Mine is RAW. Yours may very well be RAI. When arguing rule I take everything as written and intend nothing.
My point is that some of what you are saying is not RAW, it is strictly RAI by you.
RAW, there is a difference between remote and direct, yet you act as if it doesn't exist.
You treat a trap as an unattended object, when (RAW) the mere act of directly activating it makes it an attended object.
You say that using an object that has its own attack bonuses means that any attack made is "indirect," regardless of the fact that it is an attended object and is being aimed to make the attack, which isn't RAW.
Anyway, I'm done with this thread. My apologies for the partial hijack, and if you're interested in the Invisibility issue, I'm sure other threads can be created or will crop up where RAW vs. RAI can be argued in a more reasonable way.
Have to agree witih Remy. It does specifically call out that the exoskeleton is animated undead by itself. Those living spiders are merely components of its mind. The fact that they're still alive doesn't change the fact that the creature is an undead.
Campaign Traits are in "People of the Sands" the way the WotW were in "Demon Hunter's Handbook."
Campaign Traits:
Blood of Pharaohs: Long ago, one of your ancestors ruled over the lands of Osirion. Although you are many generations removed and the line of descent is hard to prove, his or her blood still runs in your veins. Perhaps you may find some proof of your lineage in the tombs of Wati’s necropolis. You gain a +1 trait bonus on Will saves. You also gain a +1 trait bonus on Knowledge (nobility) checks and that skill is always a class skill for you. In addition, you may choose Ancient Osiriani as one of your bonus languages.
Devotee of the Old Gods: Osirion has a history stretching back over 8,000 years, and the deities worshiped today in modern Osirion are not the same ones revered in Ancient Osirion’s heyday—deities with names like Anubis, Osiris, Ra, and Set, among others. Your family never lost the faith of your ancestors, however, and your devotion to one of the deities of Ancient Osirion has helped keep the memory of Osirion’s past alive—a past that still lingers on in the untouched necropolis of Wati. You gain a +1 trait bonus on Knowledge (history) and Knowledge (religion) checks, and one of those skills is always a class skill for you. In addition, your faith in the old gods of Osirion grants you a +1 trait bonus on saving throws against divine magic. For more information on the deities of Ancient Osirion, see Pathfinder Adventure Path #80: Empty Graves.
Foreign Opportunist: You’re not a native Osirian, but the opportunity to explore the tombs of Ancient Osirion—and “liberate” the treasures they hold—is too good to pass up. Whether or not you’re interested in the history of this land, you’re definitely interested in the wealth that’s lain hidden in dusty crypts for millennia—such as the tombs in the newly opened necropolis of Wati. You gain a +2 trait bonus on Appraise checks, and Appraise is always a class skill for you. In addition, your contacts in the antiquities markets allow you to sell relics of Ancient Osirion for 60% of their listed price, rather than the normal 50% value. What is considered a relic of Ancient Osirion is left to the GM’s discretion.
Inquisitive Archaeologist: You have studied the architectural styles of nations throughout the Inner Sea region, but none have fascinated you like the architecture of Ancient Osirion. Hearing that the famed necropolis of Wati has finally been opened for exploration, you’ve come to that city to get firsthand experience with the lost secrets of Ancient Osirion’s master builders. You gain a +2 trait bonus on Knowledge (engineering) checks, and that skill is always a class skill for you. In addition, you gain a +2 trait bonus on Perception checks to find concealed or secret doors in structures built in the style of Ancient Osirion.
Mummy-Cursed: One of your ancestors ran afoul of a mummy’s curse while exploring an ancient tomb. This curse was passed down to later generations of your family, but over time, your line has become more resistant to curses. You’ve come to Wati to explore its untouched necropolis, and while you hope you won’t have to face a real undead mummy, at least you have some defense if you do. You gain a +2 trait bonus on saving throws against curses and curse effects (including mummy rot and spells with the curse descriptor) and a +2 trait bonus on saving throws against a mummy’s aura of despair.
Resurrected: At some time in the recent past you died, but you were brought back to life—whether because of magic, a blessing of the gods, or a destiny you have to fulfill, or perhaps because it just wasn’t your time to die yet. Whatever the nature of your resurrection, your experience gave you a fascination with death, and you hope to find some insight into the nature of mortality by exploring the tombs of Wati’s famous necropolis. You gain a +2 trait bonus on saving throws against death effects. In addition, you do not die until your hit points drop to a negative amount equal to or lower than your Constitution score + 4.
Sphinx Riddler: You’ve always been fascinated with the ancient race of sphinxes, and are inspired by them to love puzzles and riddles and enjoy solving difficult dilemmas. Like so many others, you’ve come to Wati to explore its ancient necropolis, but you’ve also heard that sphinxes occasionally visit a sphinx-shaped ruin called Ubet’s Folly in the city—perhaps you’ll have the chance to meet and talk with a sphinx yourself! You gain a +1 trait bonus on Bluff and Diplomacy checks against sphinxes, and a +1 trait bonus on any skill check to decipher a puzzle or riddle. In addition, you may choose Sphinx as one of your bonus languages.
Trap Finder: Forgotten dungeons and ancient tombs have always held an appeal for you, and you’ve never been able to resist the urge to delve into these lost sites in search of knowledge, treasure, or both. You may not have received any formal training in the roguish arts, but you’ve nonetheless become skilled at spotting and disabling hidden traps. The tombs of Wati’s necropolis, just opened for exploration, seem like the perfect place to put your skills to the test. You gain a +1 trait bonus on Disable Device checks, and that skill is always a class skill for you. In addition, you can use Disable Device to disarm magic traps, like a rogue.
