mcgreeno's page

I'm thinking of a setting that is based on the Gestalt concepts of the unearthed Arcana. However with a few stipulations.

1. One of your classes must be Cleric, Fighter, Rogue, Wizard.
2. One of your classes must be Alchemist, cavalier, Inquisitor, Magus, Oracle, Summoner, Witch.

I've intentional left out Bard, Druid, Monk, Paladin, Ranger, Sorcerer. The reasoning is that those classes seem to be to be bluring the lines between two or three classes already. Except the Sorcerer.

This provides the following combinations

Cleric/Alchemist, Cleric/Cavalier, Cleric/Inquisitor, Cleric/magus, Cleric/Oracle, Cleric/Summoner, Cleric/Witch

Fighter/Alchemist, Fighter/Cavalier, Fighter/Inquisitor, Fighter/magus, Fighter/Oracle, Fighter/Summoner, Fighter/Witch

Rogue/Alchemist, Rogue/Cavalier, Rogue/Inquisitor, Rogue/magus, Rogue/Oracle, Rogue/Summoner, Rogue/Witch

Wizard/Alchemist, Wizard/Cavalier, Wizard/Inquisitor, Wizard/magus, Wizard/Oracle, Wizard/Summoner, Wizard/Witch

Which gives the players a setting with 28 character classes. However I'm concerned that some of the combinations may not be that good of a fit thematically, while some may be way too powerful (and I know it's Gestalt, that should say something).

Classes out of this that could be not worth having. The goal here is to create a nice variety of Gestalt Classes that have a solid theme and good mechanics. Once I have a solid list, I do plan on doing some minor tweaks in order to assist the mechanics. Like the Fighter/magus might get Armored Casting a little earlier, any where powers or abilities are duplicated I would want to enhance the class to have a more natural feeling.

Got any Ideas.

Cheapy wrote:

Yes, natural attacks are melee attacks.

If the intent was to only work with manufactured weapons, it would have said so.

If the intent was melee attacks it would have said so. Instead, it says weapon attacks. (Yeah, yeah, I read Sean's post, I just found it more snarky than useful.)

I think it's more than reasonable to say that the attack has to be from a "weapon" listed on the weapon chart somewhere. Manufactured weapons are listed on that chart -- so are unarmed strikes, which, by the way, are specifically called out as being considered light weapons in their description text. How 'bout bites and claws and tails and hair and horns?

***

I actually find the natural 20 argument interesting. It's never really occurred to me, but reading the natural 20 rule gives me pause. I'm no longer so certain that Crane Wing deflects a natural 20.

Note: "A natural 20 (the d20 comes up 20) is always a hit."

Always. Neat word. It trumps missing because of AC obviously. Without the word always I wouldn't have given this a second thought. With the word always I'm not so sure.

I have to disagree.

Lets look at this feat are actually read as the rules are written vs. what one might think.

One time per combat round if you have one had free and (are fighting defensively or using the total defense as a full round action) you can deflect one melee weapon attack that would normally hit you.

In Logic
IF you have crane wing
---AND you are not flat footed
---AND you are using the standard action fighting defensively
------ OR you are using the full round action of fighting defensively
---AND you have one hand free
THEN you may deflect one melee weapon attack that would hit normally.

A natural 20 is a melee weapon attack that would hit normally.

As to what is considered a melee weapon. Natural Attacks, Improved Unarmed Strike, and any non ranged weapon.

Logic makes this true.

The definition for Melee Attack is an attack made by a melee weapon. So thus any attack that uses a non ranged melee attack roll is a Melee weapon, sense only melee weapons gain the benefit of Melee attacks.

Natural Weapons are Melee attacks according to the description of Natural Attacks, thus to be a melee attack they must be a Melee Weapon, for only Melee weapons get the benefit of Melee Attacks.

There is some wiggle room on spell touch attacks and if they are considered melee weapons. HOwever we know that melee touch spells do count as melee weapons for the selection of feats.

We also know that Natural Attacks count as a melee weapon for the purposes of feats. This is RAW.

To say that natural attacks are not melee weapons means that means that they are not usable with Weapon Focus (which they are).

Heck in the description of Weapon Finesse it states that Natural Weapons are considered light weapons.

Touch range spells as well as touch melee spells are also considered weapons for the purposes of feats. This is not a special property of Natural Weapons or melee touch spells it is a constant state for them

Natural weapons do not provoke, and are light weapons. They allows an AOO
Melee touch spells do not provoke, and can be used with AOO
Improved Unarmed Strike does not provoke, and can be used with AOO

One is considered Armed with all of the above. Armed means carrying a weapon (laymen s definition)

This is how the rules read. when broken down and following the a logical course.

To say that only manufactured weapons apply to this feat, means that this feat does not work for a majority of encounters. Figuring it takes two feat slots and if you are not a monk master of many styles you can not get it until 5th level and must have Crane Style, Dodge, and Improved Unarmed strike.

It has 3 Feats prerequisites, for non monks. For monks it is only allowed at fifth level.

But that is my two cents.

Looks close Jo, It would take a minimum of a 5th level caster to magic a magic sword, and to make it +5 he would need to hit a pretty high DC.

Below I have given a couple of examples of how I think it works. I tend to prefer the Base of 10 vs 5 just because it seems to work a better for balance.

Example:
I have a third Level Wizard whom has a Spell Craft of 11 and the craft Wondrous Item Feat. I want to make a Rope of Climbing! However I don't have a spell book due to a recent fire. This would be the process.

Note for my examples i'm going with the Base skill check of 10.

[1] Make sure that the creator has a caster level. Yes I do
[2] Determine what feat the item being created falls under. Craft Wondrous Item
[3] Make sure the creator has the feat. Yes I do
[4] Determine how the item is activated. Command Word Activation
[5] Look at the items Requirements. Animate rope
[6] Are the requirements met? No I'm missing the Animate Rope Spell
[7] Is one of the requirements that are not met a spell? Yes
[8] Is the item Activated by either Spell Trigger or Spell Completion. No
[9] For each requirement not met add 5 to the DC.
[10] Determine the highest level spell needed to make the item. Lv 1
[11] Can the creator cast that spell if he had it? Yes
[12] Determine the Total DC for making the Item. 10+3+5=18 (Base 10 + Item CL 3 + Requirements Missed 5)
[13] What is the Book Value of the Item. 3000
[14] Determine the cost to the creator. 1500 (1/2 book price)
[15] Determine the amount of time. 3 Days (1 day per 1000 gp value).
[16] Make roll or take 10. I have a skill of 11 I just take 10.
[17] Remove gold from character, and add a Rope of Climbing to your character sheet.

Lets look at another example
My Wizard has gone up a couple of levels he is now quite powerful at level 5. He has picked up Craft Magic Arms and Armor (a minimum caster level of 5 for this feat). He has also gotten a new spell book. My spell craft total is now 13. (20 INT, 5 Ranks, +3 In Class Skill)
I've decided I would like a magic +2 Quarterstaff.

[1] Make sure that the creator has a caster level. Yes I do
[2] Determine what feat the item being created falls under. Craft Magic Arms and Armor
[3] Make sure the creator has the feat. Yes I do
[4] Determine how the item is activated. Use Activated (+2 Enchantment)
[5] Look at the items Requirements. CL 6th.
[6] Are the requirements met? No I'm missing the Caster Level 6
[7] Is one of the requirements that are not met a spell? No
[8] Is the item Activated by either Spell Trigger or Spell Completion. No
[9] For each requirement not met add 5 to the DC.
[10] Determine the highest level spell needed to make the item. None
[11] Can the creator cast that spell if he had it? Yes
[12] Determine the Total DC for making the Item. 10+6+5=21 (Base 10 + Item CL 6 + Requirements Missed 5)
[13] What is the Book Value of the Item. 8300 GP
[14] Determine the cost to the creator. 4150 (1/2 book price)
[15] Determine the amount of time. 8 Days (1 day per 1000 gp value).
[16] Make roll or take 10. I have a skill of 13 I take 10.
[17] Remove gold from character, and add a Quarterstaff +2 to your character sheet.

Remember the CL of the item is added to the base as well as the missing prerequisites. For Armor and Weapons the CL is 3 times the bonus.

As noted above a Level 1 Wizard can not make a +5 sword as he must have Craft Arms and Armor Feat, so he must be a minimum of 5th level even to try. On top of that the DC to Create the +5 Weapon would be Base 10 + CL 15 + 5 = 30, even if one went with the idea of the base being 5 that's a 25 DC the caster would need to be 6th level and more than likely 7+ to do it with a take 10, if he could afford it, which he should never be able to do at those levels.

I guess I'm not seeing the problem?

During this weekends game my ST made a call that at the time I thought might be wrong. In general as a group unless it is life or death of a character we review the rule calls during the time between games (not during play) in order for us to better understand the rule.

So I've come to ask about the following scene.

We were in a pretty heavy fight, everyone had taken more than 1/2 their hit-points, the Orcle and Summoner were out of spells. The melee fighters were stuck using ranged weapons to try to hit the enemy whom was a spell caster.

During this point, my character on his initiative announces that he is reading an action to shoot the target if it attempts to cast a spell.

The enemy caster instead of casting a spell (which he was out of spells per day) uses a spell like ability.

Now my question, Does a spell like ability trigger the readied action set to go off for casting of a spell?

FYI, My story teller let the use of a spell like ability trigger the readied action, (as I mentioned we were in a heavy fight) however he ruled that the damage dealt would not make the caster make a concentration check.

Arcane Bond Object
1.A wizard can add additional magic abilities to his bonded object as if he has the required item creation feats and if he meets the level prerequisites of the feat.

Master Craftsman
2.Ranks in your chosen skill count as your caster level for the purposes of qualifying for the Craft Magic Arms and Armor and Craft Wondrous Item feats.

It seems very clear that the feat allows you to use your chosen skill as the caster level for qualifying for the feat Crafts magic Arms and Armor

The stipulation on Arcane bond states that you need to meet the prerequisites for the feat in order to enchant the Object.

Master craftsman allows you to meet the prerequisites of the feet.

I'm not sure why you are reading it differently.

Ok, I just have to check. If a Ranger takes a 1 level dip into wizard and chooses Arcane bond Armor. He then takes the master craftsman feat. Does his caster level for enchanting his armor go off of his craft armor skill or off of his actual caster level?

From how I read it Arcane bond gives you the magical craft feat for your bonded item. Master craftsmen allows you to use to use your craft skill in substitution of a caster level and spellcraft skill.

Am I reading this correctly?

No, pixies have a physical form and use magic to hide it.

Will-o'-wisps are different. They have no actual form, what you see is the glow they have. They can turn off that glow. They're not really invisible, but there's just not anything there to see anymore.

I have to agree with Allia

The natural form of the wisp is air just like the stalker. I'm not sure if invisibility purge can force a supernatural power (aka the wisps glow) to activate.

