jbadams's page

Sorry, my wording was poor, I also don't believe it grants spells known - just effective "spell storing slots" on the weapon.

Looks like a third-party bloodline, so the Rules Forum probably isn't the place to ask.

My reading of the ability is that you choose a fixed spell, and that it can be expended once per day.

At higher levels you can choose and imbue additional spells, so yes, the weapon would be holding multiple spells at once. In my opinion it's not clear whether you can choose not to expend on a successful attack, or whether multiple spells are expended at once at higher levels.

Otherworld Mapper is pretty flexible for world maps, cities, buildings, or dungeons.

How many more do you need them to have?

Do they need a particular set of spells to fulfill the role you have planned for them? If that set of spells didn't fit within what they already have from starting/leveling, they'll need to have aquired the additional ones through other means such as purchasing.

Do they have a particular back story or theme that would be suited to certain spells? Again, if they can't all be selected via leveling they'll need to have acquired them another way.

Can they afford more spells? Perhaps your particular wizard is poor, or has to funnel their resources into something else. Perhaps they're rich and like to collect exotic spells. Do what makes sense for the character.

Also consider your game balance: are they likely or certain to die and have their spellbook looted by the PCs? What should or shouldn't be in there so that PCs can access it? Maybe some spells are better off as consumable scrolls or potions, or they've invested in knowing them without having them in their spellbook.

Does that help?

Obviously, I can no longer see what the original post was, but in most cases it's better not to remove your posts even if you've been mistaken - the topic would then make sense to future readers, and other people with the same question or confusion could benefit from the responses.

No.

Why would we need a FAQ response for this, I don't think I've ever seen confusion around it?

The text for Spell Storing specifies "a single targeted spell". I would agree with James Risner that you get ONE spell that you may discharge with any relevant attack.

This FAQ is for a different weapon property, but I think pretty clearly shows that the developer intent is not to allow properties of this sort to apply to multiple natural attacks:
http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fm#v5748eaic9oaf
Spell Storing is written with a single weapon/attack in mind, and applying it to all natural attacks would be way too powerful for the cost. One of those instances where a GM should apply common sense.

(It's no wonder these rules are F-balls confusing to parse by literate people.)

Flagged as abusive. If you believe someone is mistaken, politely state your case, there is no need to be passive- (or otherwise) aggressive.

You're wrong about the reading of the sentence though, one possible use of "instead" is "this thing" instead of "that thing", just as Jeraa said.

Ah cool, thanks - I didn't think to look under Spell Failure! Component wasted indeed then! :)

It isn't like we're talking about a fine print technicality thing--you cast the spell, you use up the material components whether it works or not,

Can you cast a spell without a valid target though?

True Resurrection specifies as Raise Dead (with some differences), and Raise Dead specifies a "dead creature touched" as the target. True Resurrection stipulates the following differences:

This spell functions like raise dead, except that you can resurrect a creature that has been dead for as long as 10 years per caster level. This spell can even bring back creatures whose bodies have been destroyed, provided that you unambiguously identify the deceased in some fashion (reciting the deceased's time and place of birth or death is the most common method).

To me that seems like we don't have a valid target.

I would probably have the spell fail without consuming components, explaining that this seemed different to a fizzle or other failure with no manifestations or energies appearing at all. Then allow a Spellcraft check to see if the character realizes they have no valid target.

I do think it's probably also a reasonable ruling to expend the components though.

To the original issue, could you spring the surprise earlier, or prevent aquisition of the diamond until after you're ready?

Yes, permanently increasing your abilities will give you all of the relevant skill points, HP, initiative, etc.

How are you suggesting a Bloodrager would get "infinite claws"? Were you aware that the Bloodrager's bloodline abilities are only active whilst bloodraging (unless they state otherwise, which the Draconic abilities do not)?

i think when you delay it should just be for that round and your initiative should return to normal afterwords

Then a player with high initiative could delay to the end of initiative order and act twice in a row, and we would have additional questions about the awkwardness of effects that span multiple turns, trigger on start of turn, etc.

It's simpler to have a delaying character act on the new initiative from then onwards. :)

I don't think real world physics should have anything to do with the game rules, we have at least one written rule stating 500 feet per round, and no written rules contradicting that. Simple.

Real world terminal velocity is close enough to 1000' per second to call it a good approximation, and therefore 'true' in terms of real life.

500' per second isn't even close.

If your real life approximation is 1000'/second that would be 6000'/round, no?

I stand by my reading, but I can certainly see how you're arriving at the alternative, and I don't think it's unbalancing considering the combination of 9th level spell and Mythic ability. :)

I believe manifestations have been approved to be tattoo runes that glow or change color.