Undead Crusader: You have dedicated your life to eradicating the scourge of the undead from Golarion. You have spent countless hours studying the different types of undead and have trained endlessly to learn the best ways to defeat them. If any undead creatures come out of the tombs of Wati’s necropolis, you’ll be ready for them! You gain a +1 trait bonus on damage rolls against undead creatures. In addition, you gain a +1 trait bonus on Knowledge (religion) checks, and that skill is always a class skill for you.
Wati Native: You were born and raised in the city of Wati, and you know its streets and secrets well. Although it’s frowned upon by the city’s authorities, you have sneaked into the necropolis on multiple occasions to wander its dusty, abandoned streets. Out of respect for the deceased, you’ve never actually entered one of the necropolis’s silent tombs, but you have no fear of what might lie inside. You gain a +2 trait bonus on saves against fear effects. In addition, your knowledge of the city grants you a +1 trait bonus on Knowledge (local) checks, and that skill is always a class skill for you.
Put me down as interested. Permission for a Scaleheart (Werecrocodile-kin Skinwalker) Barbarian, possibly Prestige Classing into Pathfinder Delver or Student of War.
It occurs to me, since Pathfinder is 'backwards compatible' one could make a Simulacrum of Pun-Pun...
... Great Scott!
Edit:
Technically, one could also do a simulacrum of a deity, especially the Ascended. And there are quite a few books that detail deity stats in backward compatible systems.
Regardless of if its "easy-to-calculate" or not its still a decision you have to make one way or another--
I think its pretty clear that its NOT intended to be a way to get multiple 9th level spells with a single 7th level spell slot, so we can start with that at a minimum.
I could make other suggestions like--
*halving/adjusting down DR amount and removing one type i.e. 20/silver and good would become 10/silver
*halving CR and Regeneration or fast healing
*removing half the spell like abilities, from the highest to the lowest or reducing times per day and CL
But specific ideas like that are more house rules than interpretations.
I don't disagree with you. It is a decision that has to be made, and the intention of the spell was probably not to get multiple 9th-level slots with a single 7th-level spell. Your suggestions are reasonable ones.
However, that does appear to be the purpose of the FAQ: taking what is currently in the realm of "house rule" and asking for an official clarification and interpretation of the spell in question. "House rules" are not rules for the purpose of a RAW discussion.
The simulacrum spell does very clearly say that special abilities (which would include Ex, Su, Sp, and SQ) are reduced as appropriate.
The problem is it doesn't say who does the reducing. Some players will argue they get to decide, but just as a GM should be approving characters, cohorts, ect, they should be approving the simulacrums whether they write them, or let the player submit a suggestion.
To be strictly accurate, however, you wouldn't have any reason to remove a single spell-like ability from the creature. There is nothing guiding what is "appropriate ... for a creature of that level or HD" when it comes to special abilities like regeneration, spell-like abilities, or any other non-level-dependent ability. Efreeti (10 HD) have, depending on how you look at it, greater spell-like abilities than a Marid (12 HD), and greater Wish capacity than a Solar (22 HD). The only easy-to-calculate "creature of that level/HD" items are things that are actually level-dependent, such as hit points, feats, and skill points.
That doesn't follow. There is no rule specifically telling the GM to make rulings about "technological progression up through mechanical, non-magic, space travel",...
It does follow. The rule in question would be: If there is no rule explicitly written down, the onus is on the GM to create a rule for it and follow that rule. Taken to logical conclusion, that means that anything that doesn't have an explicit rule is a GM rule, including space travel and software engineers.
In this case, there is no explicitly written rule on adding or removing Spell-Like Abilities when increasing or decreasing Hit Dice, merely increasing Spellcasting. Spellcasting can safely be assumed to be: effects dependent on caster level when caster level is equal to Hit Dice; creature casts as a X-level class. Spell-Like Abilities break all normal spell-casting progressions.
As far as this being an FAQ as opposed to an Errata: It may call for either one.
The FAQ in this case asking: is it the intention of the Simulacrum spell that all spell-like abilities be available to the simulacrum, including spells of higher level than the original Simulacrum spell. If not, how should spell-like abilities and other casting be handled with regards to the Simulacrum spell? Both questions ask for clarification of an existing spell without necessarily re-writing the spell.
Alternatively, the Developers could choose to handle it as an Errata and re-write the Simulacrum spell to clarify it or bring it into better balance.
So interesting bit of data I stumbled across, apparently stacking bags of holding is intended to cause the same rift as putting it into a portable hole. Quote from The Great Beyond - A Guide to the Multiverse:
Quote:
While many spells or magic items can transport adventurers to other planes, not all methods do so without hazard, and not always as an intended function; some trips to other planes happen much by accident. Long a tool of tricky GMs and ingenious or unlucky players alike, stacking extradimensional spaces within one another like nested dolls – such as placing one bag of holding into another, or into a portable hole – causes a temporary rift or gate into the Astral Plane. Such rifts, although temporary, can suck characters through, stranding them in less than ideal conditions and circumstances on the other side, bereft of equipment, injured, or surrounded by potentially hostile natives.
1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.
1 person marked this as a favorite.
So I'm curious. I'm sure this has been answered somewhere, but I can't find it. How does the Polymorph Any Object spell work as far as Fey/Outsiders/etc. that are not mentioned in that spell, Greater Polymorph, or the description of the Polymorph subschool?
I'll take a link answer or if somebody can point me to where the errata is? I saw one thread in my search that said that it had been answered in errata, but I haven't been able to find an answer.
The theory behind the idea was, in fact, repairing each subsidiary part (board, nail, etc.) and putting it back together. I had noted the object limit, I was more referring to the possibility of repairing each constituent piece one at a time in an attempt to repair the entire ship. It sounds like, though, to actually pull that off, each piece would have to be removed from the whole, then mended, then put back in, otherwise the piece would be a part of the whole ship.
8 people marked this as FAQ candidate.
2 people marked this as a favorite.