If it worked like magical flour, the I could see it.

You right on the arcane bond. However finding a way to get that feature would go a long way to helping this option.

As far as the two weapon fighting goes, its an option. I never said was a great option. Over all the staff Magus seems hard pressed to be worth while.

I have not yet played a staff Magus but I have A few idea.

1.Two weapon fighting.
2. Use your arcana to get arcane bond, staff. This will allow you to enchant the bloody thing without going bankrupt.

That's about all the input I have for now

I building a Lv 2 Fighter for the Kingmaker AP after our entire party wiped fighting trolls (I know silly, silly players.) Anyhow this is the build Idea.

Premise: A young fighter completely infatuated with the Aldori swordlords.

Fluff: I'd like the character to be built following the best approach to match the flavor of the Aldori Dueling Style. However I want the character to be effective from level 1 to Level 18 which is where the ST says the story will end.

I devised the below with the help of my ST, however I was wanting to know if this can be done better. The Goal is to become a Duelist, and to Use the benefit of the Aldori Dueling Mastery Feat which applies to the duelist. I'm taking what I consider to be a 3 feat tax to do this, I just hope there is a better way.

Race Human

Class Fighter

Archetype Aldori Swordlord

Traits: Sword Scion, Threatening Defender (note one trait must be from the kingmaker AP traits)

Stats Point Buy 15 points

STR 17, Dex 14, CON 12, INT 13, WIS 7, CHA 7
Human Racial Bonus goes to STRENGTH

Level One: Weapon Focus (Aldori Dueling Sword), Weapon Finesse, Exotic Weapon Proficiency

Level Two: Combat Expertise

Level Three: Improved Disarm

Level Four: Weapon Specialization (Aldori Dueling Sword)
(place bonus stat into Strength)
Level Five: Power Attack

Level Six: Dodge

Level Seven: Mobility

Level Eight: Quick Draw
(Place bonus stat into Intelligence)

Level Nine (Pick up Duelist Prestige Class), Aldori Dueling Mastery

Thanks in advance for any advice on this build.

What qualifies as a Special Power for the +1 Leadership score under the feat Leadership?

I have done a word search on both the Core Rule book and the Advanced Players guide and the only time the words Special Powers comes up is in spell descriptions, some magic items and of a few descriptions of some magical abilities of classes.

However I can't seem to find a RAW definition of what a special power is.

Thanks in advance for any assistance

1.What determines an effective character vs. a min/maxed character?
2.How good does a character have to be at his role in order to succeed at the game?
3.What are the expectations of the Game Designers when it comes to Difficulty and Challenge?

Mr. Jacobs,
I'm currently playing in the Kingmaker AP. My character is a Paladin/Fighter with the Aldori Swordlord Archetype. However I've been unable to find much information about what it means to be a Swordlord.

I have also noticed that the Aldorian Dueling sword is awful similar in description to a Katana. Is it supposed to be a Katana or a version there of? Single blade, 3ft length, every so slight curve...Pretty much the perfect description of a Katana, all its missing is the hand and a half hilt..lol

So I guess I would like to understand what a Sword Lord is, what is their code of Ethics (kinda like a paladins strictures he follows for his individual god).

Mostly I'm just looking for the Fluff (no hard rules) so that I may enjoy role-playing the character as intended.

Thanks

I was considering removing this rule as I have seen it have no impact in games other than to create friction:

Example:
Half Orc Fighter Min Age: 15 Avg Age: 17 Max Age: 20
Human Fighter Min Age: 16 Avg Age: 18 Max Age: 21
Half Elf Fighter Min Age: 21 Avg Age: 23 Max Age: 26
Halfling Fighter Min Age: 23 Avg Age: 30 Max Age: 38
Dwarf Fighter Min Age: 45 Avg Age: 57 Max Age: 80
Elven Fighter Min Age: 116 Avg Age: 131 Max Age: 146

All the above have the same skills, same BAB, same saves, in fact for the age or lack of age they are the same. Is it just me or is the Rule about ageing just some useless left over from previous editions.

However before ever making such a drastic rules call (where I make everyone regardless of race use the base human starting age numbers) I thought I would ask how this rule has impacted folks games.

Has anyone ever had a game last where they kept the character and played it for 37 years in game (so that the human can get old)

Most of the time it seems that the characters adventure fast and furiously gaining levels at a epic pace. Easily within 10 years the characters Retire from being 20th level. So other than causing characters trouble with Role Playing does this rule do anything for the game?

Only weapons and armor have to be masterwork. I don't believe it says anywhere in the RAW that wondrous items (and other magical items) have to be of masterwork. In fact, there are quite a few core magic items that look simple, or even like cheap garbage.

Your right, so the answer is charge the character for a "Masterwork Hewards Handy Haversack (2050 go. Or 1025 go to create it. It still amounts to minimal encumberance increase.

I don't know why I thought all magic items were crafted at the highest possible quality, it must be something from another game system.

To be a magic item the haversack, has to be a masterwork backpack. Sense the rule for a masterwork backpack came much later it is is doubtful that anyone considered the impact on items based off of the masterwork backpack.

To resolve the issue, consider the cost of the handy haversack to be 50 go more and allow it to give the +1 to step for encumbrance.

Does it really matter if one has 12 pounds more of junk! Then just state as a house (common sense) rule you can only carry one backpack with the current encumbrance rules. If you want to carry two you can only take move actions in combat if both have items in it..

Simple sweet get on with the game. If he argues, the simple state you are no longer using the rules for the masterwork backpack.

And think him for making the rules load smaller for the game.

What about a summoner (synthesis) dip for Ranger then going to Switch Hitter?

It would look something like this
15pt buy
STR 7
DEX 7
CON 7
INT 14
WIS 14
CHR 20 (+2 Racial Bonus)

Level One Summoner (Synthesis)
Attributes: STR 16, DEX 12,CON 13,INT 14,WIS 14,CHR 20,
HP 6 (12), AC 19 (+4 NA, +1 DEX, +4 Armor), BAB +1
Darkvison, Low Light Vision, skill focus Perception
Feat: Resilient Eidolon. 2 First Level Spells both set to heal Eidolon

Level Two Ranger (trapper)
Get Disable Device, and Trap finding. +1 BAB, Medium armor, so I can up grade that AC to 21 with chain mail

Level three
Feat Point Blank Shot, Rapid Shot
Level four
Level Five Percise Shot
Level Six
Level Arcane Archer, with many shot

What do you guys think?

As a note, spell power is not a focus of the character. The idea of the arcane archer is more to enhance the archery aspect of the character.

As far as character concept, I'm working on an idea.

However character role for the group not too sure.

I know that their will be a Magyar Kensai in the group who is focusing on a whip controller build. The way he has it tricked out he should be a great battlefield controller.

So with that in mind, I'll either half to go DPR/healer. Or DPR/ Faceman

So a build that can heal part time, talk well, and do good damage would be optimal. We only will have 3 players so each character needs to fill multiple rolls.

The ST is using traits

I like the idea of bard/ ranger/AA. Or even paladin/bard/Ranger/AA

So keep the ideas conning they are all interesting so far. And aging thanks

Hello everyone,
To begin with, thank you in advance for your advice. My GM is thinking of switching over to the Kingmaker AP.

What is the Best way to go about building a Elven Archer with the prospect of picking up the Arcane Archer prestige class in the Kingmaker AP.

For the prestige class I have to be either elf or half-elf. Before anyone ask I'm just really tired of playing human. We actually have not had a single non human in our gaming group in a really really long time.

Thank you agian for all of your help

BUMP

Let us use a touch of research and see if we can answer some of the questions regarding touch spells and holding charges. For this argument I will be using comparison from D20 SRD and Pathfinder to show a probabable design intent for the system. Jo Bird only asked for good resources in order to make a decision, thus I will provide good resources.

“Armed” Unarmed Attacks: Sometimes a character’s or creature’s unarmed attack counts as an armed attack. A monk, a character with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, a spellcaster delivering a touch attack spell, and a creature with natural physical weapons all count as being armed
(see natural attacks).
Note that being armed counts for both offense and defense (the character can make attacks of opportunity).

“Armed” Unarmed Attacks: Sometimes a character’s or creature’s unarmed attack counts as an armed attack. A monk, a character with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, a spellcaster delivering a touch attack spell, and a creature with natural physical weapons all count as being armed.

Identical Rules from 3.5 to Pathfinder

Touch Attacks:[I/] Touching an opponent with a touch spell is considered to be an armed attack and therefore does not provoke attacks of opportunity. The act of casting a spell, however, does provoke an attack of opportunity. Touch attacks come in two types: melee touch attacks and ranged touch attacks. You can score critical hits with either type of attack as long as the spell deals damage. Your opponent’s AC against a touch attack does not include any armor bonus, shield bonus, or natural armor bonus. His size modifier, Dexterity modifier, and def lection bonus (if any) all apply normally.

[I]Holding the Charge: If you don’t discharge the spell in the round when you cast the spell, you can hold the charge indefinitely. You can continue to make touch attacks round after round. If you touch anything or anyone while holding a charge, even unintentionally, the spell discharges. If you cast another spell, the touch spell dissipates. You can touch one friend as a standard action or up to six friends as a full round action. Alternatively, you may make a normal unarmed attack (or an attack with a natural weapon) while holding a charge. In this case, you aren’t considered armed and you provoke attacks of opportunity as normal for the attack. If your unarmed attack or natural weapon attack normally doesn’t provoke attacks of opportunity, neither does this attack. If the attack hits, you deal normal damage for your unarmed attack or natural weapon and the spell discharges. If the attack misses, you are still holding the charge.

Touch Attacks: Touching an opponent with a touch spell is considered to be an armed attack and therefore does not provoke attacks of opportunity. However, the act of casting a spell does provoke an attack of opportunity. Touch attacks come in two types: melee touch attacks and ranged touch attacks. You can score critical hits with either type of attack. Your opponent’s AC against a touch attack does not include any armor bonus, shield bonus, or natural armor bonus. His size modifier, Dexterity modifier, and deflection bonus (if any) all apply normally.

Holding the Charge: If you don’t discharge the spell in the round when you cast the spell, you can hold the discharge of the spell (hold the charge) indefinitely. You can continue to make touch attacks round after round. You can touch one friend as a standard action or up to six friends as a full-round action. If you touch anything or anyone while holding a charge, even unintentionally, the spell discharges. If you cast another spell, the touch spell dissipates. Alternatively, you may make a normal unarmed attack (or an attack with a natural weapon) while holding a charge. In this case, you aren’t considered armed and you provoke attacks of opportunity as normal for the attack. (If your unarmed attack or natural weapon attack doesn’t provoke attacks of opportunity, neither does this attack.) If the attack hits, you deal normal damage for your unarmed attack or natural weapon and the spell discharges. If the attack misses, you are still holding the charge.

Pretty Much the same, just a little bit clearer in pathfinder.

