tos_shai_hulud's page

Animate Dead allows a caster to control up to 4 HD of undead per caster level. Assume a 5th level cleric uses an Orange Prism Ioun stone when casting Animate Dead. His caster level is 6 when he casts the spell. He increases his total HD of controlled undead to 24. He goes to sleep and stows the ioun stone, removing the +1 to caster level. Now, his caster level is 5. Does he immediately lose control of 4 HD of undead? What happens if a rogue attempts to Use Magic Device on a scroll of Animate Dead? Since he has no actual caster level, does he immediately lose control of any undead he animates?

Alternately, is caster level only checked when the spell is cast? If that is the case, could a caster theoretically boost his caster level through the roof before casting Animate Dead in order to get the cap as high as possible?

If you have a fly speed, you have the Fly skill and you gain a +8 bonus to Fly checks.

Whether a DM allows someone that can cast Fly as a spell to take Fly-By is entirely in the DM's domain. There is nothing preventing it by a straight RAW perspective.

Where do you see that having a fly speed grants a +8 bonus to Fly checks? I am not seeing that. I see that Flight Maneuverability has a bonus/penalty, as does size, but I didn't see anything that would indicate a natural +8 (similar to the bonuses for Swim and Climb). In fact, flight works so differently, I was under the impression that was specifically not done.

Consider the Giant Eagle:

It has Average Maneuverability (+0); it is Large (-2); 4 ranks in a class skill (+7); +3 Dex (+3) = +8 (just as is listed).

James Risner wrote:

From 3.p:

Close: The spell reaches as far as 25 feet away from you.

Round down is a rule, and the range is doubled.

So you calculate the range using 25+x/2 then double the range.

Indeed, that is another way Wizards could have phrased the feat to avoid this Error (and it seems like a simpler way to phrase it, as it would not have required a formula in the first place!!!)

RiTz21
http://TheOnlySheet.com

The feat does not tell you when to round down. In fact, nothing in the system suggests that you would round down before multiplying. So, your 1st level range would be 27.5 ft. (round down to 25). Your 1st level Extended spell would be 55 ft. (round down to 55).

While integrating the Enlarge Spell feat, I noticed an error in D&D3.5, and in the PRD (Core Rulebook page 122)

Consider the description:

Quote:

Benefit: You can alter a spell with a range of close, medium, or long to increase its range by 100%. An enlarged spell with a range of close now has a range of 50 ft. + 5 ft./level,...

This Feat doubles the ranges of spells (i.e. increase its range by 100%). This is not true for the Close range, when the caster level is an ODD number (because of the division rounding):

Example using a level 1 caster:
Close range = 25' +0' = 25'

Now, with this feat enabled (see bold formula highlighted above):
50' + 5' = 55'

As you can see, we were expecting an increase of 100% of the 25' range (expected value 50'). But the formula above gives us a bit more then a 100% increase (55')!

The Correct formula for Close range should be:
50 ft. + 10 ft./ 2 levels

I don't expect 3.5 to be fixed, but hopefully you guys can fix Pathfinder... :)

RiTz21
http://TheOnlySheet.com

You are making the assumption that rounding is not already occurring. Instead, don't round Close range spells. Now, at 1st level, the close range spell is going 27.5 ft. Because of how squares work, that is 25 ft, not 27.5. 2.5 feet has no significance when each square is 5 feet. Therefore, it is 25 ft. + 5 ft. per two levels. Each level, 2.5 feet is added. When you double that, the 2.5 feet is significant, and the feat is correct as written.

tos_shai_hulud wrote:

The OP's question was regarding the ruling in 3.5 that specifically forbade flying creatures of all kinds from flying while wearing medium or heavy armor or carrying a medium or heavy load. Such wording does not exist in PF.

Wait, where does it say in 3.5 that you can't fly in heavy armor?

I thought we were talking about the rule that you can only fly in 3.5 if you have a light load (which is kind of ridiculous if magic is involved).

Ah, that is a good point. That clears things up a bit. It seems that PF has removed that issue. You can now fly with a heavier load. Perhaps it simply gives you a penalty on fly checks? Maybe equal to your Armor Check Penalty due to load? I dunno.

I don't think there's a problem with a solar flying in +5 full plate.

