obvious shenanigans I am no doubt pulling, there is a reason I call out Minimus Containment. Another section of the same spell, Metamorphosis, describes an extremely similar form of imprisonment, but goes so far as to disallow "[use] of it's powers or abilities." Minimus Containment lacks this language, and thus my curiosity.