The reason of course for the comparasions is that the faqs from 3.5 should enlighten us. As Pathfinder is a newer version of 3.5.

SO Let us begin with the FAQs
As for the Guantlets, Rings, Glove discharging debate 3.5 has the following answer.

If a spellcaster is wearing gauntlets, could the character cast a spell with a touch range and perform an unarmed strike in addition to the spell’s effects? Could a spellcaster wearing spiked gauntlets do an armed strike in addition to the spell’s effects?

No, you cannot deliver a touch spell through a weapon attack. You can, however, still make a melee touch attack to deliver a spell with touch range while wearing gauntlets.

so it seems that it is reasonable to conclude that rings gauntlets and gloves do not hinder the attempt touch some one, and from that it probably does not count as discharging the spell.

When a duskblade (PH2 20) uses arcane channeling to deliver a spell but misses with the weapon attack, is the spell discharged or can he try to deliver the spell again on
his next turn?

This follows the normal rule for touch spells; that is, a melee touch spell that misses its target is not discharged...

Now I don't know the write up for the duskblade but it seems to have a similar power to spell strike, so the above rule may prove useful.

[B]Can a duskblade (PH2 20) using arcane channeling channel ranged touch spells through his weapon attack or is the ability limited to melee touch spells only?

“Touch” spell refers to spells that require a melee touch attack to deliver. The duskblade can’t use arcane channeling to deliver a spell that requires a ranged touch attack.

How does the duskblade’s arcane channeling class feature (PH2 20) work with spells that allow multiple touch attacks, such as chill touch?

For a spell that allows you to make multiple touch attacks against separate creatures (such as chill touch), you only channel one touch of the spell through your weapon attack, regardless of the number of touches allowed by the spell. If the spell’s duration is instantaneous (as chill touch), its effect is expended by a single weapon attack, even if the spell would normally allow multiple simultaneous touches. If the spell allowed you to make multiple simultaneous touch attacks against the same target, treat it as if you had targeted the enemy struck by your weapon with all the eligible attacks.

Good to know the intent!

"Touch Spells: The duration for a touch spell doesn't begin until the caster touches a subject and delivers the spell to a recipient. Attempting to touch a recipient requires a melee touch attack and that is part of the action used to cast the spell during the round when the spell is completed. If the recipient is willing to be touched, it's usually best to just assume the caster touches the recipient.

If the caster does not touch a recipient then (either because she doesn't try to or the melee touch attack fails), she must use an action (usually the attack or full attack action) to touch a recipient during a later round. This is called "holding the charge." A caster holding a charge is considered armed and can use an attack of opportunity to make a melee touch attack and deliver the spell.

Whenever the caster touches anything, the held charge is discharged, even if what the caster touches isn't a valid target for the spell (in that case, the spell is wasted). The charge also is lost (and wasted) if the caster casts another spell. Otherwise, a caster can hold a charge indefinitely. DMs should feel free to set some reasonable limit to how long a character can hold a charge, perhaps 1 hour or until the caster has to go to sleep (or trance in the case of elves).

A very few touch spells (water breathing, for example) can be partially discharged. If so, this will be mentioned in the spell's target entry and its descriptive text, or both.

As a full-round action you can touch up to six friends willing creatures, object that willing creatures hold, or objects just lying round by themselves), provided that all the recipients are within the caster's reach. (The caster can extend her reach a little by taking a 5-foot step during the process.) To use this option, you must first cast the spell and hold the charge. Because the recipients are willing, no melee touch attack is required. You must decide how to distribute the spell's effect before touching anything."

the above comes from a post on these boards, I have not found this faq yet but the poster is Beastman and the Link is Here;http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/pathfi nderRPG/rules/holdingTheChargeForTouchSpells&page=1#21

Touch Defined
Touch: You must touch a creature or object to affect it. A touch spell that deals damage can score a critical hit just as a weapon can. A touch spell threatens a critical hit on a natural roll of 20 and deals double damage on a successful critical hit. Some touch spells allow you to touch multiple targets. You can touch as many willing targets as you can reach as part of the casting, but all targets of the spell must be touched in the same round that you finish casting the spell.

Discharge Kinda Defined
Discharge: Occasionally a spells lasts for a set duration or until triggered or discharged.

So using the above 3.5 FAQS I conclude that yes the Magus Keeps a charge, however he does not get to keep multiple charges. Rings, Gloves, Wands, Guantlets (Which are a Weapon) Staves, Daggers, Crossbows, Shields etc are not considered touched if they are held while the spell is being cast. The discharge only goes off on things that were not being carried or held by the caster upon the casting. Of course that could be wrong lol. However with the above research I believe that thou it may not be RAW it is RAI.

I noticed that the Magus Kensia, gets fighter levels twice, th lv & 10th level.

at 7th level he can nowyto for the purposes of qualifying for feats consider himself as a fighter of 3 levels lower. This stacks with othyer fighter levels.

At 10th level he can now for the purposes of qualifying for feats consider himself as a fighter of 1/2 his Magus level. This stacks with other fighter levels.

Now is this a typo?

Or can a 10th level Magus for the purpose of qualifying for feats be considered a 13th level fighter.

Or just take the best and ignore the error.

Lol

Hmm, I just read a thread on touch attacks holding charge. It references a 3.5 faq that stats that the act of making contact with the target completes the spell, your not actully holding the charge you are trying to complete the spell. I'm on my phone so I can't copy and paste the link. But if 3.5 is in any way useful as a clue to what the designers intent is then It may be useful.

3.5 FAQ for touch attacks and holding charge

http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/pathfinderR PG/rules/holdingTheChargeForTouchSpells&page=1#21

The above is a link to the post, I mentioned.

So, looking at some dangers coming up with my pathfinder group... And it occured to me that the fighter is wearing adamantine full plate.

I know real world, with a decent amount of weight on you (for overall density), it's impossible to swim without special equipment.

I can't find the rules, or are there any rules for being too heavy to swim? And are swim check minuses soley based on the armor check penalty of a suit of armor?

Armor Check penalty or Encumbrance Modifier, which ever is greater modifies the swim check. That's all I've ever scene.

Hmm, I just read a thread on touch attacks holding charge. It references a 3.5 faq that stats that the act of making contact with the target completes the spell, your not actully holding the charge you are trying to complete the spell. I'm on my phone so I can't copy and paste the link. But if 3.5 is in any way useful as a clue to what the designers intent is then It may be useful.

3.5 FAQ for touch attacks and holding charge

I'm under a small time constraint at the moment, but I will try to be as thorough as possible in this post.

1. The spell component pouch argument is, I want to say this in a nicer way, but I can't think of one right now . . . it's a somewhat moronic argument. Obviously the touch spell dissipates. I'm not interested in micro-managing sub-actions of an overall action. This isn't first edition with segments and whatnot. The touch spell dissipates, period. That's the rule.

the only reason I bring up the spellcomponet pouch is because I think it is valid, do I think any GM would every do that to a player, no. However I do believe that it is valid. Now it might be resolved if one determines discharge is not the same as the spell doing normal damage.

3. Eighteen posters are, in fact, relatively small compared to the entire community of Pathfinder enthusiasts. That being said, the popularity of one interpretation over another has little to do with my ruling, which I am trying to base on an unbiased reading of the rules.

Jo I have done some checking on the boards, in all of the threads and all of the post concerning spellstrike you are the only one so fart that is using this concept. However I'm still looking for someone to agree with you in a previous posting. I have learned that you provoke an AOO with ranged touch spells even if you make the Concentration check for casting defensivly!

The issue dealing with rods, wands and such is deserving of attention. Bear in mind, please, that I only have a few moments to make this post, and I have none of my books open in front of me right now.

So. I'll start with some (IMO obvious) assumptions. There are certain items that are crafted specifically - let me say that again, crafted specifically - for the purpose of casting spells. An example of such is a Wizard's bonded object. That object would not be subject to the rule of causing the spell to discharge because it specifically allows the Wizard...

That's a very kind assumption of you, what about a Magus w/blackblade, it is an item only for the magus class and help assist with spells and such, would that count as a item like a Rod, Staff, Wand, Bonded Item? Once you have one you can't get a familiar, and some argue strongly that means you can't get a bonded item because the blade is bonded to the Magus?

Oh even worse

Mr Wizard: I use my rod of intensify in my right had to effect the touch spell I'm casting in my left.
GM: Thats Legal
Mr Wizard: I roll my touch attack, darn I missed..on no not again
GM: You missed, so you know what that means, sense you are now holding the charge it goes off on your rod.
MR. Wizard: Another rod destroyed, and could the healer come and heal me..

LOL, that would be funny, but not enjoyable, and not what the game designers probably intended..

The problem is with the definition of touching!

What does touching mean in game mechanics?

Its a Roll to hit! Thats what touching is.

Touch Spells in Combat:
Many spells have a range of touch. To use these spells, you cast the spell and then touch the subject. In the same round that you cast the spell, you may also touch (or attempt to touch) as a free action. You may take your move before casting the spell, after touching the target, or between casting the spell and touching the target. You can automatically touch one friend or use the spell on yourself, but to touch an opponent, you must succeed on an attack roll.

Touch Attacks: Touching an opponent with a touch spell is considered to be an armed attack and therefore does not provoke attacks of opportunity. The act of casting a spell, however, does provoke an attack of opportunity. Touch attacks come in two types: melee touch attacks and ranged touch attacks. You can score critical hits with either type of attack as long as the spell deals damage. Your opponent’s AC against a touch attack does not include any armor bonus, shield bonus, or natural armor bonus. His size modifier, Dexterity modifier, and def lection bonus (if any) all apply normally.

Holding the Charge: If you don’t discharge the spell in the round when you cast the spell, you can hold the charge indefinitely. You can continue to make touch attacks round after round. If you touch anything or anyone while holding a charge, even unintentionally, the spell discharges. If you cast another spell, the touch spell dissipates. You can touch one friend as a standard action or up to six friends as a full-round action. Alternatively, you may make a normal unarmed attack (or an attack with a natural weapon) while holding a charge. In this case, you aren’t considered armed and you provoke attacks of opportunity as normal for the attack. If your unarmed attack or natural weapon attack normally doesn’t provoke attacks of opportunity, neither does this attack. If the attack hits, you deal normal damage for your unarmed attack or natural weapon and the spell discharges. If the attack misses, you are still holding the charge.

Touch Spells and Holding the Charge: In most cases, if you don’t discharge a touch spell on the round you cast it, you can hold the charge (postpone the discharge of the spell) indefinitely. You can make touch attacks round after round until the spell is discharged. If you cast another spell, the touch spell dissipates.

Some touch spells allow you to touch multiple targets as part of the spell. You can’t hold the charge of such a spell; you must touch all targets of the spell in the same round that you finish casting the spell.

@Jo: I disagree with you by your own personal reading and view point, the mage in my example does in fact blow up his spell component pouch! The spell discharges (goes off) if you unintentionally touch something, It only dissipates if you cast another spell. Sense you must use get your components before you cast the spell the charge is still held and thus you affect yourself!