A solar isn't a flying mount. Likewise, a solar doesn't wear barding. Because both these statements are true, nothing written in the PRD prevents a solar from flying with heavy armor.

The OP's question was regarding the ruling in 3.5 that specifically forbade flying creatures of all kinds from flying while wearing medium or heavy armor or carrying a medium or heavy load. Such wording does not exist in PF. What if a DM decides to use Raptorans (Races of the Wild). Under 3.5 rules, they would not be capable of flight with medium or heavy armor. In PF, those rules are unclear. What about a Half-Celestial Human? What about a Half-Dragon Ogre? Can they wear medium or heavy armor and still fly around? The rules don't seem to indicate.

The quote on p. 162 mentions barding, not armor. While all barding is armor, not all armor is barding. Therefore, it is not necessarily saying that creatures that don't wear barding cannot fly with medium and heavy armor on. In fact:

Angel, Solar

The Solar Angel is flying around with a 150 fly speed while wearing +5 full plate.

So, to reiterate, is there anyone who thinks that this works as scarymike's "Devil's Advocate" argument suggests? Namely, someone who is proficient with the base armor treats the ACP as reduced by 3, but someone non-proficient treats the ACP as per the normal armor?

Quote:

Nonproficient with Armor Worn: A character who wears armor and/or uses a shield with which he is not proficient takes the armor's (and/or shield's) armor check penalty on attack rolls as well as on all Dexterity- and Strength-based ability and skill checks. The penalty for nonproficiency with armor stacks with the penalty for shields.

The only extra penalty you take is to attack rolls. If you don't care about a -1 for all attack rolls you can skip the feat.

The specific issue which prompted this whole debate is, my character has the Armor Expert Trait (which doesn't check for proficiency). It says that the armor check penalty with any sort of armor worn is reduced by one. I took this to mean that mithral armor, for my rogue, could be worn with a 0 armor check penalty, so it has no negatives for my character.

tos_shai_hulud wrote:

Ooh, one more thought in that regard... A character could craft a Colossal weapon (a weapon made for a Colossal character). Such a weapon would be 16x heavier than a weapon for a Medium character. He can make it masterwork. Once it is complete, assuming he is a wizard, he can make it permanently Shrunken. It instantly drops to a Medium-sized weapon, weighing 1/4000th of its original weight. Example: A greatsword for a Colossal creature would weigh 8x16 = 128 lbs. Permanency + Shrink Object makes it 0.032 lbs. Since it was nonmagical when shrunk, it can now be enchanted. The spell only checks for a valid target when it is cast. Now that the magic is present, you can make the sword magical without effecting the Shrink Object spell. So, for only 7,500 extra gold, you can have a weapon that is virtually weightless.

At least, that was the 3.5 ruling for how spellcasting worked (where it only checked for a valid target when casting). I dunno if PF updated that. I haven't seen an update for that particular 3.5 ruling.

For the record... thank you. I am totally doing this for my next swashbuckler's rapier, getting brilliant energy enchanted on it, taking deflect arrows (as long as I have an empty hand I will fluff it being done by the blade thank you very much! lol), and call it a lightsaber xD

You know, I don't know why weapons came to mind first? A wizard, powerful enough to make Shrink Item permanent, must be at least 11th level. That would mean that he is powerful enough for Fabricate. The density of steel is approximately 490 pounds per cubic foot. That means that one cubic foot would be more than enough for full plate armor, colossal-sized, to the exact measurements of the intended recipient, just increased to Colossal-size. Since full plate armor weighs 50 lbs, at colossal size, it would weigh 50x2^4 = 50x16 = 800 lbs. This means two cubic feet of steel is enough to create the armor. One Fabricate, one craft check, one Shrink Item, and Permanency, and you have a set of full plate armor weighing a tenth of a pound for a medium creature. Half that for a small creature! I can't even see that encumbering someone!!! Why would full plate armor that weighs only 1/10th of a pound encumber someone at all?

For anyone who is discussing that Lemures are "intelligent enough", I don't understand. Lemures are not "intelligente enough". In fact, they specifically have no intelligence whatsoever. They are mindless. A command, in Infernal or any other language, would be carried out as though by a skeleton or a golem. It is not interpretable. If there can be an interpretation, the most literal interpretation is all that can be followed. Why? Because it is not intelligent enough to figure out a different interpretation.