So I got into a discussion with one of my players over Arcane Trickster and how I was going to rule as far as the FAQ regarding Scorching Ray and Sneak Attack. He's a newer player, and part of his build depended on what spells he focused on using. If I ruled against the FAQ, he'd go Evocation focus and use Scorching Ray. If I ruled with it, he'd go Conjuration focus and use Fiery Shuriken.
My question is in interpreting the ruling for Scorching Ray.
Spell Sneak Attack FAQ:
PDT wrote:
Sneak Attack: Can I add sneak attack damage to simultaneous attacks from a spell?
No. For example, scorching ray fires simultaneous rays at one or more targets, and the extra damage is only added once to one ray, chosen by the caster when the spell is cast.
Spell-based attacks which are not simultaneous, such as multiple attacks per round by a 8th-level druid using flame blade, may apply sneak attack damage to each attack so long as each attack qualifies for sneak attack (the target is denied its Dex bonus or the caster is flanking the target).
—Pathfinder Design Team, 06/19/13
Now the argument that has been made is that, according to the ruling, any spell that grants multiple attacks per round can gain multiple Sneak Attacks per round. I think the intent of the FAQ was along the lines of you can't gain Sneak Attack more than once an Action, or once a Standard Action, or once per iterative attack granted by your choice of Action, or somesuch. The example that they use in the FAQ is a spell benefiting from iterative attacks.
My question, then. For the purpose of the Sneak Attack FAQ, what does simultaneously mean?
As far as I can tell, possibly definitions include:
- spells that include the word simultaneously (i.e. Scorching Ray)
- multiple spell attacks made in a single action
- multiple spell attacks made in a standard action
- multiple attacks that ignore normal iterative rules
Example:
Here's an example that looks a bit absurd to me, if the definition of simultaneous is "spells that use the word simultaneously."
A Rogue 3/Wizard 3/AT 10 is caster level 13. Add in Magical Knack to bring it to caster level 15.
Player casts Fiery Shuriken, generating 8 shuriken. All can be launched when they appear, at the same or different targets, as Ranged Touch Attacks.
If the FAQ refers only to spells that use "simultaneously" as part of the wording, then the damage breakdown follows:
At level 16, that's 8*(1d8+7d6) = 8d8+56d6 damage against a single target if they all hit touch AC (Avg 232 damage).
At level 20, assuming 4 more Rogue levels, it turns into 8*(1d8+9d6) = 8d8+72d6 if all hit (Avg 288 damage).
So, just throwing it out there. I'm not trying to nerf anybody's Arcane Trickster build, I'm just wanting to clarify for my own sake (and for others who have this question) how far the ruling actually covers, and what "simultaneous" means in context of the ruling. Dev response appreciated if possible, but I know this is a semi-repeat thread.
Magical Knack trait = +2 caster level, can't go above character level; effective caster level 19 (which gets the 5th ball lightning sphere)
Surprise Round: Cast Ball Lightning, placing the balls on the enemy initially. Target is denied Dex to AC by flat-footed condition, and so suffers sneak attack damage on all attacks. Base damage is 3d6, + 2d6 SA from Rogue, + 5d6 SA from Arcane Trickster.
At best, this will probably make a great number of people extremely angry and lead to a boycott by many of these boards and of Pathfinder. At worst, it could lead to a complete crash of the boards by people unhappy with rulings they paid for and disagree with and the loss of the FAQ system entirely. I tend to think it would end more in one of the latter options more than the former.
Personally, I'd rather have faith that the PDT can address the issues that are really necessary to address, even if it takes them some time. The fact that it takes them time is overshadowed by the fact that they're doing it at all, and that they're willing to engage in discussion with us on the boards.
I don't agree with every ruling they make, and I don't always take Dev rulings as gospel, but I do appreciate that they take their personal time to do this. Paying them for rulings feels to me like it would cheapen the ruling.
I'm not strictly disagreeing with that, but with how that's being interpreted.
A standard character has two arms, two legs, and a head. Some expanded character race options can have some natural attacks, such as claws or bite attacks. A Tengu Monk with natural claws has three natural weapons, plus his normal Unarmed Strikes. His normal full attack action would be:
US/Claw/Claw/Bite. With TWF, his full attack action would be US/US/Claw/Claw/Bite. This doesn't break limb economy, since he's attack once with each limb.
What the PDT seem to be trying to get at with the VA FAQ is that having Vestigial Arms doesn't break limb economy for attacks. You still only get two arm attacks, regardless of which of your many arms you use.
What SKR is saying is that that's not strictly the case. He starts out with a character who has his arms full making US with his feet. All well and good. He then takes away the barrel, and the character is now a Tengu with Claws and Bite, so he can do US/US/Claw/Claw/Bite. Still well and good, because he's using each limb once if US = Kick.
Then he's adding in VAs, which muddle everything. VAs don't grant you extra arm economy, so you still only get two arm attacks, per the VA FAQ. What is throwing this off is that people are equating US to weapon attacks. While this is true insofar as it goes, it is not true in saying a kick is equivalent to a dagger. You can't wield a dagger with your feet.
Personally, given the VA FAQ, I'd say that Kick/Kick/Claw/Claw/Bite is legal, as is replacing the Kicks with Boot Blades or other weapons that use the feet. But replacing Kick with something that uses another Limb entirely doesn't work.
The number of attacks doesn't strictly matter, even though people are saying that it does. A normal character can't attack with 2 Daggers and 2 Claws at all, but he can attack with 2 Boot Blades and 2 Claws, or 2 Kicks and 2 Claws. Vestigial Arms don't change that, because they don't let you use an attack sequence a two-armed character could not have used.
So, Vestigial Arms need to be empty, to use your normal hands?
What purpose do they serve?