I hadn't seen that anywhere, just the FAQs reference to Paizo artwork. Do you have a link?

Unfortunately it still leaves the question unanswered either way: that's certainly something that could be hidden by invisibility, but could also be left visible.

That would seem to be much simpler, it really seems like a LOT of first party material was not in fact written assuming the existence of manifestations as the FAQ suggests.

Reversing the FAQ seems unlikely though, so barring that I think a simple clarification should improve the situation.

As things currently stand, obviously.

I'm fine with the nature of the manifestations remaining intentionally vague; it's mostly fluff, and can be adjusted to suit character or campaign flavour. Whether or not Invisibility hides the manifestations potentially has significant gameplay ramifications though, so I think it makes a reasonable FAQ candidate.

Obviously you're free to not flag it if you disagree.

As per this FAQ, all spells have "obviously magical" manifestations which help with detection and identification of spells. Are these manifestations still obvious if the caster is Invisible (as per the spell)?

Examine the PCs (and maybe just outright talk to the players) and figure out what sort of things they're likely to want to do with downtime. Is there a crafter? Will they be trying to earn money? Is re-training likely?

If they're crafting, what sort of items are they likely to be after?
If earning money, how much can they earn?

What will the effect of either of the above have on WBL?

So, you should now have a rough idea of what the players are likely to want to do with their downtime. Give them enough downtime to make reasonable progress on their goals, but not to do EVERYTHING they want; this way they have to make choices and prioritize their usage of the time.

Are there sections of the game you want to be easier? Provide more downtime before (and potentially during) those sections. Likewise, you can potentially make some sections relatively more difficult by providing less or no downtime beforehand.

Personally, I also like to introduce a certain level of randomness, and will sometimes give the players choice; delaying longer might provide more downtime but make a fleeing bad guy harder to catch and better prepared, etc.

Hope that helps!

To provide some reference, the majority of our games last between 1-2 years playing 4-5 hours most (probably 45+) weeks out of the year. Last time we finished and were unprepared for our next full campaign, so I'm looking for something I can have ready as a short fill-the-gap if that happens again.

A 'super dungeon' would probably be perfect. Something to play without having to get heavily invested in character creation or development, with no heavy plot but not just a gauntlet run of combat either.

I'll take a look at Emerald Spire, thanks for the suggestion.

MAD = Multiple Ability Dips

Actually Multiple Ability Dependent, meaning that the class relies on multiple good (or at least reasonable) ability scores to function well, as opposed to a SAD (Single Ability Dependent) class which can get away with only a single good stat.

1). Yes, I think the bonus from Unscathed should apply to energy resistances gained through that FCB (or other sources that kick in at higher level).

2). It doesn't override the cap per-se, in that you can't spend points to gain a total of greater than +10 in any one type. It does however allow your total resistance in a given type to exceed +10, as you could have for example +9 from the FCB, and then an additional +2 from Unscathed for a total of +11.

3). It would function as normal: your +10 resistance is increased by 2 points to +12. The cap applies to resistance gained via the FCB only, not to additional increases from any other source.

Surely it's a free (but not immediate, as that would completely invalidate gaze attacks and similar mechanics) action.

For this specific example, maybe a better FAQ is "if a blessing mimics a spell should it be designated as (SP) instead of (Su)."

One would assume not. Spell-like and Supernatural abilities work differently, and it is reasonable to assume that one was chosen rather than the other because the designer intended for those differences to apply.

Personally, I think Kiinyan's original assessment was correct: you are intended to use one form of divination once per day. Once you have more uses per day you may freely mix and match which form of divination you use, but still may not exceed your uses per day.

Then the problem becomes, which rule overrides the other?

Neither. They both apply and one happens to be a redundant holdover from 3.5.

However, the rules also don't state that projectile weapons transfer the enhancement bonus to it's ammo

Yes they do, the first and second line of your quoted section of rules in the original post state exactly that.

What else are you suggesting the following lines could possibly mean?

"The enhancement bonus from a ranged weapon does not stack with the enhancement bonus from ammunition. Only the higher of the two enhancement bonuses applies."

If the weapon has a higher enhancement bonus than the ammunition, the enhancement bonus of the weapon applies. It's very clear.

The rules also state that a weapon with an enhancement bonus of +3 or higher can bypass certain types of DR. Nowhere does it state that this rule doesn't apply in the situation discussed. In a permissive system, if a permission is given in general it must be specifically revoked to not apply in specific cases.

Wait, so the Paizo Bow of Ashes, which is an adaptive flaming composite bow doesn't actually transfer the flaming property to the ammunition?