That's how I rule mindless, anyway.

James Risner wrote:

Kevin Andrew Murphy wrote:

And as I said, 1/4 is fine for weight if you're assuming the same fabric/materials, but there are some discrepancies because they generally use the same buttons for shirts regardless of whether you're large or small.

Except for in the real world, children shirts identical to an adult Men's shirt isn't even less weight? Much less 1/4 of the Men's shirt weight?

Oh, sorry, this is D&D. Reality doesn't matter, gotcha. So in D&D 1/4 weight is fine, while in reality the Small Halfling wouldn't get a break on gear weights.

Honestly, I think there's something funky going on with the adult shirt weighing slightly less than the kid version. Either the adult one is made of thinner fabric, or else they just got the weights wrong.

There is a difference between clothing for children and clothing for adults. Children need more warmth than adults. An adult halfling is NOT the same as a human child, even if they may be similar in height.

The issue seems to be with size categories, not weights. Because of this abstraction, some realism is lost. How we deal with the lost realism should therefore be consistent. Size category changes should all have a consistent factor of change. Heights always change by a factor of 2. Widths change by a factor of 2. Depths change by a factor of 2. This means that volume changes by a factor of 8. Since density is constant, weight should change by a constant factor of 8. This would offer the most consistency, even if the specifics might be a bit off in a few cases.

Even if the factor of 8 is not acceptable, and some modicum of realism is intended (even though it doesn't make sense in most cases), then some form of consistency should be added so that when you are dealing with differences in size categories, you have a method of judging items of different sizes.

Honestly, the whole weapon size/damage/etc really torqued me off in 3.5.

I ended up going through the weapons and redoing the size/weight/damage ratios so that it all fit into a nice neat matrix.

Take a Large dagger, it does the same damage weighs the same as a Medium short sword which weighs the same and does the same damage as a Small Long Sword which weighs the same and does the same damage as a Tiny Great Sword.

I had to, I had one person playing a half-giant with a sizing sword, and another character with a belt of sizing (whatever it's called) and another who was casting Enlarge on himself. So the weapons would go up and down like yo-yo's and the weights would change haphazardly and damages and it was just a mess. You'd start with two weapons of different sizes that were the same weapon, and the Large one would shrink and the small one would grow and they'd have different damages. Or worse, the large would shrink and the medium would grow and the grown medium would do less damage than the large used to, and the shrunk large would do different damage (1d12 vs 2d6). Weird. My players loved it once it was fixed, all you had to know was 'What does my weapon type do as a Medium weapon'. Then size it up or down appropriately (1, 1d2, 1d3, 1d4, 1d6, 1d8, 1d10, 2d6, 3d6, 4d6, 6d6, 8d6, etc).

Yes! This would be perfect! Any chance you could post that here? Maybe someone from Paizo can take a look and decide if they want to implement your weight progressions.

Ooh, one more thought in that regard... A character could craft a Colossal weapon (a weapon made for a Colossal character). Such a weapon would be 16x heavier than a weapon for a Medium character. He can make it masterwork. Once it is complete, assuming he is a wizard, he can make it permanently Shrunken. It instantly drops to a Medium-sized weapon, weighing 1/4000th of its original weight. Example: A greatsword for a Colossal creature would weigh 8x16 = 128 lbs. Permanency + Shrink Object makes it 0.032 lbs. Since it was nonmagical when shrunk, it can now be enchanted. The spell only checks for a valid target when it is cast. Now that the magic is present, you can make the sword magical without effecting the Shrink Object spell. So, for only 7,500 extra gold, you can have a weapon that is virtually weightless.

At least, that was the 3.5 ruling for how spellcasting worked (where it only checked for a valid target when casting). I dunno if PF updated that. I haven't seen an update for that particular 3.5 ruling.

What's more, a halfling cleric wielding a greatsword is holding a 4 pound greatsword. He casts Righteous Might. He is now holding a 32 pound greatsword. He swings that greatsword around for 2d6 damage. His sword gets sundered, so he drops it, and runs over to the wall where there just so happens to be a medium-sized greatsword. It weighs 8 pounds. He picks it up, and swings it around for 2d6 damage. That doesn't seem right to me, yet the text for Righteous Might says that objects the cleric was wearing/holding when he gained the size category increases in size and weight just as the cleric himself had, so it works out. It just seems wrong.

