kinderschlager's page

kinderschlager wrote:

wow, this reads like a pathfinder 2.5. so why are they not calling a spade a spade and saying this is an edition change?

Because it's not? Like decidedly every current Pathfinder 2nd edition product will be compatible with the core remaster. Like the Summoner isn't going to be one of the 16 classes in one of these books, but if you have Secrets of Magic (or you just read the class on AoN) you can still play a summoner. The only changes you might need to do is to "Your Angel/Demon Eidolon is Holy/Unholy" and to convert the stat block from "Str 18, Dex 14, Con 16, Int 8, Wis 12, Cha 10" to "Str +4, Dex +2, Con +3, Int -1, Wis +1, Cha +0."

that's....exactly in line with what D&D3 to 3.5 did. that's an edition change mate

wow, this reads like a pathfinder 2.5. so why are they not calling a spade a spade and saying this is an edition change?

This is one of my favorite PnP modules. Wish it wasnt so darn hard to locate online, old as it is, it at times feels like it's been buried!

the text of this spell states " Whenever the target confirms a critical hit against or takes damage from a creature, that creature must attempt a Will save."

so my question is, if say, a monk struck you 6 times in a round, would they need to make that save 6 times? im not seeing the usual "once per round" stipulation, but that seems stupidly powerful since the spell allows no spell resistance before dropping an enemy off in super time out

welp, i guess i'll do it again. anyone know of an established consensus on this?

making a time oracle always seems to rabit hole to this dead end

unless paizo ships on the weekends, at this point i shouldnt expect gods and magics i ordered back in december to make it on time anymore, should i?

:(

Mark Seifter did a good video in his channel on simulacrum, while not an official FAQ it is the interpration of one of the devs.

you got a link?

Still nothing. 3 years 51 FAQ hits.

it is never getting fixed. the DEVs have moved onto 2E. lets hope they dont add back in simulacrum with the same ambiguity this time around. like the summoner they probably pretend simulacrum doesnt exist in 1E

if a shield archon uses transpose ally after being tied up, do they get to trade the tied up penalty with the unconscious person they used thier supernatural ability on?
bonus if the GM rules they use their transpose ally on a dead ally
do they break out of being tied up due to using transpose ally.

would they not cancel eachother out at the least?

so powerless prophecy prevents you from acting in a surprise round, but temporal clarity at level 7 says you ALWAYS act in surprise rounds, even if you dont notice you get to go last. what takes precedence? is this a specific>general and the revelation trumps the curse?

lemme clarify by quoting deadman walking

"But the Traits don't seem to have been used in a manner which is consistent with that rule. Firstly, Demonic and Angelic Sorcerer Focus Spells have Alignment Tags, meaning many of those Sorcerers are flatly mechanically forbidden from using their own Focus Spells. So that seems like an error of some sort."

basically you outright CANT use the bloodline powers unless evil to start with

basically are you able to play the infernal bloodline sourcerer as a non-evil PC? particularly in places like pathfinder society? seeing as the bloodline has evil powers built into the chasis is even possible to play them as non-evil? or the second you use a power built into the class you go evil?

warpi9 wrote:

I got my copy a couple days ago. I live in Michigan and was wondering how the heck I got it so quick. They must be going out randomly. Also I did select priority mail.

The order they leave the warehouse is pseudorandom. Shipping times obviously depends on your chosen method.

you got to choose a method at checkout? i only got a single shipping option O.o

received my copies today in NYC. the collector's edition is beautiful

in texas an they wont even take my money yet. lucky son of a sword!@\

someone enhance that character sheet stat!

kinderschlager wrote:

do they go out on july 8th? or do the orders get processed on that date?

The "July 8th" date listed is a lie, from what I've read. They're scheduled to arrive somewhere around August 1st AFAIK.

where is that stated? :(

do they go out on july 8th? or do the orders get processed on that date?

Are you allowed to do this as the result technically isnt revealed yet?

My argument is that fighting defensively isnt a reactive ability but a modifier to an action. and the action being modified is called out by fighting defensively, namely a standard or full round action. If it was calling out an attack action it would say as much, but instead it is further defining what needs to be done inside a standard (or full round) action to qualify for its benefits and penalties. Namely you must make an attack inside the standard action, and this is where things get sticky. "Attack" is undefined/specified in fighting defensively, but what do all "attacks" in the game require? an attack roll. If it can be agreed that all "attacks" require an attack roll, than the attack being required by fighting defensively is any "attack" inside any standard action requiring such a roll. create pit or suffocation could not benefit from fighting defensively as they do not require you to make an attack roll, you are not attacking. but scorching ray or frigid touch, or cleave would all benefit as they all require attack rolls.

Basically, if you make an attack roll, you are making an attack, and if you are making an attack as PART OF a standard action, the fighting defensively modifier may be applied.