Under you interpretation of the rules, clerics, paladins, rangers, wizards, and anyone else that has touch spells can not be holding anything in either hand in order to benefit from the holding a charge rule.
I'm firmly believe this is not the intended view point by the game designers. They wanted a paladin to be able to hold his shield or sword while casting, they wanted a ranger to hold at least one weapon while using his or her spells. I'm sure they visualized a Magus wielding a sword while holding a charge with his other hand (just check out the pic's in the book).

Another note I might bring up is that while holding the charge you must make an attack roll to touch something (it is a weapon after all), or if the target is willing you [U]can[/U] automatically touch them with out a roll but you don't have to thus the "can".

Things a Any Class Can do with a touch attack.

1)You may take your move before casting the spell, after touching the target, or between casting the spell and touching the target.
2)If you don’t discharge the spell in the round when you cast the spell, you can hold the charge indefinitely.
3)Some spells allow you to hold multiple charges, however you only get one free touch attack on the round you cast the spell, all other uses of the spells charges are limited by duration of the spell and you ability to make touch attack actions.

What spell strike allows, all of the above, except you make a melee attack instead of a melee touch attack.

If you disagree with the above think about all of the spells that are not not viable with all the different Melee Classes. We have to think about impact of such a rules call on Paladins and Rangers, not to mention Clerics.

"I'm sorry Mr Cleric you lost the held charge of you inflict spell because you are using a shield."
"I'm sorry Mr Paladin you lost the held charge of your spell because you are touching your sword!
"Mr Wizard, holding a staff in your off hand will remove a lot of strength of your class. No you can't have a wand either"

"Mr Wizard, I'm sorry you missed with the spell, now you are holding a charge, if you try to cast another spell with material components I'm afraid that you are going to do damage to yourself, the only safe way to discharge the arcane power is to touch something, so go ahead and waste your next standard action touching the ground.

It seems to have a very negative impact on the system overall.

@Jo.
So using your view on this matter.

Mage: I cast shocking grasp, and take my free touch attack.
GM: Roll your concentration check.
Mage: 18
GM: You made it
Mage: I touch attack him, I Rolled a 5
GM:You missed, but you keep your charge.
Mage:cool
GM:He attacks you, and misses
Mage:Cool, ok I cast magic missile
GM:I'm so sorry, you failed to say you released the charge, so as you reach to get your spell component from your pouch your shocking grasp discharges, destroying all your components and dealing full damage to you.

Is that about right?

It seems from what most folks are saying, that all spell strike does is replace the free touch attack with a free melee attack. You still follow all of the other touch attack rules.

Spellstrike (Su): At 2nd level, whenever a magus casts a spell with a range of “touch” from the magus spell list, he can deliver the spell through any weapon he is wielding as part of a melee attack. Instead of the free melee touch attack normally allowed to deliver the spell, a magus can make one free melee attack with his weapon (at his highest base attack bonus) as part of casting this spell. If successful, this melee attack deals its normal damage as well as the effects of the spell. If the magus makes this attack in concert with spell combat, this melee attack takes all the penalties accrued by spell combat melee attacks. This attack uses the weapon’s critical range (20, 19–20, or 18–20 and modified by the keen weapon property or similar effects), but the spell effect only deals ×2 damage on a successful critical hit, while the weapon damage uses its own critical modifier.

At 2nd level, whenever a magus casts a spell with a range of “touch” from the magus spell list, he can deliver the spell through any weapon he is wielding as part of a melee attack.

This secton changes the base ruling of a touch attack to allow a free weapon attack to deliver the spell instead of the free touch attack.

Instead of the free melee touch attack normally allowed to deliver the spell, a magus can make one free melee attack with his weapon (at his highest base attack bonus) as part of casting this spell.

This is just clarifying the previous rules adjustment.

If successful, this melee attack deals its normal damage as well as the effects of the spell.

Again even more clarification of the very first statement.

Now none of the text alters any of the other properties of a touch attack.

Touch Spells and Holding the Charge

In most cases, if you don't discharge a touch spell on the round you cast it, you can hold the charge (postpone the discharge of the spell) indefinitely. You can make touch attacks round after round until the spell is discharged. If you cast another spell, the touch spell dissipates.

Some touch spells allow you to touch multiple targets as part of the spell. You can't hold the charge of such a spell; you must touch all targets of the spell in the same round that you finish casting the spell.

Spellstrike does not modify any of the above section of Touch spells and holding the charge!

Touch Attacks

Some attacks completely disregard armor, including shields and natural armor—the aggressor need only touch a foe for such an attack to take full effect. In these cases, the attacker makes a touch attack roll (either ranged or melee). When you are the target of a touch attack, your AC doesn't include any armor bonus, shield bonus, or natural armor bonus. All other modifiers, such as your size modifier, Dexterity modifier, and deflection bonus (if any) apply normally. Some creatures have the ability to make incorporeal touch attacks. These attacks bypass solid objects, such as armor and shields, by passing through them. Incorporeal touch attacks work similarly to normal touch attacks except that they also ignore cover bonuses. Incorporeal touch attacks do not ignore armor bonuses granted by force effects, such as mage armor and bracers of armor.

However it does modify the above rule for touch attacks by making it the following rule

Attack Roll

An attack roll represents your attempt to strike your opponent on your turn in a round. When you make an attack roll, you roll a d20 and add your attack bonus. (Other modifiers may also apply to this roll.) If your result equals or beats the target's Armor Class, you hit and deal damage.

Automatic Misses and Hits

A natural 1 (the d20 comes up 1) on an attack roll is always a miss. A natural 20 (the d20 comes up 20) is always a hit. A natural 20 is also a threat—a possible critical hit (see the attack action).

So as if follow the discussion, spellstrike only modifies how the attack is delivered, nothing else by RAW. It changes the Touch Attack to a Regular attack Roll. Otherwise it keeps all other powers and functions of a touch attack!

At least that is how I'm reading everything.

mcgreeno, of the ones you listed, the only ones useable would be point blank shot, precise shot, deadly aim, improved precise shot, impact critical shot, and opening volley

You have to cast the spell in order to be allowed to make the ranged attack. Anything that allows you extra attacks is out because you can't use a weapon that you have to cast a spell to use unless you also get an extra casting of the spell.

It's easier understood if you realize that casting a ray spell doesn't force you to make an "attack action" or a "full attack action", the spell requires you to make an ranged attack roll to complete it. Thus anything that applies to "ranged attack rolls" or "ranged attacks" is fine, but anything that would require you to make some sort of action other than the action required to cast the spell is out the window. Also, you can't hold anything but touch spells, btw.

You have to cast the spell in order to be allowed to make the ranged attack. Anything that allows you extra attacks is out because you can't use a weapon that you have to cast a spell to use unless you also get an extra casting of the spell.

I don't know, a spell is not a weapon. However it is still considered a weapon. If a feat gives you threat with a weapon it should allow you to cast the spell.

If your saying that we should apply all the negative modifiers to spells because they can be considered weapons, yet all of the positive modifiers can not be applied because they are spells, I have to disagree.

For a bow, you must load the arrow, For a spell you must grab the components.

For a bow you must aim and fire

For a spell you must aim and well fire. Except you have a limited amount per day!

Now magic is roughly balanced with weapon damage, but the point you allow me to start adding +1 here, and +2 there, and +2. Then the balance starts to break.

However when you want to make spells the same as Ranged Combat but not the same as ranged combat, folks get confused. Which is it.

1) A Ranged Combat Weapon (and thus all benefits and negatives)
2) A Ranged Touch Spell. (Just simple magic!)

Just as the Bow is the descriptor for the arrows, so is the Spell a descriptor for the magic's effect. It's all damage.

As for me, I don't think I will ever bring this up to my GM, because it already takes to long to do a combat in the bloody game. It seems all one does is look up rules and sub rules and then more rules. They can't even make a computer game that can follow the rules. LOL

Assuming that the -4 rule is true, and by what I've read I'm convinced.

Then I would guess all of the following feats would be usable by a spellcaster, primarily a gish like the magus.

Point-Blank Shot (Combat)
You are especially accurate when making ranged attacks
against close targets.
Benefit: You get a +1 bonus on attack and damage rolls
with ranged weapons at ranges of up to 30 feet.

A caster would gain a +1 Damage to all ranged spells that require a roll to hit!!

Percise Shot (Combat)
You are adept at firing ranged attacks into melee.
Prerequisite: Point-Blank Shot.
Benefit: You can shoot or throw ranged weapons at an
opponent engaged in melee without taking the standard
–4 penalty on your attack roll.

Well you kinda have to have this one so you must take Point-Blank Shot!

Rapid Shot (Combat)
You can make an additional ranged attack.
Prerequisites: Dex 13, Point-Blank Shot.
Benefit: When making a full-attack action with a ranged
weapon, you can fire one additional time this round. All of
your attack rolls take a –2 penalty when using
Rapid Shot.

This one is iffy, however if a spell is considered a weapon, and a ranged spell that requires an attack roll is affected as if it is a ranged weapon then this feat gives you an extra spell, however it would have to be a ranged touch attack, right.

Deadly Aim (Combat)
You can make exceptionally deadly ranged attacks by
pinpointing a foe’s weak spot, at the expense of making
the attack less likely to succeed.
Prerequisites: Dex 13, base attack bonus +1.
Benefit: You can choose to take a –1 penalty on all
ranged attack rolls to gain a +2 bonus on all ranged damage
rolls. When your base attack bonus reaches +4, and every
+4 thereafter, the penalty increases by –1 and the bonus
to damage increases by +2. You must choose to use this
feat before making an attack roll and its effects last until
your next turn. The bonus damage does not apply to touch
attacks or effects that do not deal hit point damage.

This could be a great add on to some spells!! Especially on a magus!

Shot on the Run (Combat)
You can move, fire a ranged weapon, and move again before
your foes can react.
Prerequisites: Dex 13, Dodge, Mobility, Point-Blank
Shot, base attack bonus +4.
Benefit: As a full-round action, you can move up to your
speed and make a single ranged attack at any point during
your movement.
Normal: You cannot move before and after an attack
with a ranged weapon.

Might be really useful for a Magus or other Gish Concepts

Improved Precise Shot (Combat)
Your ranged attacks ignore anything but total concealment
and cover.
Prerequisites: Dex 19, Point-Blank Shot, Precise Shot,
base attack bonus +11.
Benefit: Your ranged attacks ignore the AC bonus
granted
to targets by anything less than total cover, and the
miss chance granted to targets by anything less than total
concealment. Total cover and total concealment
provide
their normal benefits against your ranged attacks.
Normal: See the normal rules on the effects of cover and
concealment in Chapter 8.

Just because you can! It works only if ranged touch spells are considered by default as ranged weapons!