Nothing in the Vestigial Arms FAQ indicates that the arms in question can't be used for literally anything else you can use the arms for. You just cannot attack with them at the same time you attack with your primary arms, or vice versa. Thus, some options:
holding a potion
holding a shield
holding (wielding, but not attack with) a manufactured weapon
holding a wand
painting a picture
juggling geese
flipping the bird to the enemy
opening the locked door with thieves tools
... etc.
Personally, given the Vestigial Arm FAQ, I'd say that SKR is incorrect. Yes, you could do Kick/Kick/Claw/Claw/Bite, but when the VAs come into play, the only difference would be to make to US/US/Claw/Claw/Bite, which might as well be the same thing, by his definition. But once you start using weapons in any of your arms, you nullify its partner arm for making natural attacks.
PDT wrote:
The exact same restrictions would apply if your race had claws or you had some other ability to add claws to your limbs: the text of both discoveries says they do not give you any extra attacks per round, whether used as natural weapons, wielding manufactured weapons, or adding natural weapons to a limb that didn't originally have natural weapons.
Emphasis mine, bolded relevant portion of the FAQ. If you're using the VAs to wield weapons, you don't get extra attacks from having claws from any source.
You will not find an official Paizo item that uses Celestial Mithral because it is a 3rd-Party product, and this not legal for official play. As such, it has no bearing on official Mithral pricing.
Celestial Armor, when it says that it is made of silver or gold, actually is made of silver or gold. I'll try to dig up where that was stated, but it was stated some time ago. The extra stat boosts come from the Celestial component of the armor, not from a special material.
As far as making arrows out of Mithral, they wouldn't cost no extra. You'd either treat them as half-pound, as suggested by Nefreet (arrows function as daggers for purpose of uses them as melee weapons, albeit with an improvised weapon penalty), or you would find the weight I one arrow (0.15 lbs) and use that to determine crafting and market price, essentially dividing the cost to craft them in lots of 50 (IIRC, 50'is the normal minimum craft lot). That might be bypassed by an arrow not being primarily made of metal, meaning it couldn't be made of such (depending on interpretation).
Celestial armor is not mithral—it's actually made of silver or gold (as mentioned in its description), and thus doesn't gain any of the standard modifiers for being mithral at all. It's its own thing. Its lower arcane spell failure and higher max Dex bonus are a result of its magical qualities, not what it's made out of. In addition, this magic allows folks to wear it as if it were light armor—the mithral versions don't do this because mithral isn't fundamentally magical like the enhancements on celestial armor.
In any event, celestial armor isn't an armor quality. It's a unique kind of armor, and thus has a unique pricing. It does weird stuff; it's really light, it's made of gold, it's REALLY nice looking, it lets you fly, and so on. Its pricing is a result of ALL of these elements, and that's pretty much that.
The intention of the FAQ was that SLAs can be used to meet requirements, up to and including PrCs (such as Mystic Theurge, which was brought up as an example and was responded to directly by a designer without contradicting its validity).
So to ride the Metro, you either need a $2 bill or a $2 Metro token. In that situation, they are equivalent. You might not be able to go buy a cheeseburger with the Metro token, but for the specific purchase (of a ride on Mystic Theurge Railways), they are exactly equal.
Right; that's what the FAQ changed. Going back to the original question of the thread, it was asked why people would object to the ruling or at least find it incongruous. This is why; because now, your $3 Metro token qualifies you to ride the Mystic Theurge Railways, whereas before, you needed $2 bills or tokens.
This is in contrast to BAB requirements, which ask "you must have $5 of money to proceed." Not bills, just money. Having $6 or $7 includes having $5 of money.
The thread asked how these were different concepts; this is my explanation.
Actually, this is part of the debate. Does your $3 Metro token qualify you to ride the $2 Mystic Theurge train?
Personally, I've been thinking of these things as tally marks (yes, I realize I'm going back to elementary school for that reference). Skills, BAB, caster level, can all be represented by tally marks. Even if you have 5 marks, you can still point to one, two, and three. Even if you get an ability like Instant Mastery which gives you four ranks in a skill (presumably simultaneously), you can still point to rank 1, 2, and 3, even though there is also a rank 4 and at no point did you have only 1, 2, or 3 ranks.
With Feats and Proficiencies, you can't represent them that way. They each have a discrete mark, like a letter of the alphabet. Generally, you have to go through the alphabet to get to particular letters. Certain classes permit you to skip letters.
Spell levels used to only function in the sense of tally marks. You could not get the upper-level spellcasting power without gaining the lower first. With the SLA ruling, you can cast Gamma-level spells without being able to cast Alpha- or Beta-level. Mystic Theurge, in this case, requires you to be able to cast Divine and Arcane Beta-spells. A Gamma-spell is not a Beta-spell. Sure, you can prepare/cast a Beta spell in a Gamma slot, but that doesn't change that you can't prepare a Gamma spell in a Beta slot. Mystic Theurge requires those Beta slots (and an SLA is effectively a slot(s) that is permanently prepared with its one spell).
Apologies for the Greek alphabet, but it made a bit more sense to use that than the Roman alphabet for purpose of the analogy.
And intention at the time of writing goes out the window when things are reinterpreted based on new possibilities that did not exist at the time of writing. I agree, this issue is trivial. So is the game. Yet you're still arguing it, as am I.
As for the distinction, I agree. It didn't exist before the ruling. But not everything works on the linear progression. SLAs have never been linear, thus they don't function as linear functions do. The writers likely intended for things to be linear, but when a ruling is introduced that turns things on their heads, you can't go off of original intent anymore. You have to go off of the intent of the ruling, which is as yet unclear on this point. Hence the trivial debate.
1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.
1 person marked this as a favorite.
So it sounds like the big question here is do Detect Alignment spells detect the actual alignment of an Outsider-type creature, or does it detect alignment subtypes? Or, coming at it from the other direction, what is the definition of aligned Outsider?
8 people marked this as FAQ candidate.