If you check the table for Ranged Special Weapon Abilities you'll see that a number of abilities (including flaming, frost, shock, bane, holy, amongst others) are notated with a superscript 3, indicating that "projectile weapons with this ability bestow this power upon their ammunition."

The first two lines indicate that the higher enhancement bonus of the weapon or ammunition applies. Ergo, the weapon does impart an enhancement bonus unless the ammunition already has a greater enhancement bonus.
.
The third line indicates that we should follow the rules for overcoming DR according up enhancement bonus: we don't just get the bonus to hit but also the ability to overcome DR.
.
The fourth line indicates that if the weapon has an alignment then the alignment is also imparted. This needs to be stated separately because an aligned weapon may overcome alignment-based DR but have a lower than +5 enhancement bonus.
.
For specific weapon properties the chart or ability write-up indicates whether or not they are imparted to ammunition.

Personally I would rule that it does NOT waive the usual requirements (that is, the requisite item creation feats) for crafting: 25% faster than 'not possible' is still not possible. Likewise, a +4 bonus on a check you are not allowed to attempt does not allow you to attempt the check.

To me it seems pretty clear that the intent (RAI) is that it provides a nice bonus (increased speed and a bonus to the skill check) to characters already able to craft certain items.

RAW it doesn't say it waives or satisfies the requirement for the feats, hence they are still required.

I know this question was kind of already posted and I looked at those questions, but it doesn't really answer the question.

Do you really think previous threads on this don't really answer the question, or were you just hoping someone would give you an answer you liked?

I just did a search on it myself to see if anyone had an argument that would convince me to change the above stance, and after reading several topics I only found one other person who thought the discovery also satisfies the feat requirements; that person received two replies both agreeing that it does not and then agreed that he had misread the text.

To me that seems pretty clearly answered.

Could you explain your logic in more detail, so that I can understand the importance of character level in the text?

Firstly, I do realise that I specifically called out the phrase 'character level' with bolding in my earlier reply, but my interpretation was based on the larger section of text as a whole (and especially also the following phrase 'even if you have levels in sorcerer') rather than just those specific words.

That being said, I just pulled up all of the references again to try to explain my position more thoroughly and started typing out a detailed explanation, but it seems that "rubber ducking" has kicked in and I've actually talked myself around to your interpretation; I now believe that RAW you are in fact correct and the robes very likely do effect a power granted by Eldritch Heritage, although I remain unconvinced that is the intent.

Thanks for pushing me to go through the relevant rules in detail again, sometimes it just takes one more look for all of the details to properly click! :)

That being said, based on all of the topics I've read there are still plenty of others who hold my original position and the intent of the rules are definitely still in dispute, so I'd still prefer to see a FAQ response if possible.

(I love the first post, btw. Use of bolding, links, research. It's a thing of beauty)

Thanks! I figure making it as easy as possible gives us the best chance of a FAQ response.

Simple question:

Do Robes of Arcane Heritage (Ultimate Equipment pg. 216) alter the effective Sorcerer level of Bloodline powers granted via the Eldritch Heritage (Ultimate Magic pg. 149) feat tree? (Improved, Greater)

I didn't realise this was a contentious question until doing a search after responding to the topic "Robe of Arcane Heritage and Eldrich Heritage" and finding loads of topics where the question is hotly debated with no conclusive answer. As this question is off-topic for that discussion I thought I might try starting a new one with the question plainly stated to see if we can get a definitive answer.

-------------------------------------

To show that this is genuinely a frequently asked question, here's a brief selection of previous discussions on the topic:
Eldritch Heritage + Robes of Arcane Heritage?
Eldritch Heritage + Robes of Arcane Heritage
Eldritch Heritage and Robe of Arcane heritage.
Sorcerer + Eldritch Heritage feats + Robe of Arcane Heritage
Can a non-Sorcerer with the Eldritch heritage feats use a Robe of Arcane Heritage?

-------------------------------------

I understand that asking for FAQ clicks is frowned upon, but given this question has apparently been contentious for years now I'm sure a lot of people would appreciate a definitive response. Apologies if this isn't appropriate, I'm still relatively new here.

It's my understanding that this logic simply doesn't apply to mythic tiers; when taking mythic tiers you get what is listed on the Base Mythic Abilities table and in your chosen Mythic Path (available here in the prd) and nothing else. Normal levelling otherwise proceeds unaffected.

The race description for humans (available here) states that "humans select one extra feat at 1st level", and makes no mention of gaining any other feats (mythic or otherwise) at any other time. 1st mythic tier is not 1st level and therefore does not qualify for the human racial bonus.