Impact Critical Shot (Combat, Critical)
With a series of ranged attacks, you bring your foes to their
knees or force them to move.
Prerequisites: Dex 13, Point-Blank Shot, base attack
bonus +9.
Benefit: Whenever you score a critical hit with a ranged
attack, in addition to the normal damage your attack
deals, if your confirmation roll exceeds your opponent’s
CMD, you can push your opponent back as if from the
bull rush combat maneuver or knock that target prone
as if from a trip combat maneuver. If you choose to bull
rush, you cannot move with the target. Your maneuver
does not provoke an attack of opportunity.
Normal: You must perform a bull rush combat maneuver
to bull rush an opponent, and you must perform a trip
combat maneuver to trip an opponent.

What can I say anyone up for a bullrushing color spray! Or acid orb!

Snap Shot (Combat)
With a ranged weapon, you can take advantage of any
opening in your opponent’s defenses.
Prerequisites: Dex 13, Point-Blank Shot, Rapid Shot,
Weapon Focus, base attack bonus +6.
Benefit: While wielding a ranged weapon with which
you have Weapon Focus, you threaten squares within 5
feet of you. You can make attacks of opportunity with
that ranged weapon. You do not provoke attacks of
opportunity when making a ranged attack as an attack
of opportunity.

Normal: While wielding a ranged weapon, you threaten
no squares and can make no attacks of opportunity with
that weapon.

Really, Really, I can now threaten squares with a spell? I guess I can especially if I hold on to the charge.

Improved Snap Shot (Combat)
You can take advantage of your opponent’s vulnerabilities
from a greater distance, and without exposing yourself.
Prerequisites: Dex 15, Point-Blank Shot, Rapid Shot,
Snap Shot, Weapon Focus, base attack bonus +9.
Benefit: You threaten an additional 10 feet with Snap Shot.
Normal: Making a ranged attack provokes attacks of
opportunity.

Even Better! Those Ray spells shall become even better.

Opening Volley (Combat)
Your ranged assault leaves your foe disoriented and
vulnerable to your melee attack.
Benefit: Whenever you deal damage with a ranged
attack, you gain a +4 circumstance bonus on the next
melee attack roll you make against the opponent. This
attack must occur before the end of your next turn.

Mahaaaa, great combo for a gish like the magus, if this hold up. What do you guys think?

Lets not forget Improved Critical etc...Weapon Specialization Greater weapon specialization etc..

mcgreeno wrote:

Trikk wrote:

The first requires a magical silver weapon, the second requires a magical or a silver weapon.

You know that is what I thought but my current GM, disagrees. This has only come because I'm soon to run a game and he will be one of the players. As such is there any official rules as to this ruling I can show him when the time comes up in the future when they face a vampire?

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/rules-for-monsters/universal-monster-rules #TOC-Damage-Reduction-Ex-or-Su-

Quote:

A few other creatures require combinations of different types of attacks to overcome their damage reduction (such as “magic and silver”), and a weapon must be both types to overcome this type of damage reduction. A weapon that is only one type is still subject to damage reduction.

Thank you.

The first requires a magical silver weapon, the second requires a magical or a silver weapon.

You know that is what I thought but my current GM, disagrees. This has only come because I'm soon to run a game and he will be one of the players. As such is there any official rules as to this ruling I can show him when the time comes up in the future when they face a vampire?

What is the difference between the following;
DR 10/magic and silver vs.
DR 10/magic or silver.

Is there a difference?

So as I see it now, including all of the other threads that are about this matter the armored kilt rules are as follows.

The armored kilt is a set of light armor.

The armored kilt can be added to another set of armor but it increases that armors type by one step larger unless it is already heavy armor.

Special material effects of the armored kilt (if any) are only applied if the kilt is worn individually or if the armor to which the kilt is combined with is made of the same material.

Magical Enhancements made to the kilt do not stack with the armor that the kilt is combined with (choose one either the kilts magic or the other armors).

For the cases of cost treat the kilt as an individual set of armor for determining material cost. The kilt has a special property where it can provide a +1 AC for the penalty of a shift in armor type and adding 10 pounds.

Example: A Mithral Kilt cost 1020 gp, if you wanted the benefits of Mithral it could only be applied to a set of armor that was also made of Mithral!

Does that about sum up the the thoughts on this unique item?

*Special note when the armor upgrades type adjust speed according.

It does appear that the Armored Kilt does have a * denoting a very important phrase.

* Can be worn alone or added to existing suits of armor.

Note the word existing! If you purchase a mithral chain shirt and later you purchase a mithral armored kilt the cost are going to be 1000+ Cost of Chain, and 1000+ cost of armored kilt.

Now when you add them together they are indeed a medium armor, and I will concede with the concept of reducing the speed, but not any thing else because the devs have revised the armored kilt to not have armor check or spell failure!.

If they wanted as you suggest Jo then why did they remove armor check, and spell failure from the write up. Heck they also removed the speed reduction.

Orginal Armored Kilt Description
+1 AC, -1 ACP, -5' movement, 15 lbs when added to armor, 10 when worn alone.

Revised
+1 AC, 10lbs

Do the the very nature of the kilt I'm convinced that the Cost for a Haramaki and armored kilt combo made in mithral would be 2000gp + 23 for the armors. The only reason I'm convinced is because both are purchased separately as individual Light Armors!

Another note is listed in the SRD

Any armor heavier than leather, as well as any shield, hurts a character's ability to use Dex- and Str-based skills. An armor check penalty applies to all Dex- and Strength-based skill checks. A character's encumbrance may also incur an armor check penalty.

Leather Armor has a listed weight of 15 pounds

By RAW adding a ACP (Armor Check Penalty) is against the rules.

The only thing that is affected by the Armor Type seems to be speed by the SRD

Medium or heavy armor slows the wearer down. The number on Table: Armor and Shields is the character's speed while wearing the armor. Humans, elves, half-elves, and half-orcs have an unencumbered speed of 30 feet. They use the first column. Dwarves, gnomes, and halflings have an unencumbered speed of 20 feet. They use the second column. Remember, however, that a dwarf's land speed remains 20 feet even in medium or heavy armor or when carrying a medium or heavy load.

Spell Failure is independent from the weight and the type in it's listing.

So I belive the following to be true
Harakami, Mithral AC +1, Max Dex 12, ACP 0, Spell Failure 0 Speed 30 Weight .5 Cost 1003
Armored Kilt, Mithral AC =1 Max Dex 8, ACP 0, Spell Failure 0 Speed 30 Weight 5 cost 1020

Once Combined Kilted Harakami, Mithral
AC +2, Max Dex 8, ACP 0, Spell Failure 0, Speed 30, Weight 5.5, Cost 2023

Standard Combined Kilted Haramaki
AC +2, Max Dex 6, ACP 0, Spell Failure 0, Speed 20, Weight 11, Cost 23

It does seem to be true that once combined you can only gain the benefits of Mitral if both parts are Mithral. But you can always separate the two and wear the one you wish.

Lamellar Cuirass (Mithril), Armoured Kilt = = 1235gp, +5 AC, +6 Max Dex, 0 ACP, 0% ASF

I would have to say no on this, just because the SRD has a set of Lamellar Steel listed. To compare the Lamellar Cuirass to the Lamellar Steel may be too subjective.

ProfPotts wrote:

RAW the 'weight category' of armour doesn't, in itself, have any effect other than define which Proficiency you need in order to not take the penalties on all rolls, and to define the usability of a few Class Features (like the kensai's Canny Defense in this case).

So, a haramaki + armoured kilt may be classed as medium armour, but that doesn't add any additional penalties whatsoever. Making it Mithral is pretty much pointless, as all you'll do is reduce the weight a little bit, and up the Maximum Dexterity bonus a bit (but that's already pretty high) - all the kensai is doing is spending a lot of ca$h to add a tiny extra +1 AC. For the gp that takes (be it 1,000gp twice, or 4,000gp once) he could more easily just enchant his haramaki to +1 (for a mere 1,000gp), or buy a Ring of Protection (for 2,000gp). IMHO.

1. RAW does say that armor 'weight categories' affect movement. Otherwise, we wouldn't know how much mithral increases the movement rate when the armor 'weight category' is lowered.

2. RAW does, at the very least, largely indicate to us what boundaries the armor 'weight categories' exist in. The spell failure chances go up, and the armor check penalties go up. There aren't a bunch of wild cards mixed in. The indicated pattern is pretty darn clear.

3. An enchantment of +1 can always be added to the mithral version of the haramaki and kilt combination, effectively giving +2 more AC. Yes, with all else being equal there might be a cheaper way to immediately get the +1 AC (via enchantment), but the long run has to be considered also. Thus, there pretty much is a reason to use the haramaki with the kilt. As far as using other armors instead: the original poster hasn't chosen to do so because of the negatives that come with them, rather it be weight or spell failure chance. The haramaki/kilt/mithral combo looks really enticing when built to have zeroes in movement penalty, spell failure chance, and armor check penalty.

Remember, this character has NO...

Here in lies the unique circumstances of the kilt.

Logically I can get a set of light armor made of mithral for 1000gp, so two sets would be 2000gp. Now wit armored kilt I have the option of combining the two into one. The real question is if the armored kilt is a add on to an existing set of armor or something that must be crafted with the other set of armor.

Too phrase it in another way, is the character wearing a kilted Haramaki or a Haramaki wit an armored kilt?

In the first option One can pay 1003gp for a mithral Haramaki and later purchase an armored kilt made of mithral for 1020gp. This seems to be how the item is supposed to be used. Total cost 2023.

In the second method One would purchase, craft, or order both armies merged as one. Then the cost would be 4023.

Now setting aside the mechanical aspects for a second, what is the spirit or design intent behind the armored kilt. From all that I have read it seems to be a individual armor that can be added to other armors to provide better defense. I'm nor a designer, but this seems to be what most folks think. Now it does seem that when combined with magical armor (and if the kilt where enchanted) the armor with the best enchantment overrides the other.

I think that sums up most of the options. So is the kilt an individual armor that can be combined with other armors then removed and combined with some other armor or not?

Lets look at it this way.

the Defending enhancement for weapons states:

Quote:

Defending: A defending weapon allows the wielder to transfer some or all of the weapon's enhancement bonus to his AC as a bonus that stacks with all others. As a free action, the wielder chooses how to allocate the weapon's enhancement bonus at the start of his turn before using the weapon, and the bonus to AC lasts until his next turn.

Moderate abjuration; CL 8th; Craft Magic Arms and Armor, shield or shield of faith; Price +1 bonus.

So, they have to wield it to get the bonus.

the Devs have said in a FAQ

Quote:

Defending Weapon Property: Do I have to make attack rolls with the weapon to gain its AC bonus?