1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lord Pendragon wrote:
mdt wrote:
The Azata has a specific restriction on it, specific overrides general. So, although the feat doesn't care, the Azata does. So no, you can't get the Azata.
Sorry.
This seems absolutely clear and not requiring of a faq.
The clarification would be nice because their are several wordings in play:
A chaotic good 7th-level spellcaster can gain a lyrakien as a familiar if she has the Improved Familiar feat.
An arbiter inevitable can serve a spellcaster as a familiar. Such a spellcaster must be lawful neutral, must be at least caster level 7th, and must have the Improved Familiar feat.
You may choose a familiar with an alignment up to one step away on each alignment axis (lawful through chaotic, good through evil).
It's unclear where the final rule is. Does the presence of Lyrakiens on the IF list mean the alignment rule reverts to the normal IF rule, or does the specific alignment requirement trump? Does the Lyrakien alignment wording work as a hard restriction, or is it a recommendation with the Arbiter wording being the hard restriction?
James, while I see why you would say that, I disagree with your reasoning. The reason why all of the Spells Per Day abilities are worded the way they are for the prestige classes is because, with very few exceptions, they strictly have to be able to handle multiple class inputs. A Bard, for example, wouldn't gain bloodline spells, even if he was taking Dragon Disciple.
This is part of why ShadowcatX and others have continued to cite the SKR response about the Witch and Patron spells. Patron spells function, in all relevant ways, the same way as Bloodline spells. The only difference? A Witch is not a spontaneous caster.
While advancing from Sorc 5 to Sorc 6 would grant a Bloodline spell, it does so specifically because it advances the Bloodline class feature. Without advancing the Bloodline class feature, the benefits of advancing the Bloodline class feature are not given to the character, the same as if a Witch's spellcasting were advanced without advancing her Patron class feature.
james maissen wrote:
We agree that a sorcerer5/dragon disciple2 casts as a sorcerer6, has the spells known of a sorcerer6 (plus fly based on the blood of dragons).
Why does he gain all the spells known that a sorcerer6 would know? Because he gains the spellcasting as if he had advanced also as a sorcerer6.
These two sentences are, in some ways contradictory, I have to point out. In the first, you say that he gains the Fly spell because of Blood of Dragons, which is specifically advancing his bloodline. In the second, you say that he gained it because his spellcasting was advanced.
What I see is this. Sorc 5/DD 1 casts spells as a 5th-level Sorcerer. His draconic Bloodline is currently at level 6, given by Blood of Dragons. This means that he gets Fly as a Spell Known. But he doesn't have a spell slot that can cast Fly, so it goes on the shelf, waiting for the Sorcerer to get another caster level.
Sorc 5/DD 1 takes his 7th character level as DD 2. What this grants him is the following: First, it improves his spellcaster level to level 6, granting him the ability to cast spells as if he were a Sorcerer at level 6, the normal Spells Known table of a level 6 Sorcerer, and the caster level of a level 6 Sorcerer. Then, after that, the Blood of Dragons ability advances his Bloodline level to level 6. His powers advance appropriately, and then Blood of Dragons notices that he has a bloodline spell that he was supposed to have already, and that he can now cast it. That then takes the spell off the shelf and dumps it into his brain.
Alternate scenario. Sorc 5/EK 1 takes his 7th character level as EK 2. His spellcasting ability is advanced (spell slots of a Sorcerer 6, Spells Known table of a Sorcerer 6, caster level of a Sorcerer 6). His bloodline, however, stays at level 5, same as it was. The bloodlines spells, which are specifically stated to be derived from the bloodline, do not advance, either.
You see this:
Quote:
except for additional spells per day, spells known (if he is a spontaneous spellcaster), and an increased effective level of spellcasting.
as exceptions to this statement:
Quote:
He does not, however, gain other benefits a character of that class would have gained
I disagree with that interpretation. What I see is a clarification. He gains increased spellcasting (which includes spells per day, spells known, increased caster level) as if he had advanced in the class, but he doesn't gain other benefits of that class (bloodline, patron, bardic performance, etc.) or abilities derived from those benefits.
And while I appreciate your position, telling me that I'm merely not finishing a sentence isn't supporting your position. I have read those sentences some hundred times at least in my time gaming, and am very familiar with their wording (RAW) and my (and others') version of their implications (RAI).
You may also note, in reading the Sorcerer class ability relating to bloodline spells, those spells are never referred to as Spells Known. They are learned, yes, and they are spells a Sorcerer can cast in addition to the Spells Known. They are never stated to be Spells Known, however, so any ability that advances Spells Known would not advance them.
That last paragraph may be a fallacious argument, and I'm sure you'll ignore it, but it is, strictly speaking, an accurate one.
Now let's go from RAW which clearly supports the character gaining all the spells known that a sorcerer7 would have over into RAI.
James, if it were as clear as you say, then this debate wouldn't be going on. Just throwing that out there off the bat. It sounds like it's clear to you and Quandary RAI, but it very clearly isn't clear RAW.
What is clear RAW is that, upon taking certain levels into certain PrCs, spellcasters gain an advancement of their spellcasting ability. This debate stems directly from RAI, as in, "How much spellcasting do they gain?" Something that is clear RAW is something that can be supported and cannot be denied by the text of the rules. This entire debate has been RAI, or, "What does this passage mean.
Neither side is supported clearly enough to say that it is clearly supported, because if it was, we wouldn't be talking. This goes for both sides of the argument making that statement, you just happened to be the last one.
Now that that rant is over, onto the question at hand.
James, I want to ask you a few questions.
What class feature grants bloodline spells?
What causes that class feature to advance?
Can you gain the benefits of a class feature above the level of the feature you have attained? If so, how?
Regarding the Sorcerer, if Spell advancement grants bonus spells, how do you explain the dichotomy between the Spells Per Day class feature and the Blood of Dragons class feature in the Dragon Disciple?
