dragonsword111's page

The debate with the gorilla and the greatsword is very interesting, but one question sticks out in my mind. Can a gorilla, with the proper feats, use a hammer with a bear trap attached to it? A bear-trap hammer if you will.

One thing that should be mentioned (and I might be wrong) is that when Mogart is talking about being nerfed he is referencing things the GM originally allowed and then changed his mind and kept changing his mind. Is this correct?

How about a Barbarian weilding a bear trap hammer? This is the same game where the GM kept nerfing your character but allowed a made up weapon that did 60 damage at level 1 right?

Just curious, is this the DM that allowed a bear-trap hammer but constantly nerfed a Summoner?

Owen K. C. Stephens (Contributor; Developer, Super Genius Games), Wed, Feb 24, 2010, 03:19 PM
There is a distinction here, and it's subtle, but important. When you add a metamagic feat to a spell-like ability, you end up having to use a spell-like slot one or more levels higher. Since there is no such thing as a spell-like slot, you can't use your metamagic enhanced spell-like ability. (If you add metamagic feats with a +0 level modifier from some other source, they'd work fine with spell-like abilities).

Augment Summoning, however, along with Spell Focus, Spell Penetration and the greater versions of same, has no need for a spell-like slot to function. Thus they work just fine with spell-like abilities in addition to spells

Here is the address: http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/pathfinderR PG/rules/summonerClassAndAugmentSummoning&page=1&source=search#44

Notice he says, "If you add metamagic feats with a +0 level modifier from some other source, they'd work fine with spell-like abilities".

Pretty cut and dry to me

So instead of addressing the magic item creation point you decide to just rant saying that we are not listening and that you are right and we are wrong. Does that sum up your last post? How about addressing the issue? SLA's have been said by PF devs to be subject to meta-magic feats as long as the feat does not cause the spell to raise a spell slot. The magic item creation, taken from the rules on this website, say that a SLA can be used to create a magic item such as a wand. Do you have a respose to this instead of being rude?

Then why does meta-magic feats work on SLA's? Why can you create a magic item using a SLA? Your whole arguement is based on because a SLA cannot be countered and has not components it is different. The magic item creation rules say differently because you can use a SLA in the creation of a magic item. So the wand could be created with a SLA but not triggered by one?

I'm sorry, you posted the short version first, then the rest. My point that you took it out of context is still valid. SLA can be effected by any metamagic feats as long as it doesn't raise the spell level slot for the spell to be cast. If we are allowing feats that are made to effect spells to effect SLA's why would SLA's not count to effect wands?

Also I want to ask you about this: "Spells require much more intricate precision, effort and knowledge than SLA's do. They are performed in wildly different ways. They function differently, and have different effects magically."

How do SLA have different magical effects? The rules say, "A monster's spell-like abilities are presumed to be the sorcerer/wizard versions."

Based on this rule how can you say SLA's have different magical effects then the spell itself?

If you are going post text to refute an arguement post the entire quote not just the part that you think makes your case.

Spell-like abilities are magical and work just like spells (though they are not spells and so have no verbal, somatic, focus, or material components).

The above was the quote directly from the rules. As you can see, the quote does not end where it says they are not spell. This rule was to show that a SLA does not require any components. The rules say nothing about if a wand would work with a SLA. Saying the rules are cut and dry against it are completely incorrect. There is no reason to insult someone when you disagree with them, especially when you main point of logic with disagreeing with them is a shortened quote of the rules taken out of context.

Mogart wrote:

If you cast a buff on an eidolon, and he gets sent back to his plane. Assuming you re-summon him immediately, does he still have that buff?

If the answer is no, what happens if you cast protection from elements(fire) on yourself, and go to the plane of fire?

No, and the 2nd question is irrelevant. When you summon the Eidolon, unless it was sent back to it's home plane by damage, it's essentially reset to the condition it was the last time you summoned it. It is not the same thing as your personal planar travel.

The Eidolon is not a spellcaster and can not make use of wands without UMD rolls, assuming that it has the proper appendages for grasping them properly. (no hands.... no wand usage)

Did you look at the rules for wands? As long as the Eidolon can hold the wand and cast the spell, under the rules for wand and spell trigger it can use a wand.

As for your comment about the Eidolon when it is resummoned you are correct. It is in the last condition that it was when you last summoned it. Which in this case includes a buff. There is a feat called unstable evolution which allows an Eidolon to change evolution points around each time it is summoned and in combination with this feat it is a good question that needs to be answered.

For the first question I would allow the buff to remain on the Eidolon when he returns as long as the duration of the spell has not elapsed. If we say an Eidolon takes 5 damage and returns to it home plain and then is summoned immediatly again it still has the damage then we have to allow the positive as well as the negative unless someone is just trying to nerf the Summoner class.

As for the wand, I cannot find any reason why an Eidolon could not use a wand as long as the form it is in allows it to cast spells. I would rule that the Eidolon has to be in an evolution form that gave it access to spells. If the eidolon cannot cast any spells in its form then it would not be able to use the wand. As long as that condition is met, the Eidolon is no more powerful then a 3rd level Paladin who is using a wand.

I believe the feat grants one discounted rend per series of attacks and the rest are rewarded normally. The use of the word "this" in the feat description makes it clear they are refering to the discounted rend only.

WPharolin please show me, in detail using only rules in published books, how a greatsword weilded by a Level 1 Fighter can do 37 damage in one swing with a non-magic greatsword.