Yes. Merely holding a defending weapon is not sufficient. Unless otherwise specified, you have to use a magic item in the manner it is designed (use a weapon to make attacks, wear a shield on your arm so you can defend with it, and so on) to gain its benefits.
Therefore, if you don't make an attack roll with a defending weapon on your turn, you don't gain its defensive benefit.
Likewise, while you can give a shield the defending property (after you've given it a +1 enhancement bonus to attacks, of course), you wouldn't get the AC bonus from the defending property unless you used the shield to make a shield bash that round--unless you're using the shield as a weapon (to make a shield bash), the defending weapon property has no effect.

—Sean K Reynolds, 06/06/11

Not sure if this helps or hinders in the long run, but it does give one view of it.

You know what it does, So in the example of a Blade-bound Magus he can only get the benefit of Alertness when he is actively using the blade in combat. That really limits the use of that power drastically, as you are rarely every going to make a perception check in combat. However a sense motive does help vs some maneuvers, right?

[QUOTE"Ryric"]
Why isn't the dictionary definition good enough? Not everything needs to be defined as a game mechanic. Unless you're being sarcastic here.

Well unfortunately in gaming the dictionary is often a useless tool! Wielding something causes an effect.

Example: Bladebound Magus only gets the Alertness Feat while wielding his blade.

Now alertness modifies sense motive & perception!

So the only time he has those bonuses is when he has his blade in his hands and the sword is unsheaved? or he gets them as long as his sword is in his hand (hand resting upon the hilt of the blade while it is sheaved at his side) or does it mean he has those bonuses on in combat situations?

Depending on the GM is set the definition. But when a system using a condition such as wield so heavily it must be defined. Unattended Object is defined. To wield is used as a trigger for a lot of effects so it should be clearly defined in the system somewhere.

Are you wielding clothes by wearing them? Are you wielding a amulet by wearing it, do different items have the condition upon their individual situation?

I'm I just looking for a solid RAW point of view..lol

all the kensai is doing is spending a lot of ca$h to add a tiny extra +1 AC. For the gp that takes (be it 1,000gp twice, or 4,000gp once) he could more easily just enchant his haramaki to +1 (for a mere 1,000gp), or buy a Ring of Protection (for 2,000gp). IMHO.

Your point is very true. It is a simple +1 AC Bonus. I don't even know why someone would care about the trade off of 1000 gp for looks and a +1 ac but some do. It would be just as easy to purchase a +1 Enhancement bounes for 1000 gp.

Facts Mithral does NOTHING for a Harakmie! Nothing except reduce it's weight by .5 a pound!! It has no mechanical benefit,or combat effect. It may however has some fluff in description (Silvery metal links)

Mithral has little to no impact upon a kilt, what it does is make the kilt one category lighter of setting the one category heavier. That's what the 1000 gp is being spent for, it does make the Dex Max 8 vs 6, but the Harakmie has a 10 (Which is Max).

You could easily accomplish this by a +1 Enchantment bonus. Never the less this ruling affects other armors far more.

Chain Shirt w/Kilt (Do I make the Kilt Mithral or The Shirt for 1000gp I get a +1 any which way I look

I can't seem to find what it means to Wield and item with in the core rules book. I find references to the word Wield or Wielding a lot but nothing defining it for the game mechanics.

What I do know is that if an item is cursed you are considered to wield it if you hold it, wear it, use it in a hand or hands, or have contact with it.

If an item is magical you can be considered to wield if if it is on your person or in you hands.

So my question is what does the word Wield mean in game mechanics?

Option 1: You have the item, object or weapon in your hand
Option 2: You have the item, object or weapon on you person
Option 3: All of the Above
Option 4: None of the Above
Option 5: "Something I have not thought of"

Keep in mind that certain class features state you only get X bonus while wielding X item. Wielding something has a big game impact.

To make it easier I listing the rules on the items in questions, if I have done this wrong please let me know.

Armored Kilt

Armored Kilt

When you add an armored kilt to a suit of light armor, the set counts as medium armor. Likewise, a kilt and medium armor counts as heavy armor. Adding an armored kilt to heavy armor has no effect.

Armored Kilt* 20 gp +1 +6 0 0% 30 ft. 20 ft. 10 lbs. AA

Haramaki

Haramaki

Also called a belly-warmer, a haramaki is a simple silken sash lined with chainmail or articulated metal plates and tied about the stomach to protect it.

Haramaki 3 gp +1 — 0 0% 30 ft. 20 ft. 1 lb. UC

Mithral

Mithral is a very rare silvery, glistening metal that is lighter than steel but just as hard.

When worked like steel, it becomes a wonderful material from which to create armor, and is occasionally used for other items as well. Most mithral armors are one category lighter than normal for purposes of movement and other limitations. Heavy armors are treated as medium, and medium armors are treated as light, but light armors are still treated as light. This decrease does not apply to proficiency in wearing the armor. A character wearing mithral full plate must be proficient in wearing heavy armor to avoid adding the armor's check penalty to all his attack rolls and skill checks that involve moving. Spell failure chances for armors and shields made from mithral are decreased by 10%, maximum Dexterity bonuses are increased by 2, and armor check penalties are decreased by 3 (to a minimum of 0).

Items not primarily of metal are not meaningfully affected by being partially made of mithral. (A longsword can be a mithral weapon, while a quarterstaff cannot.) Mithral weapons count as silver for the purpose of overcoming damage reduction.

HP/inch 30

Hardness 15

Cost Weapons or armors fashioned from mithral are always masterwork items as well; the masterwork cost is included in the prices given below.

Weight 1/2 normal

Weight (Longer Wording) An item made from mithral weighs half as much as the same item made from other metals. In the case of weapons, this lighter weight does not change a weapon's size category or the ease with which it can be wielded (whether it is light, one-handed, or two-handed).

Type of Mithral Item Item Cost Modifier
Light armor +1,000 gp
Medium armor +4,000 gp
Heavy armor +9,000 gp
Shield +1,000 gp
Other items +500 gp/lb.

What does it take to get the following

Light Armor, Dex Adjustment 8, Arcane Spell Failure 0, Armor Penalty 0
Weight 6 LB (Haramaki = 1 lb, Mithral Kilt = 5 lbs)

I'm not sure why you'd ever need this in Mithral? The whole point is that it's giving you no penalties, correct? In that case, why do you care if it's classed as light or medium? If you're doing it to use Class Features which require light armour at most, then chances are you've got Light Armour Proficiency and would do better with a Mithral breastplate anyway.

Well, in this case the character has Uncanny Defense but does not have any armor proficiency. It is also a spell caster so arcane spell failure is a minor problem.

Magus Kensi (No armor proficiency's & has Uncanny Defense.) More importantly I'm just trying to understand the rules on this.

If it is possible to have a Haramiki with a kilt, and it still be considered light armor? I believe that Mithral would do the job just not sure what the raw is on the matter. Does it cost +1000 gold, +2000 gold or +4000 gold or can it not be done?

Option 1:1000 gold (Only the kilt needs to be made of Mithral)

Option 2:2000 gold (Both kilt and Haramiki need to be made out of mithral to be light armor

Option 3:4000 gold (Adding the kilt to the Haramiki makes it medium armor and thus you must pay the medium armor mithral price)

Option 4: The rules just don't support a kilt made out of mithral and it can not be used in this manor.

Option 5: (insert here!!)

The ultimate combat book includes a new set of armor called the Haramaki, this armor is described as metal links or plates that a centered around the belly. It provides a AC +1 bonus and has no minuses and a weight of 1.

Now the Adventure Armory has a item called the Kilt, it is a add on to armor and adds a +1 to light or medium armors and has no weight but changes the category of the armor up on type.

As best as I understand it combining these two would provide an individual with the following armor.

Haramaki w/kilt
AC Bonus: 2
Max Dex: 8
Penalty: 0
Type: Medium
Size: Medium

Now for the Question what would be the price for this if it was mithral?
Would you need to purchase mithral twice, once for the Haramaki and once for the Kilt? Would you need to purchase Mithral once but at the medium armor price? Or would you only need to purchase the Mithral once for the kilt (sense mithral has no effect mechanically on the Haramaki?

Haramaki w/mithral kilt (+1000gp)
AC Bonus: 2
Max Dex: 8
Penalty: 0
Type: Light
Size Medium

T

My general thought is that you would purchase the mithral once for the kilt, this lowers the armor catagory increase by the kilt to none. However I thought I would ask my betters about this?

From what I understand once you purchase the kilt it becomes part of the armor more or less, thus an enchanted kilt would only provide bonuses if the base armor was of a lower enchantment value. However with the Haramaki Armor it has a +1 AC and a Dex mod of 10, Adding the a mithral kilt would lower the Dex mod to 8 but keep the armor light.

What do you all think?

Combat Casting is an absolute must.

I tend to agree with that.

As to the party, we have 1druid (battle control) , a shield and sword fighter. And me. We are filling the rest of the slots with NPC,s like Zert from the module

I like the idea of the silk armor, would that work with s kilt (mithral) ?

Here is the story.

Race human
Class Magus
Level 5th
Point buy for stats 15

Books being used; core rule book, advanced players guide, ultimate magic, ultimate combat, and adventurer armory.

Traits, only if I buy the feat that provides traits.

Concept, a 30 year old minor noble whom has decided to go adventuring.

The adventure, ToEE converted to path finder.

I'be never been good at optimal character builds, normally our gaming group plays roleplaying heavy games with light combat. However, our st has switched things up a bitwith running temple of elemental evil. After he did some of the conversions he has recommended fine tuning the characters in order to survive. It is after all a classic dungeon crawl. The base concept of the character is strength based with a bastard sword..

I have played with the idea of a Magus, Kensi, Bladebound. However to keep some armor I dip to fighter levels and purchase light armor mastery to remove spell failure.

I'm just not sure what is the best way to keep the concept (magic, armor, cool looking sword). While still being effective in the group..

I would love some advice, I have looked at the guide but it currently does not include ultimate combat archtypes.

Any help would be great.

So, here's a couple of hypothetical situations. A witch uses misfortune to force a battle oracle with war sight to reroll initiative.

The relevant text:

"Anytime the creature makes an ability check, attack roll, saving throw, or skill check, it must roll twice and take the worse result."

"Whenever you roll for initiative, you can roll twice and take either result."

What happens? Does the witch force me to reroll what I would normally roll, meaning the 2d20 I normally use? This interpretation seems to result in me rolling 2 sets of 2d20 and taking the worse result of whichever two dice I choose using war sight. Or possibly picking either one of the worse two dice, depending on what order they apply in.

Does one negate the other, since they both tell me to roll dice and choose a specific one? If so, which one wins? This doesn't seem like a specific/general issue, since they're both specific about what I do with my roll.

Interpretation 1A: I roll 2 sets of 2d20 and get 11, 9 and 3, 14. With war sight, I pick 11 and 14. Then I must pick 11, since it's worse than 14.

Interpretation 1B: I roll the same, but misfortune applies first and now I must pick between 3 and 9.

Interpretation 2A: War sight negates misfortune. I roll 2d20 and pick which I like as normal.