(@derklord: umlauts and name generators online dont get along)

fighting defensively: "Fighting Defensively as a Standard Action: You can choose to fight defensively when attacking. If you do so, you take a –4 penalty on all attacks in a round to gain a +2 to AC until the start of your next turn."

casting a spell is a standard action and fighting defensively requires you make a standard action, correct?

and scorching ray requires you to make a ranged touch ATTACK no?

you have now made a standard action and an attack. defensive fighting does not define an attack as an "attack action" but as an "attack" corect? so any and all spells that are a standard action and include a free "Attack" allow you to use it at a -4 on the attack roll, no? when "attacking" not "when taking an attack action"

There is also an FAQ for it.

FAQ wrote:

Magical Lineage (trait): Can I use this trait to adjust a spell's effective level below the unmodified spell's original level?

No. For example, it won't allow you to alter a wizard's fireball into 2nd-level spell.

Wayang unfortunately will likely never be FAQ'd because it's from a splat book, and they don't FAQ splat books.

why dont they FAQ splat books? they're new rules they themselves wrote.....

thanks, was driving me nutts trying to find it as it is named the same as another archetype

Can you be more specific?

Do you mean on any sort of skill check?

Attack rolls and saves already automatically succeed on a natural 20, so I can only assume you mean skill checks.

But...well I think such a thing doesn't exist.

Otherwise you could do task that should be completely impossible.

"I want to jump to the moon, the DC is 252 million. I spend 20 turns jumping, and land on the moon."

what i remember is it saying any and all d20 rolls. so yes, you could jump to the moon with it. it was a thing you got at lvl 20 and replaced a couple other things for the class

i read the other day of a capstone for an archetype that mandates autosuccess on any nat 20 for any sort of check. does anyone know what archetype this is and for what class?

yeah i meant the CL check it allows

the outsider traits blurb says something as cheap as limited wish can restore a dead outsider to life. but elsewhere the only spell i can find that calls out restoring one to life is true resurrection. which is correct?

summons are explicitly banned from using SLA's that require expensive material COMPONENTS. there is no restriction on them using spells that require expensive material focuses, correct?

follow up question since it appears i was correct in my assessment. the save described in the spells description is the only save allowed, yes? if someone or their items fails the save, they dont get to try again against that instance of non-detection?

Nondetection wrote:

If a divination is attempted against the warded creature or item...

See invisibility doesn't meet this criteria in my opinion. It is a passive spell that targets the caster, and not a detection spell that targets the warded creature.

non-detection explicitly states it wards someone from detection. what else is see invisibility but a detection divination spell?

since nondetection stops divination without first trying a CL check and see invisibility is a divination spell, how would that effect an item that allows see invisibility? the item make the check, or the user of the item?

so what i'm getting from this is, ask the GM cause the entangle condition depends on the description of what is causing it

Here is the spell. If gives the Entangled condition.

Entangled wrote:

The character is ensnared. Being entangled impedes movement, but does not entirely prevent it unless the bonds are anchored to an immobile object or tethered by an opposing force. An entangled creature moves at half speed, cannot run or charge, and takes a –2 penalty on all attack rolls and a –4 penalty to Dexterity. An entangled character who attempts to cast a spell must make a concentration check (DC 15 + spell level) or lose the spell

The spell does not state it anchors you, nor does it impose an opposing force. You have impeded movement, but that it movement. Therefore you can fall into a pit.

The Create Pit spell indicates you get a Reflex save at +2. Being entangled gives -4 Dex, which cancels the bonus from the pit. And a bonus, the pit's bottom is likely still entangling.

/cevah

so for something like hungry earth that does have an entangle thatanchors you, the person would not fall in? basically, it would be on a case by case basis?

Main examples are sending and nightmare. does the range:unlimited of the spells actually exist? a single door or rock in the way and the spells fails. Is this a case of paizo not clarifying or exempting unlimited ranges from normal line of effect rules?

Say someone is grappled by an entangle spell and you cast a pit beside them and they cant move away. do they not even have to do a reflex save and automatically cant fall in?

sadly, a certain ability to see the future hasnt been clarified yet....

kinderschlager wrote:

wouldnt the "level they can cast" be directed at spell levels, so spells not on the casters list could be granted to them, provided they meet the level restrictions for lowest spell level a normal caster can use it at?

You're missing out on the "or from his class’s spell list."

There are 3 distinct clauses as blaphers noted earlier.

1. The spell must be of the 6th level or lower
2a. The spell must be of a level they can cast.
2b. The spell must be on their class spell list.

In order for a spell to be a valid choice it has to meet requirement 1, and either requirement 2a or 2b. (There's also a radical reading where as long as it's on the spell list there is no 6th level cap and only spells not on the list are capped, we're ignoring this in light of the ability as a whole.)