I'll give short answers to my own questions, except the last which I'd like to use to explain the other side.
1) A sorcerer's Bloodline class feature grants bloodline spells.
2) With only Dragon Disciple as an exception, the Bloodline class feature is only advanced by taking a level of Sorcerer.
3) Yes, but only in specific instances. Ex: a Monk's Robe grants the wearer specific increased effective level benefits of the Monk class.
And this entire section will be in answer to question 4. Emphasis mine in below quotes.
Dragon Disciple wrote:
Spells per Day: At the indicated levels, a dragon disciple gains new spells per day as if he had also gained a level in an arcane spellcasting class he belonged to before adding the prestige class. He does not, however, gain other benefits a character of that class would have gained, except for additional spells per day, spells known (if he is a spontaneous spellcaster), and an increased effective level of spellcasting. If a character had more than one arcane spellcasting class before becoming a dragon disciple, he must decide to which class he adds the new level for purposes of determining spells per day.
Dragon Disciple wrote:
Blood of Dragons: A dragon disciple adds his level to his sorcerer levels when determining the powers gained from his bloodline. If the dragon disciple does not have levels of sorcerer, he instead gains bloodline powers of the draconic bloodline, using his dragon disciple level as his sorcerer level to determine the bonuses gained. He must choose a dragon type upon gaining his first level in this class and that type must be the same as his sorcerer type. This ability does not grant bonus spells to a sorcerer unless he possesses spell slots of an appropriate level. Such bonus spells are automatically granted if the sorcerer gains spell slots of the spell’s level.
Now, looking specifically at this prestige class, which is the only one that makes specific mention of Bloodlines and Sorcerers.
If the Spells Per Day feature was meant to advance the Bloodline class feature as far as a Sorcerer's Spells Known class feature, why are those spells specifically mentioned in the Blood of Dragons feature?
It seems to me that the Spells Per Day class feature was intended to not advance the Bloodline feature in any way. If it does, then why would they have to put the bolded bit in Blood of Dragons? That would seem to indicate that the Bloodline Spells are granted twice to a Sorcerer, which doesn't make sense. What makes more sense to me is that this is the only source the Bloodline Spells are coming from in this prestige class. Given that the wording is not significantly different in any other prestige class (except Mystic Theurge), we can then infer that the Spells Per Day advancing the Spells Known class feature does not grant Bloodline Spells.
There's also another interesting part of the Blood of Dragons ability. It specifically calls out that it advances the Bloodline Spells if the Sorcerer's spellcasting is otherwise advanced. The way I read the last sentence, you could do Sorc 5/DragDisc 1/Eldritch Knight 2, and upon reaching EK 2, you gain spellcasting as a level 6 Sorcerer, plus the bloodline spell that would normally be gained at Sorc 7.
So, James and Quandary, and the others who stand with them. I invite you to examine the problem of the Dragon Disciple, which is the biggest case against your position being accurate. Please, go through your logic in detail, as I have endeavored to do here. I'll restate the questions I asked up-post.
Quote:
What class feature grants bloodline spells?
What causes that class feature to advance?
Can you gain the benefits of a class feature above the level of the feature you have attained? If so, how?
Regarding the Sorcerer, if Spell advancement grants bonus spells, how do you explain the dichotomy between the Spells Per Day class feature and the Blood of Dragons class feature in the Dragon Disciple?
Dragon Disciple wrote:
Spells per Day: At the indicated levels, a dragon disciple gains new spells per day as if he had also gained a level in an arcane spellcasting class he belonged to before adding the prestige class. He does not, however, gain other benefits a character of that class would have gained, except for additional spells per day, spells known (if he is a spontaneous spellcaster), and an increased effective level of spellcasting. If a character had more than one arcane spellcasting class before becoming a dragon disciple, he must decide to which class he adds the new level for purposes of determining spells per day.
Dragon Disciple wrote:
Blood of Dragons: A dragon disciple adds his level to his sorcerer levels when determining the powers gained from his bloodline. If the dragon disciple does not have levels of sorcerer, he instead gains bloodline powers of the draconic bloodline, using his dragon disciple level as his sorcerer level to determine the bonuses gained. He must choose a dragon type upon gaining his first level in this class and that type must be the same as his sorcerer type. This ability does not grant bonus spells to a sorcerer unless he possesses spell slots of an appropriate level. Such bonus spells are automatically granted if the sorcerer gains spell slots of the spell’s level.
601. We were all standing in the crowd at the same time when the son of the blacksmith we all coincidentally know was about to be executed. One thing led to another ...
537b. "I'm Dod, this is my brother Fod. Also from Agamar. This is my brother Lod."
544. We're here looking for wives. There are only six beautiful women where we're from, and they're all married.
545. Because I'm on a quest to populate the world with my children, and these are my first conquests. Except the Barbarian. Her Attractiveness score is only 19, so she's more of a person to carry stuff and hit things. The rest are going to bear my children.
There is nothing masculine about gaming. You roll dice and play make believe. On the scale of masculinity most gamers are at near the bottom of the rung although I wouldn't doubt there are plenty that are delusional enough to think otherwise about themselves and gaming.
This is also a false claim. I've known a few people who, on the scale of masculinity (an arbitrary scale if ever I saw one), scored reasonably high and were gamers. And they still enjoyed coming out to game and have fun trying to tackle the evil Sorceress, and then trying to get something to change our own caster back into herself following a baleful polymorph.
I've gamed with people near the bottom, and people closer to the top. The bulk of people I've gamed with who, for whatever reason, require ranking on the scale of masculinity score pretty much across the middle region.