Interpretation 2B: Misfortune negates war sight. I roll 2d20 and pick the worse one as specified by the hex.

What's the favorite non-equipment thing you've received or seen as loot? I've had fun reading the UE table, which has "gold and mithral baby rattle- 500 gp", "platinum baby rattle- 1000 gp", as well as an "ethereal tapestry" and impossible objects like a mithril Penrose triangle and am adamantine devil's fork all being more valuable than a god's breath. I haven't actually had occasion to use them, but the image of a great wyrm red dragon having a hoard entirely of baby rattles or an adventurer being told that the solidified breath of Norgorber, laden with secrets beyond mortal imagining, isn't valuable enough to buy back his family's tapestry Uncle Ben put in hock is just excellent.

My favorite vendor trash loot that I've actually used was probably the giant hoard of copper that required the players to figure out how to haul it all and who to sell it to, as well as the sugar-free not-Haribo gummi tigers that gave the druid severe diarrhea.

So, there's another thread about overpowered monsters that are no fun to fight due to cheap tactics like the sceaduinar's deeper darkness, lifesense, antilife shell, and enervation.

What powerful monsters are fun to fight? I've had good results with low-CR humanoids or PC races with class levels, especially themes spellcasters. The whip of insects line of spells was really cool.

So, long story short, my PCs have gotten their hands on 30 to 40 voidworms, and the current plan is to sell them to a magic university they're on relatively good terms with.

Voidworms are known to work as familiars, and they have: blindsense 30 feet, constant detect law, fast healing, immunity to acid, resistance to electricity and sonic, constant freedom of movement, moderate fortification, immunity to polymorph effects they don't want, a host of SLAs including commune, and the ability to change shape. The downside is their personality, which can be likened to an extreme case of ADD and solipsism.

Pseudodragons are 200gp a pop, have telepathy and better blindsense, and are tiny dragons. Parrots, falcons, and other such valuable mundane birds are 40 to 50 gold pieces. As far as I can tell, a voidworm would be somewhere between these two, but I'd like more opinions on this.

Rays have been stated to be a valid selection for Weapon Focus, and the Snap Shot line of feats lets you use a ranged weapon for an AoO. It seems to follow that selecting Weapon Focus (Ray) and then Snap Shot would allow you to cast a ray spell as an AoO within your minuscule threatened area.

Making one attack is a standard action, and casting one ray spell is usually a standard action. It seems to fit.

Any counterarguments? And would Combat Reflexes allow you to cast multiple spells for multiple AoOs?

Edit: The most important part of the question seems to be whether or not you're considered to be wielding your ray attacks.

Do you wield your rays only when you cast it, or whenever you might be capable of casting it? You could argue that they only exist when they're cast, or you could argue that you wield an ordinary weapon even when you're not swinging it.

Halloween's coming up, and my group is interested in some quick horror. What do you recommend? I hear Doom Comes to Dustpawn might be suitable.

The three spells I'm asking about: Spiders, centipedes, and ants.

Long story short: The effect is a whip, it's not target: personal or anything, and the spell doesn't explicitly say you have to be the one to wield it. The whip deals fixed damage and can't make a few combat maneuvers, but the real point is that it's a melee touch attach with 15-foot reach that nauseates foes, seemingly using the caster's save DC. It also poisons foes, but that's just frosting.

Can my theoretical druid Steve cast this spell and hand the created whip to Larry, his whip magus buddy and have Larry use it like he would a normal whip?

Exact rules text:

A creature with immunities takes no damage from listed sources. Immunities can also apply to afflictions, conditions, spells (based on school, level, or save type), and other effects. A creature that is immune does not suffer from these effects, or any secondary effects that are triggered due to an immune effect.

Format: Immune acid, fire, paralysis; Location: Defensive Abilities.

Let's say we have a hypothetical cold-descriptor spell that explicitly deals no damage but inflicts the staggered condition. It is cast on a creature immune to cold but not immune to staggering, which fails its save. The immunity text specifically says that it only blocks damage, specific conditions, and secondary effects triggered due to an immune effect.

The cold-based staggering is neither damage, a specific condition that the creature is immune to, nor a secondary effect. Based off of the rules, would it be staggered or not?

And, in your own games, if the spell didn't explicitly have the cold descriptor but was based on cold in the fluff and said the target was... say, covered in ice, would you rule cold-immune targets immune to it? Just looking for opinions on the second one, not strictly rules.

For example, greater magic fang has a mythic version and states it can be made permanent. If I cast mythic greater magic fang, then use a scroll of permanency, what happens? Is it wasted? Does it just refuse to activate? Does only the non-mythic version get permanencied? Does the whole thing get permanencied?

I'm aware of the ripsaw glaive, but I mean the type powered by diesel/electricity/other fuel of choice without reach.

Let's say I decide to go crit-fishing TWF with a kukri and a pick, and use Pummeling Style. I'm sure people are familiar with the crit benefits of the feat- and if not, check out the ACG kneejerk thread- but what happens if I threaten and confirm a critical hit with my light pick? Do I multiply the entire damage by 4?

Tired at the moment, so I don't have much to work with right now. So far, here's what I have for a PF version of Väinämöinen:

A Words of Power bard/Loremaster PrC with 10 mythic tiers and Divine Source. Bard gives him his longsword proficiency, the ability to be a decent melee fighter, and his legendary performance. 10 mythic tiers and Divine source give him some of his stronger abilities without having to multiclass, such as immortality, Artifice domain SLAs, and so on. Loremaster gives him full spellcasting progression, lore, greater lore, and secrets.

I don't think he's very high-level compared to a 20th-level character, but his mythic tier is probably high. I think he'd be an Archmage, maybe Dual Pathed into Champion. He'd probably have Display of Intelligence.

From what I've seen, he used a little conjuration, illusion, divination, and abjuration, plus a lot of transmutation and moderate amounts of necromancy, more in the separation of body and soul aspect than the undead aspect. He didn't use evocation or enchantment, relying purely on his legendary performance to convince people.

Anything else? Can't think of a specific build, but he was skilled in melee and probably set in E8.

I allow Dreamscarred Press' version of psionics in my games. One campaign limits magic to up to 6th-level spells because of the story and because I wanted to see if full casters were still ridiculously powerful at higher levels compared to aprtial casters when they no longer had 7th-9th level spells. Two players in this campaign use psionic classes, with one PC being a psion.

Recently, it came up that this means that eventually the psion will come into 7th-9th spell level territory. 7th-9th level powers are nonfunctional, like spells are. That was the simple bit. The other bit is augmentation. Most of the case, augments are meant to allow powers to scale like spells would. With the rules I'm using, a level 20 wizard still has CL 20 for duration, CL-dependent variables, and the like. It seems to make sense to allow powers to augment like they normally would, then. But a few powers' augments effectively upgrade them to equivalents of higher-level spells, like psionic dominate person (mind control) becoming dominate monster.

How should I handle this and why? Ban augments, allow augments, allow augments on a case-by-case basis? I'm currently going to do the last one if it comes up, but I'm not absolutely confident. I'd like to know what people with experience with high-level psionics think, and I'd like to know if there are any other augments like mind control's I should know about.

Vital Strike, Improved Natural Attack, and all the other options that modify natural attacks and attack actions. Which, if any, can modify a witchfire's attack?

Created this so as not to derail the over/under CRed thread.

What on Earth is this?
I'm shamelessly stealing this concept from Landon Winkler and Ashiel. It's a bit of a misnomer, I admit. The goal isn't to make more oversexed woman. The goal is to share stories of women who managed to be attractive without being cliche or flashing their cleavage, and to make more.

As GMs, we add NPCs all the time. Nameless faces in the crowd become important parts of the plot, even in APs.

But adding a female romantic interest takes a different sort of finesse, especially if the GM isn't part of the target audience.

So, I propose we start gathering some examples of ones that we've used that have worked. That way, even those of us who find the idea of being attracted to men faintly confusing, can drop them in like any other NPC.

Build a Cheesecake?
Okay, maybe "cheesecake" isn't exactly right here. After all, the point is to avoid cheesecake and still remain viable romantic options.

You can't go wrong with the name, though. Thanks to Ashiel and Landon Winkler for the name :)

Keep in mind when you're showing off your creativity that these are for APs. Have a great romantic rival pirate captain you added for Skull and Shackles that inevitably led to romance? Did your PCs pair off with ambassadors from neighboring kingdoms in Kingmaker? Does your party keep inexplicably falling in love with shopkeepers?

Cheers!
Ipslore

I'm not sure if this belongs in Suggestion/Homebrew or here, but since I haven't thought of a solution yet and I'm asking for input, I think it fits better here.

Shadow barbs, flame blade, icicle dagger, and the like. The flavor is great, but they tend to be, well, crappy. Almost always cleric/oracle and sorc/wiz, almost never for the magus, and usually too high a spell level to come in handy at low levels.

The characters that get access to them have almost no use for them. The characters that could use them can't get access to them. They might see use if a melee cleric or oracle needs a backup weapon, but that requires sacrificing a spell known and memorized or a spell slot.

You could make a magic weapon based on them, but since all they do is make a temporary magic weapon permanent versions of them tend to be somewhat boring.

How would you make these spells viable without making them must-have? I've considered making them options for certain races' SLAs or feats, but they seem too good to be SLAs or prerequisite-less feats, but not good enough to warrant level prerequisites, especially since they'd have to be 1/day with a duration of only 1 minute a level.

Specifically, PrCs being the best options forever, 100 base classes and 500 PrCs, a zillion special materials, and so on.

I ask because of the paper-bound abomination known as Inner Sea Gods and the monstrosity known as Evangelist. From what I have seen of the book, namely Walter's guide to it, it seems to be almost universally terrible from a balance standpoint. Especially evangelist. You lose one level- one fricking level-of your class, and it's easy to get a feat to bring class features back to hit dice. Then you get 100% free features for another 9 levels.

And then exalted has straight spellcasting progression, permanent protect from ______, AND a free domain.

Sentinel is disgustingly cheesy as well. Bonus feats, free +1s to hit and damage, fricking LEADERSHIP for free, +4 to initiative DR, Diehard, and cure critical wounds as a swift action on yourself?

Am I overreacting or should this book never have been written and its authors terminated posthaste?

After all, thanks to equality, there should be one of these too.

Post your stories, thoughts, opinions, and anything else about being heterosexual and playing games.

I'll start: Today, I played a game. My sexuality did not affect my enjoyment of the game in any significant way. I made a post about it anyway.

Does anyone else have something to contribute?

Is there any way to get wild empathy without dipping Druid or Ranger? A class that can use Charisma would be preferred for optimal diplomacy.

Much like the X spells thread, Youthful Appearance is the only Y spell. This is deeply and inherently bigoted. To fix the issue, let us make our own.