Where should I begin? First, I used your examples of weapons combined merged with other weapons to show that damage does not stack but it instead creates a new weapon. The only weapon you showed of weapons combined with other weapons was the bayonet. The other weapons (hooksword and halbred) were weapons merged together to create a new weapon. There is a difference then just throwing a bear trap onto something and calling it good. You did not give the weapon any penalty other then to say that it takes a full round to set the trap. In fact, when penalties were proposed by other people you said they were to harsh (such as the -4 to hit). Just because you think thowing one weapon onto another is creative does not make it so. When anyone points out a problem with your hammer you wrote up, you say it is just a rough draft and try to use that to settle the issue. So in other words, if someone comes up with something refuting your opinion you ignore it.

"None of Mogart's example would work under my logic because my logic includes using actual pressure to set off bear traps. Even suggesting a net or wand is Reductio ad absurdum and irreverent to anything I had put forward." Really? "Combining weapons is also a regularly occurring trope in fantasy." I am using your own words to show that the examples Mogart gave would work under your logic. Talking about the pressure to set off a bear trap is fine but not when you ignore other drawbacks to having a bear trap on a hammer and say "I'm not going to bother with minor details during a rough draft of a weapon," when you are told you are ignoring what would happen when a bear trap would spring on a person. It is not a minor detail if causing a bear trap to spring on a person is the purpose of the weapon. You say to let the penalties flow naturally from the concept. But when it is purposed to do that you then call the penalty "arbitrary" and talk about how something "awesome" and "creative" should not have a penalty.

I don't see why you couldn't. I am guessing it wasn't included due to low use of slings.

Could I perhaps attach a bear trap or two to this. Saber of yours?

Why not? It would make it more "creative".

dragonsword111 wrote:

I want to throw in a crazy weapon. How about a sword whose blade is a beam of disintegrate. Just imagine a green glowing sword that you only need a touch attack to hit.

Hey, this sword of yours sounds awfully familiar......perhaps iconic even. Could this sword be called a saber?

I think I found a video of this weapon, but it isn't green.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rjCyZ2P9bCA

Hey, WPharolin brought in other forms of Sci-ft and fantasy. Under his logic, that would be allowed with no penalties because it is "creative".

Mogart wrote:

You can't just add weapons to other weapons, that isn't creativity it is just crazy.

No. In every way no. This goes against actually human history. Adding a battleaxe to the end of your rapier is retarded but adding a dagger at the end of your rifle is ingenious. Adding more weapons to weapons is something we actually do in reality. Like...a lot. Adding hooks to swords makes hook-swords. Adding axes to spears makes halberds. Adding daggers to guns makes bayonets. Adding a long chain to an Asian sickle makes a Kusari-gama. Spring loaded triple daggers and gun shields aren't a work of fiction.

Combining weapons is also a regularly occurring trope in fantasy. Adding a gun to a sword makes a weapon that makes Final Fantasy fans giggle like idiots. Adding a sword to a whip has help make Ivy a house hold name (her giant boobs helped too). The rifle mounted chainsaw is Gears of War's most iconic weapon. So Squall, Lightning, Ivy, and Marcus would all have words with you. And when their done Kratos, Renji, Wizards of the Coast, Wolfwood, Monte Cook, the Predator, Archer, and the Batman also might have something to say as well. For started.

TL;DR: Learn to weapon history and fantasy trope.

Mogart wrote:

A bunch of absurd (if amusing) non-sense.

Wow. You really like logical fallacies. A Non Sequitur combo-ed with Reductio ad absurdum and just the lightest hint of condescension, in a long and pointless string of Strawman comparisons that basically just translates to "I don't like it". Well, boo hoo.

Lets look at your examples one by one. Hooksword. A hooksword is not a sword with a hook on the end but with a blade shaped like a hook. You would not combined damage from the hook and the damage you would take from a sword. That example is not valid. Halberds. A halberd is a axe with a spear shaft on it. Is a halberd just as effective in close as an axe without the shaft? No. You also do not combine axe and spear damage with the weapon. Bayonets. Generally people do not stab someone and then shoot them at the same time. So you would not get the damage of the gun and the bayonet combined. Do you see where I am going with this? Also, your description of the hammer ignores what happens if the bear tap is sprung on a person. It should attach to the person it hits so how would it let go for the player to make another swing? Also, if the trap somehow let go of the target, if the person swung and it with the sprung trap it would damage the trap and it not be usable again. You just saying allow it and combine damage with no penalty to the use of the weapon is just stupid. All of Mogart's examples would work under your logic of saying allow it because it is creative and cool.

I want to throw in a crazy weapon. How about a sword whose blade is a beam of disintegrate. Just imagine a green glowing sword that you only need a touch attack to hit.

I always viewed rend as going up with the Eidolon as it gains in levels. A character who levels up gains extra damage and more attacks as they change weapons. An Eidolon does not have the ability to hold new weapons so they gain extra body parts to do more attacks. I view rend to scale up and be open to each two attacks that hit. So if your Eidolon can attack with claws four times then it could hit with rend twice if every attack hits. This is assuming that the Eidolon is attacking with four claws not two twice. A multi-headed Eidolon could use trip for every first bite attack for each head. It never says in the description that these attacks are only on the first two to hit. Generally, it is specified if it cannot be used multiple times. By allowing more rend attacks as the Eidolon gains in levels and apendages, this allows the Eidolon to stay even in terms of facing higher and higher level monsters since the Eidolon cannot get better and better weapons like other characters. If the Eidolon cannot use rend multiple times in one attack it will eventually not be able to harm any higher level monster and be useless.