You do make a few points. Gaming is not inherently masculine, and being a gamer does not make somebody as masculine as an NFL player. That said, being an NFL player doesn't really make somebody masculine, either. It's not the NFL or the game the makes somebody masculine. Both activities are a bit more neutral on the scale of masculinity. The players make it a masculine (or not) activity. The exception, of course, being synchronized underwater sweater-knitting. A more masculine activity I never did see.
Gaming doesn't need to be masculine or feminine to be fun. And sensitivity to players' needs (not women and players, just any and all players) is something that is necessary in any gaming group. That's what threads like, "What do women like in gaming," are trying to accomplish. Men are, in some ways, stupid animals. Some of us recognize this, and attempt to correct the deficiency by inquiring after information that will help us avoid stupid mistakes, like making an insensitive personal comment or treating a female gamer differently because we think she can't take what the boys can. For the record, I tend to disbelieve that female gamers are in any way incapable of competing toe-to-toe with male gamers with regards to game content, raunchiness, or any other aspect of a game. YMMV
Keep this in mind: you may have the universe figured out, but maybe the rest of us don't have the details down perfectly yet. When there's information that we need, we ask questions. Don't fault us for being less perfect than you. Try educating instead of denigrating.
2 people marked this as FAQ candidate.
2 people marked this as a favorite.
@ Kegluneq: The benefit is getting to use any bonuses from special materials, enchantments, or damage types from multiple weapons. Ultimately, it's more costly to maintain those multiple weapons, but there's the benefit.
Reverting to the topic: I've seen a couple of convincing arguments from both sides. I've also seen a number of specious arguments on both sides. I'm going to attempt to sum what I see as the major supporting arguments of both sides up in an objective fashion below, but a close reading of the thread will reveal all points to a reader.
Original Post + Recap:
FiddlersGreen wrote:
"Ok so here's the situation.
Say I have a scimitar in my left hand, and an axe in my right. I have a BAB of 13, so I have 3 iterative attacks at +13, 8 and +3 respectively (not counting other bonuses).
Question: can I, without the Two Weapon Fighting feat, deliver the first attack with my axe, and the next two attacks with my scimitar (i.e. axe attack with +13, and then two scimitar attacks at +8 and +3 respectively)?
Edit: also, would the attacks with the scimitar only gain half my str bonus to damage, or the full bonus?"
From this question, the thread then added the question, "Does doing what he did invoke TWF penalties?"
From the camp of those who believe one can change weapons during normal iterative attacks:
Major points:
Full Attack Action rules. Specifically, the sentence that states:
Full Attack Action wrote:
"If you are using two weapons, you can strike with either weapon first."
Depending on the reading, this implies that when you are using two weapons, you can use either one for the first attack, then change to the other for the next attack of a full-attack action. If only using the BAB iteratives, it could be interpreted as being allowed to change weapons between iterations.
Counter: The counter-argument is that attacking with either weapon first is referring only to extra attacks gained from TWF, which would be of the same iteration. Example: You have BAB +11, TWF, and ITWF. You could do primary +11/off +11 or off +11/primary +11, then do primary +6/off +6 or off +6/primary +6, then do primary +1 or off +1, with each iterative being independent of the others. So far, this is one of the stronger points I'm seeing on the part of being able to switch weapons in a normal iterative.
The grammatical issue. Because of the way the TWF rules are phrased, it is decidedly unclear if the phrase "in this way" is intended to refer to the title (Two Weapon Fighting), the initial conditional clause "If you wield a second weapon in your off hand," or the entire first sentence.
Counter: If it were decidedly clear for one reading or another, then there wouldn't be a disagreement over how to interpret it. This argument supports nobody's side conclusively.
The definition of "wield." There are several definitions of wield. All of them require the wielder to be in possession and in a position to manipulate the item/object/ability in question. Only some definitions require the wielder to be actively using the item/object/ability. Using some definitions of wield, a character is always satisfying conditions for TWF penalties (if and only if the penalties are applied based only on "wielding" two weapons). The argument is that saying TWF is dependent only on wielding means that, using a hard definition of "wield," penalties apply constantly.
Counter: Not all definitions of "wield" cause a character to always satisfy TWF conditions (see above conditional statement). Also, with some of the examples cited (shields, thrown weapons, double-weapons), subjectivity is being ignored. Barring an official definition of "wield," and conditions under which "wield" has a different defintion OR a consensus on a definition for "wield," this argument also does not support either side conclusively.
Ridiculous-ness of interpretations. I'm not going to bother touching anything that involved saying an opposing viewpoint was "ridiculous," because I feel that such arguments reflect more an unwillingness to try to understand than a legitimate argument.
From the camp of those who believe one can not change weapons during normal iterative attacks:
Major points:
A Developer opinion. The opinion of James Jacobs, a senior member of the team that brings us Pathfinder, states the belief that it does not matter if you take the extra attack or not, using weapons in each (more than one) hand to attack separately causes penalties to come into play. His wording may not be quite as precisely laid out, but the meaning of his post is as stated, that you cannot use weapons in multiple hands independently without incurring penalties from two-/multi-weapon fighting.
Counter: James Jacobs has reversed his position before with further thought. According to some, James has claimed to not be a "rules guy" (citation needed), and an opinion from Jason would carry more weight. This may not have the most weight, but it is the only applicable Developer input that has been cited in the thread.
Archetypes. More than one instance of an archetype has referred to an ability that allows the use of either: being able to use different weapons on different iterations of standard BAB, which then incur penalties as normal for fighting with two weapons; or multiple weapons for special standard actions, which then incur penalties as normal for fighting with two weapons. These act as special, meaning outside the normal, abilities, implying that one cannot normally do those things.
Counter: Archetypes have re-iterated rules before. Cited repeatedly was the Polearm fighter and the Trip issue. Also mentioned is that Archetypes, while canon, are not as canon as the Core (rephrasing for clarity).
