marco262's page

Shameless bump, need to know for tomorrow... opinions are welcome too.

I have no solid RAW backing for any of the below, so this is all my own opinion and how I'd houserule its use:

1) Since this functions as an immovable rod, I'd rule that deactivating it is a move action (similar to how activating an immovable rod is a move action). I don't think there are any other enchantments that magically add buttons to weapons, so I think it's reasonable to say this is just another one of those "magic activation" things.

You're right, that by RAW any creature can use a magic weapon just by wielding it, so the target who's struck by an immovable weapon would be able to just grab it and deactivate it. However, I think this is against RAI, so I'd say that while an Anchoring weapon is activated on a creature, the target creature cannot deactivate it. One of his allies can deactivate it as a move action, but only if they succeed at a Spellcraft check to identify its properties.

2) Note that doubling usually is additive, not multiplicative in Pathfinder. So a +5 bonus doubled twice would be +15, not +20. However, I think you've found an interesting edge case. Because Impervious is doubling the hardness and HP from only the enhancement bonus, and Reinforce Armaments is doubling the WHOLE bonus, I think it's fair to say that your math is correct. Besides, trying to figure it out otherwise is just a headache.

3) Impervious says it's only to the wielder's CMD, so by RAW the weapon would get no bonus when unattended. However, since this magic bonus to CMD isn't based on speed or skill, but rather on the durability of the weapon, I think it's fair to say that the weapon's unattended CMD is 5+10=15.

4) I'm going to avoid using the Blade of Binding as a reference for this, since I don't know how much of that DC is caused by the magic enchantment. Instead I'm going to compare it to the break DC for a Chain, which is made of the same material and would be held in a similar manner when trying to break it (i.e. held in both hands and bent/yanked). From what little I know of bladed weapons, I recall that wakizashi are folded in such a way that they have a lot of strength along the plane of the blade, but are more flexible when bent side-to-side. For that, as well as keeping in mind that it's easier to bend something than yank it, I'd reduce the normal break DC to 24, or 34 for a +5 Impervious Wakizashi.

(As a side thought: The folding technique of katanas and wakizashis was developed to work the impurities of subpar ore out of the weapon. If a wakizashi is made of adamantine, that's some pretty good material, so does it even need to be folded? Would the smith use a different technique?)

5) IMO, yes, this provokes AoOs.

In my mind, actions that don't provoke AoOs need to be quick, skilled, and the actor needs to be aware of their surroundings and capable of reacting to their environment. AoOs are taken when an opponent notices they can get a quick hit in on an unprepared foe.

I imagine that, for one, moving with the blade is a slow and sluggish action. Not only are you putting all your effort into moving it, but you're still limited in movement to where you can shove the weapon.

What I'm considering is that, because the PCs are "chosen by destiny", that they should be considered proficient only with the named weapons they find in these modules. I think it's fitting that any Amatatsu scion (within reason) finds that Suishen feels familiar and comfortable in their hands.

Tranquil Guardians (Paladin archetype) get the following ability:

My question is that, am I immune to beneficial emotion spells as well? Like Good Hope, for example? Or can I choose to ignore that immunity for harmless spells?

Sorry if this has been asked before. I've looked through the SRD and skimmed the forums, and I didn't find anything about this.

Releasing as a move action instead of a standard is a Very Big Deal. It's almost a free Quicken.

True. A rod of Quicken Metamagic, Lesser is 17,500gp, and a regular one is 35,000gp. Perhaps putting a limit of 6th level or lower spells on the Bag of Spell Storing would be legit.

You'd be getting one free pseudo-Quickened spell from the bag (35,000gp/3 is significantly less than 25,000gp) before having to "recharge" it, so I think the cost for that matches up well.

EDIT: Bag of Spell Storing, not Bag of Holding.

A player in one of my games has brought up a particular magic item he's invented, and would like to create at some point in the game, the Bag of Spell Storing. I think it's a cool concept, and would like to OK it for him to make, I just need to work out the niggly details of the item, and set its cost.

Here's my writeup so far on the item, taking Rod of Absorption and Bag of Holding as inspirations:

______________________________________________________________________
Bag of Spell Storing
Aura strong abjuration; CL XX
Slot none; Price XX,XXXgp; Weight 5 lbs

This appears to be a common cloth sack about 1 foot by 1 foot in size, with a drawstring that can be pulled closed and tied tightly at the mouth.

The holder of the bag may ready an action to capture an incoming spell that has the bag holder as one of its targets. The spell has no effect on the bag holder, and it is captured inside the bag. The holder then spends an immediate action to close the bag tight. If the spell has multiple targets, all other targets are affected normally.

As a move action, the bag can be opened, and the spell within is released. The bag holder may select the target of the spell when they open the bag, but the spell can only affect one target, even if the original spell could affect multiple targets. If the holder does not consciously choose a target when they open the bag (perhaps they don't know the bag has a spell in it), the spell targets the closest target in a cone radiating outward from the open mouth of the bag.

When the spell is released from the bag, it functions identically to the original casting of the spell, except for the change in targets. In other words, caster level, save DCs, duration, etc. all stay the same.

The bag doesn't magically impart any knowledge of the spell stored within, or whether it's holding a spell or not. There is no way with mundane senses to detect the presence/identity of a spell stored in the bag, though some divination magic may provide clues. For example, Detect Magic when used on the bag may pick up the aura of the spell in the bag, if it can be detected over the aura of the bag itself (GM discretion).

Requirements
Craft Wondrous Item, spell turning; Cost XX,XXX gp
______________________________________________________________________

The "doesn't impart magical knowledge" isn't vital to the magic item, and I'm debating changing that. I think it could make for a very interesting way to set traps/leave messages via illusions/etc. I'm mostly uncertain about the Caster Level, and thus the cost of the item.

Compared to the Rod of Absorption, I think it might be equally balanced, and thus deserve a CL of 15.

Bag of Spell Storing vs. Rod of Absorption

Pros:

• Can be used to full effect by non-casters
  
• Unlimited uses
  
• Can recreate any targeted spell, instead of any spell the user can cast
  
• The spell in the bag can be "cast" as a move action

Cons:

• Requires readying an action to steal the spell, unlike the Rod which requires no action
  
• Can only hold one spell at a time
  
• Can only store targeted spells
  
• Can only create the spell that it captured

What do y'all think? Any comments and critique is appreciated.

(This is my first time creating a new thread on the forums, so sorry if this is on the wrong board.)

EDIT: Added the "move action" Pro to the list.

RAW, there is no way to bluff or misdirect a spell.

Spell Song has already been mentioned, and is the perfect example of bards tending to be more sneaky and underhanded in their casting than wizards. There's also http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/general-feats/spell-bluff

I'm also fairly certain there are other ways to conceal your spells via 3.X feats, but I don't know them off the top of my head.

Playing other wizard types don't require so much thinking and planning. Why are enchanters and illusionists having to go through the extra lengths?

Because Illusion and Enchantment have amazing potential to completely break the game if used intelligently. They can be used to trick anyone into believing nearly anything, as long as you're using it properly.

For playing an Illusion/Enchanter wizard, your best weapon is being able to think beyond the RAW and get really creative with what you can do with these spells. Think beyond direct face-to-face confrontations and combat situations.

The way I read that spell, the flavor suggests to me that any actions you perform that don't involve a melee or ranged projectile weapon is glamered and hidden from view.

Perhaps, if you wield a melee weapon, it looks like the weapon is swinging around on its own, while you stand with your hands in your pocket? It seems any thing beyond the RAW for that spell is left up heavily to GM interpretation.