This allows them to grant 6th level wizard spells to a level 1 wizard, but any other spells would be limited to what the wizard can cast (note this includes cantrips).

2a should also allow any spell divine or arcane so long as the spell level is met. an uniila can grant any spell 6th or lower, and a caster need only meet 1 of the two requirments to be granted it

Quote:

Infernal Arcana (Su) Once per day, after spending a minute whispering strange formulas and cosmic truths, an uniila can grant an adjacent mortal spellcaster additional profane insight into the ways of magic. This counts as a bonus spell prepared or spell per day of 6th level or lower, which is immediately accessible by the target in addition to all its regular spells. The uniila chooses what spell to grant the target. It need not be a spell already known by the target, though it must be of 6th level or lower and of a level he can cast or from his class’s spell list. This spell remains available to the target for 24 hours. The spell can be any arcane or divine spell. An uniila can never use this ability on herself or non-mortal targets.

Due to the wording, it allows them to grant a spell of the 6th level or lower to the caster that they can utilize. This spell must either be on their spell list (in which case the cap is 6th level), or it must be of a level that they can cast.

So it could grant a first level wizard cloudkill, but not barkskin.

wouldnt the "level they can cast" be directed at spell levels, so spells not on the casters list could be granted to them, provided they meet the level restrictions for lowest spell level a normal caster can use it at?

Specifically, do they grant any spell, divine or arcane, to a caster who can cast the spells at the spell level listed, AND do they also allow an additional spell up to lvl 6 for say, even a lvl 1 spell caster, so long as it shows up on the classes spell list?

for example, a lvl 1 wizard could use summon monster 6 via the uniila, OR the could cast a lvl 1 divine spell, but not a lvl 2 divine since they cant cast that spell lvl yet and they dont normally have divine spells on their list

As pact parchment lets you write up a literal contract, are there any terms or conditions expressly forbidden from being added to this wondrous item? Or can you add/demand anything into this item so long as your character would be aware of it?

can a summoner use the spell "summon eidolon" and than use their spell like ability to start summoning monsters? seeing as you didnt utalize the summon monster spell like ability.

ok, in that case, what constitutes a "line of effect"? for something that uses vibrations to "see" wouldnt a contiguous line of earth between them and a target count?

kinderschlager wrote:

Weables wrote:

everything needs line of effect to function, unless stated otherwise.

out of tremorsense, blindsense, and blindsight, only blindsense states it needs line of sight. tremorsense doesnt need line of effect to work so why would blindsight need to state it?

Monster Manual 3:

Blindsense second sentence:
The creature does not need to make perception check to pinpoint the location of a creature within range of blindsensem provided it has line of effect to the creature.

Blindsight third sentence: Invisibility, darkness, and most kinds of concealment are irrelevant, though the creatures must still has line of effect to a creature or object to discern that creature or object.

Both clearly state that line of effect is required.

what's a monster manual? i'm talking about pathfinder, not D&D

everything needs line of effect to function, unless stated otherwise.

out of tremorsense, blindsense, and blindsight, only blindsense states it needs line of sight. tremorsense doesnt need line of effect to work so why would blindsight need to state it?

as blindsight doesnt state it needs line of effect to function and the flavor text does call out all non-visual senses being used, is there anything stating that in fact it does not work like tremorsense for the purposes of detecting burrowed creatures?

kinderschlager wrote:

Melkiador wrote:

They’re just being silly for fun. The anti magic field persists throughout, because the summon monster spell is still active. The continued existence of the summon monster creature is unnecessary.

the AMF is attached to the summoned monster, no? so it's literally blinking in and out of existence constantly

No. I already quoted the rule above. The AMF is tied to the summoning spell, not the creature. The creature could die and the AMF would still keep going until one of the two spells expired.

the AMF description has it tied to the casting creature, no? 10-ft.-radius emanation, centered on you

They’re just being silly for fun. The anti magic field persists throughout, because the summon monster spell is still active. The continued existence of the summon monster creature is unnecessary.

the AMF is attached to the summoned monster, no? so it's literally blinking in and out of existence constantly

soooooo, a quasi-real anti-magic field that's stationary and cant be targeted by enemies as the attached creature is both there and not there?

the rules for AMF states a summoned creature poofs out in it and than returns when the AMF stops occupying the space. the AMF is tied to the summoned monster.....so what happens? are we stuck with an infinite loops of it poofing and resummoning in its turn? there a ruling somewhere the a caster is unaffected by that part of AMF?

due to specific > general i have had it explained to me that if low light conditions are present in any form, a person vanishes from sight.....all sight. lowlight vision, darkvision, and see in darkness are all caput and the only way to detect someone is via stuff like blindsight. is that really correct? as that would make it far more powerful than invisibility with a much reduced number of options to counter it