The Two-Weapon Fighting Feat. Specifically, if you look at the benefit of the feat, it claims, "Your penalties for fighting with two weapons are reduced." It then goes on to re-state, with very minor variations, the same rules in the Two-Weapon fighting section of the Combat chapter under the Normal heading. If you look at the loose description of the feat before it gets to the details, it states, "You can fight with a weapon wielded in each of your hands. You can make an extra attack each round with the secondary weapon." These points imply that the penalties of Two-Weapon Fighting are garnered by merely wielding two weapons.
Counter: The wording of Two-Weapon fighting in the Combat chapter is ambiguous (see grammatical below). The repetition in the feat under the Normal section is equally ambiguous, although very slightly different. Also, depending on definition of "wielding" (see below), penalties apply constantly.
The grammatical issue. Because of the way the TWF rules are phrased, it is decidedly unclear if the phrase "in this way" is intended to refer to the title (Two Weapon Fighting), the initial conditional clause "If you wield a second weapon in your off hand," or the entire first sentence.
Counter: If it were decidedly clear for one reading or another, then there wouldn't be a disagreement over how to interpret it. This argument supports nobody's side conclusively.
The definition of "wield." There are several definitions of wield. All of them require the wielder to be in possession and in a position to manipulate the item/object/ability in question. Only some definitions require the wielder to be actively using the item/object/ability. Using some definitions of wield, a character is always satisfying conditions for TWF penalties (if and only if the penalties are applied based only on "wielding" two weapons). The argument is either that "wield" has a hard definition that is based entirely on intent, or that "wield" has a flexible definition based on usage in the moment (i.e. shield used as shield isn't a weapon, but shield used as weapon is a weapon).
Counter: Not all definitions of "wield" cause a character to always satisfy TWF conditions (see above conditional statement). Also, with some of the examples cited (shields, thrown weapons, double-weapons), subjectivity is being emphasized over objectivity. Barring an official definition of "wield," and conditions under which "wield" has a different defintion OR a consensus on a definition for "wield," this argument also does not support either side conclusively.
Ridiculous-ness of interpretations. I'm not going to bother touching anything that involved saying an opposing viewpoint was "ridiculous," because I feel that such arguments reflect more an unwillingness to try to understand than a legitimate argument.
So far, neither of the two questions posed by this thread has been conclusively answered. Those two questions are as follows:
Can separate iterations of a full-attack action (specifically iterations resulting from high BAB) be made by independent weapons in different hands of a character?
Are Two-Weapon Fighting rules invoked by taking an extra attack with the off-hand weapon or by making independent attacks with weapons in more than one hand?
Personal Views:
Personally, I think that the original poster could not do what was proposed. To answer the first question, I believe that separate iterations of a full-attack action cannot be made by more than one weapon. My view is based on specific readings of Two-Weapon Fighting, the Full-Attack action, and the Two-Weapon Fighting line of feats.
As far as when penalties apply for Two-Weapon fighting, I look at the first half of the Two-Weapon Fighting feat and see my answer. The penalties apply when fighting with two weapons. The extra attack is a kindness for those with the ability to take it.
Here's hoping for an intervention of some sort, whether that be a consensus brought by the divine, or a Developer answering one of the major contention points and changing the debate field. I'm not going to post anymore. It's been fun, and extremely frustrating, following this thread.
And so the Backstabber Chronicles begin. Follow our two epic heroes as they square off in an attempt to see who will be the first, and last, Rogue to stab the other in the kidney.
2 people marked this as FAQ candidate.
1 person marked this as a favorite.
So, in looking at the Pathfinder Changelings as introduced in Carrion Crown, I've noted a couple of interesting things that aren't made entirely clear. Here are the stats as a reference:
Changeling Stats:
-2 Constitution, +2 Wisdom, +2 Charisma: Changelings are frail, but possess a sharp wit and unnatural beauty.
Hag Trait: A changeling possesses one of the following traits, depending on the type of hag her mother is.
Hulking Changeling: A changeling who was born of an annis hag is much more physically formidable than other changelings. You receive a +1 trait bonus on any damage you inflict with a melee attack.
Green Widow: A changeling of green hag descent is naturally able to lure in potential mates and effectively trick them into pursuing her. You gain a +2 trait bonus on Bluff checks made against characters that might be sexually attracted to you.
Sea Lungs: A changeling with a sea hag mother can survive underwater for longer than usual. You gain the ability to hold your breath for a number of rounds equal to three times your Constitution score instead of two.
Claws: A changeling’s hands and fingernails tend to harden and become sharp as she reaches adolescence. This gives her the claw (1d4) natural attack.
Natural Armor: Hags and their offspring have uncommonly tough skin. A changeling begins play with a natural armor bonus of +1.
Darkvision: Changelings can see in the dark up to
60 feet.
Languages: Changelings begin play speaking the primary language of their host society and Common. Changelings who have high Intelligence scores can choose from among the following bonus languages: Aklo, Draconic, Dwarven, Elven, Giant, Gnoll, Goblin, and Orc.
According to their ecology, they can resemble member's of any race, dependent on the father's race. My questions related to that are this:
1) What aging scale do they use? Do they age as a member of their father's race, or do Changeling's have their own aging scale?
2) What subtype are they? According to the sample stat block given, Changelings are Humanoids without a subtype, meaning they might not be affected by Favored Enemy or Bane abilities. Do they have the same subtype as their parents, a Shapeshifter subtype, a combination thereof, or something new?
3) Could a Changeling with an Elf father take the Arcane Archer prestige class, would they be hurt by Elf-Bane weapons, and would a Ranger with Favored Enemy Humanoid (Elf) have bonuses against them? Can they take Race-specific feats or traits? Do they change size to be Small if fathered by a Gnome, Halfling, or Goblin?
If there's another thread or blog post that talks about this, could somebody re-direct me to it? Thanks in advance.