Same rules:

- It has to be a real, correctly spelled word. "Y Live", "Y Are You Screaming", and "Yvebvrhgthrfvdvdf Ray" are not valid.
- It can't be a name. "YAHWEH's Glare" does not count.
- It has to be relevant. "Yellow Beam" is not valid for a spell that has nothing to do with the color yellow.
- It can't reuse words. If someone already posting something with "X-Ray", you can't use "X-Ray".
- It doesn't have to be balanced, but if you can make it balanced-ish if you're in the mood and stuff.

I'll start.

Yielding Prison
School: Conjuration Sorcerer/Wizard 5
Components V, S, M (a cube of grapefruit Jello)
Duration 1 round/level
Target: Targeted creature
Range: close (25 feet + 5 feet/level)
Save: Reflex negates SR: No

A five-foot-square cube of grapefruit Jello appears around the victim, taking up all free space in the square. It has hardness 10, 10 HP/CL and is immune to bludgeoning, slashing, and piercing damage. The imprisoned creature takes half of all damage taken by the prison. The imprisoned creature must hold its breath or begin suffocating as gelatin floods its lungs.

The prison takes half again damage from bite attacks and its usual resistances do not apply. The imprisoned creature does not take damage from bite attacks. However, the creature making the attack must make a Fortitude save or take 1d6 Constitution damage as it swallows the goo.

The gelatin created is not kosher.

I don't have a problem with anything, I just wanted to reassure concerned posters that yes, sometimes parties do just fine. They're faffing about in the City of Brass, and having some fun with not speaking the language, a running gag of throwaway gag gnome NPCs, a baby ebony cube, and trying to impersonate a, and I quote: "much-feared league of spies and torturers."

The last one was not particularly well-thought-out, but fortunately the other PCs were able to stop the PC in question, and all is well.

Discuss lack of problems here.

Does the witch's child-scent hex detect fetuses, even if the mother isn't obviously pregnant?

What's your favorite D&D critter that didn't make it into 3.X, 4e, and/or Pathfinder?

I'm fond of the scalamagdrion.

So a NPC now has a baby ebony gelatinous cube as a sort of pet. As of yet, the only name I can think of has been "Simon".

What would you name a pet ooze? No need to mention Japanese adult films, those are already assumed.

What adventure path or modules would you recommend for someone more interested in puzzles, mysteries, and investigative work than straight combat? I remember there being a find-the-werewolf mystery in carrion Crown.

I'm trying to introduce a friend of mine to Pathfinder, and we're planning on doing a solo campaign of Shattered Star. We're starting with the first book, and if that goes well, continuing to the rest of the path. No details at the moment, but I plan on having him be about 2 levels above what's suggested for a full party- starting at level 3, progressing to 4 when it suggests level 2, and so on.

I might also use the mythic rules for his character. If I do, would adding some mythic templates, ranks, or tiers to a few encounters overwhelm a single character, or do you think an overleveled optimized PC could handle it?

All Paizo-published stuff on d20pfsrd is acceptable.

So. When summoned, Kelpie's Wrath the herald of Besmara the Pirate Queen demands recompense, of course. One way to pay seems... odd, no?

When called by mortals, it demands treasure as payment

for its services, preferring chests full of gems and gold
coins. It has a lecherous, voyeuristic streak, however, and
has been known to lower its price if arrangements are made
for mortals to perform carnal acts on its decks—while it
telepathically murmurs approvingly.

I'm told that despite various threads on succubi and poorly disguised ribald jokes, these are still family-friendly boards, so I won't spell anything out. I'm sure most posters are old enough to figure things out for themselves, so the question to discuss is "How does that work for a living ship?"

I personally have no idea. Portholes, maybe?

I saw a post some time ago about how a mythic blaster is significantly more powerful thanks to Mythic Disintegrate. I'm not entirely sure I agree, especially since Channel Power applies to an Intensified Maximized fireball just as well. Let's say you cast that at 13th level.

The channel power maximized intensified fireball does something like 145 damage in a spread, half if your target(s) somehow make their throw. This is most of a CR 13 creature's hit points, and equal to a CR 11 creature's hit points.

The channel power disintegrate deals, on average, 204 damage and maybe some Con damage if it's not immune to that to one target. 24 of that is overkill and wasted, especially if you did enough Con damage to lower the HP per HD. If it makes the save, then it takes half da-- no, sorry, it takes 33 damage and 1 Con damage, which does nothing per RAW on ability damage.

So, if you're facing one CR-equivalent opponent and you're absolutely certain that it won't make its save, then the disintegrate will deal more damage, and more than likely overshadow the rest of the party when you one-hit the bossfight or whatever it was. The fireball makes you look awesome while you take out the mooks or leave the BBEG just enough HP for the rest to deliver a nicely gory deathblow.

What's so great about disintegrate, mythic or not, and more generally, is building a mythic blaster any different than "take Brewer's blaster and slap Channel Power on it"?

To avoid derailing the Succubus Profane Gift thread, does charm person make a target forget or otherwise forgive past offenses including but not limited to sleeping with attractive relatives of theirs such as spouses, attempted murder, larceny, and theft of favored foodstuffs while they were eating lunch? Or do such acts count as threatening the charmed person and breaking the spell?

Personally, I suspect that they don't, otherwise the clause about currently being threatened by the caster or the caster's allies would automatically make the spell null and void instead of merely providing a +5 bonus.

For boredom's sake, I am building a character for maximum retaliatory damage. Stuff that goes "Anyone who strikes the character with a melee weapon, unarmed strike, or natural weapon takes 1d6 damage."

The hyperboreal robe, bloodflame ring, and hamatula hide are what I've been able to find so far.

All Paizo books are open, PC races only, assume unlimited wealth.

A player with the Beyond Morality universal path ability is interested in becoming a demon in the future. The rituals needed to do so can be found here. Beyond Morality's exact text can be found here.

The problem is that the first demon transformation ritual specifies that you must be or become chaotic evil and Beyond Morality explicitly says that you have no alignment whatsoever. It specifies that you ignore alignment limitations for spellcasting and classes. The demon transformation ritual is not a class.

Now, by strict RAW, the player is ineligible to become a demon. I'm aware of RAW. I want to find out how others would rule this in a non-PFS home game.

The argument for it is that it's likely RAI that Beyond Morality is meant to let you ignore any and all alignment requirements, not just classes, and this is an extreme corner case.

The argument against it is that outsiders, such as demons, are literally made of their alignments, which is why they have the chaotic and evil subtypes. The chaos and evil to make a demon has to come from somewhere, so a non-chaotic evil character is literally incapable of undergoing the transformation.

Which one do you favor, and if you favor the second argument, would you be open to the idea of adding external sources of chaos and evil, such as spells with the chaos and evil descriptors, like chaos hammer and unholy aura, or creatures with the chaotic and evil subtypes or alignments?

So, I was thinking about the mysterious stranger as a NPC, remembered that a mysterious, charming stranger is often exactly what succubi start out as, and decided to go TWF just for kicks.

It's starting to seem somewhat viable, since succubi are always relevant, and they have decent Dex and high Cha. Would the Mysterious Stranger archetype actually be worth it with grit, Focused Aim, and Stranger's Fortune being Cha-based, or should I use a different archetype?

EDIT: Focused Aim eats swift actions desperately needed for reloading, so Mysterious Stranger is looking less and less viable.

Why does everyone insist on my character giving a bloody speech every time he does something important? He's a barbarian, actions are more important than words. Why shouldn't I be able to do nothing but smash baddies, grab treasure, and bask in my rightfully-deserved adulation and wenches? It's perfectly "in-character", and video games work just fine with that model, after all. I'm a heroic fighter, not a wussy talker.

I just feel that people shouldn't be able to try to ruin my fun by making me think about anything other than how to optimize AM BARBARIAN and which spells to sunder first.

How would you try to build a viable non-tetori grappler at higher levels? For the purpose of this exercise, ignore things like freedom of movement and at-will teleportation that many monsters have. I'm more concerned about how to counteract the ever-rising CMD.

So after all the recent threads, I decided to save everyone time. Now you don't have to worry about your griping being relevant to the thread or pretending you care about other people's opinions, because they're not relevant either.

I'll start- I don't like that the only really cool Paizo prosthetic limb system is evil- demonic implants.

Also, I'm having a lazy Sunday and when I use only my sheets I'm too cold and when I use my blankets I'm too hot.

Since I don't feel like taking up space in the thread about falling damage, here's a new thread. Flesh to stone, as an example, says that it turns you into a mindless, inert statue, which does suggest that you become an object. The important part is whether you gain a hardness of 8 and reduce damage by half but lose the ability to make saving throws and Acrobatics checks like a normal stone object would.

As an example, let's say that someone is petrified, then somehow he triggers a trap that requires a Reflex saving throw to avoid some damage. You could argue that since sleeping characters and characters who unknowingly drink a harmful potion also get to make saves, a petrified character still can even though he is mindless, since being able to react doesn't seem to be required to make a save. On the other hand, he's an immobile statue now, so you could argue that he doesn't get to save, he just halves the damage and deducts his hardness.

One of my players would like to play a caster based around cold spells and dispelling. He is relatively new and hasn't developed the concept beyond the theme.

Since I'm lazy and busy with a homebrew campaign, does anyone have any particularly effective or flavorful ideas? There'll be a lot of fire-based encounters, if that helps.

We're discussing attempting to counter [fire] spells with [cold] spells, so if anyone knows if there's any RAW ways to do that it'd be a great help.

One of my players is trying to use the minor metamorphosis psionic power to give himself a burrow speed and investigate a sand dune.

Given that it explicitly doesn't make tunnels unless the description specifically says it doesn't, it doesn't seem like it does. On the other hand, none of the burrowing creatures that I can think of have no breath or hold breath. If it doesn't, then it seems like they'd all suffocate or have to surface very often, which seems to defeat the point of a burrowing creature.

Edit- Burrow doesn't grant the ability to breathe underground, so it looks like the psionic power wouldn't either. Still curious about creatures with a natural burrow speed, though.

I am currently running a Skype campaign in a homebrew setting where the gods have left Golarion in the distant past, the face of the world has changed, and the PCs have to find or become the new gods. Mature themes may appear, especially since one of the players is currently pregnant and planning on becoming a succubus.

Is anyone interested in such a campaign?

Since a search of the forums didn't turn up anything:

Adamantine allows you to ignore 20 points of hardness when "sundering weapons or attacking objects".

Gloves of Shaping allow you to treat anything with hardness 8 or less like soft clay, or, and this is the relevant bit, treat an object as having "half as much hardness when attempting to damage or reshape them."

Now, my question: if you made a pair of the gloves out of adamantine, would you ignore 20 points of hardness, since "attempting to damage" is logically the same thing as "attacking" objects? If so, would you apply it before or after determining whether the gloves ignore or halve hardness?

And since a wall of force and similar effects have a hardness of 30, would you say that it goes (30/2)-20, in which case it would become 0 and therefore able to be shaped like clay, or (30-20)/2?