I think that PF should update this to be consistent. There should be one rule governing weights so that if you want an item in a smaller size category, you can apply some formula to it, and voila! You have the item in a smaller size category.

tos_shai_hulud wrote:

Saddles are in that list. They don't have any note indicating a change in weight when being used by a creature of a different size category. They don't seem to change weight.

p 162 makes two notes: 1) Large Barding weighs double Medium armour, 2) Medium Barding weights the same as Medium armour, 3) An Animal wearing barding can only carry the rider and normal saddlebags, nothing more.

p 151 makes one note: 1) Armour for medium weights the amount listed, but small weight half as much.

So by the rules (RAW) your Small Barding "Full Plate" weights half Medium Armour Full Plate.

Barding is not a saddle. The definition of barding:

This means that even if you have barding for your mount, you still need a saddle. This saddle is separate from the barding, and since a saddle is decidedly not armor, it falls into the category of items that have weights separate from armor. Since there is no superscript indicating that it has a different weight, it must weigh a constant amount, regardless of the size of the creature to be ridden.

As for the multipliers:

8x is for the weight of the creature, bigger creatures weight a lot more.

2x for Large items shouldn't weight 8x because a larger sword isn't going to be twice as thick, and might not even be twice as long.

4x for Medium vs Small gear also makes sense.

At least these three make sense to me, and a uniform "one size fits all" if you will size-weight multiplier doesn't make sense.

Your argument lacks consistency at every level. Look at Shrink Item. An item drops four size categories. It's weight drops to 1/4000th of its original weight. Anyone, what's the quartic root of 4000? It is just over 7.9, and in fact rounds to 8. That means that 8x is the standard for items. So, a halfling (whose clothes weigh 1/4 of a medium creature's clothes), uses Righteous Might to become Medium. His clothes now weigh TWICE AS MUCH as clothes that he could just put on while Medium-sized.

tos_shai_hulud wrote:

Let's say that a Jermlaine (from MM II 3.5) wants to ride atop his Dire Rat friend.

Also keep in mind that a tiny creature only threatens creatures in its own square. That means that a tyny or smaller creature riding a small or larger mount will need a lance in order to attack.

The lance does nothing for a tiny creature. A lance doubles your range. Zero times two happens to be... zero.

tos_shai_hulud wrote:

1) Let's say that a Jermlaine (from MM II 3.5) wants to ride atop his Dire Rat friend.

2) The Riding Saddle in the equipment section doesn't seem to change size with the size of the mount.

3) Is the riding saddle for a Dire Rat still 25 lbs?

4) Or since it would be an exotic saddle ... would it be 30 lbs?

1) Dire Rat is Small? If so, yes a Tiny can Ride a Small.

2) It doesn't magically resize, no.

3) I'm pretty sure Small items weight half of Medium items, so it would be 12.5 pounds. Look at the equipment armour section for a footnote detailing this.

4) Exotic costs 5 lb more? If so, 2.5 lb more for small.

If you notice, all of the equipment after Armor has a note indicating whether it has a smaller size for a smaller creature or not. For instance, a backpack has a superscript 1 next to its weight, indicating that for a small creature, it weighs ¼ as much as it does for a medium creature. Saddles are in that list. They don't have any note indicating a change in weight when being used by a creature of a different size category. They don't seem to change weight. The same 25 pound saddle is used for the heavy warhorse as is used for the dire rat mount.

Edit: Additionally, what is with size changes and weights? A character who gains a size category becomes 8x his former weight. A weapon made for a character one size category larger is only 2x the weight? And mundane equipment/clothing for a medium character is 4x the weight as for a small character? Why not have some modicum of consistency for these weight factors?

Let's say that a Jermlaine (from MM II 3.5) wants to ride atop his Dire Rat friend. He wants a Riding Saddle. The Riding Saddle in the equipment section doesn't seem to change size with the size of the mount. Is the riding saddle for a Dire Rat still 25 lbs? Or since it would be an exotic saddle (so that the Jermlaine could strap himself on while the rat climbs) would it be 30 lbs? I don't think a dire rat can move 30 lbs... I mean, it is a small creature. That seems a bit exorbitant to me...

Even 25 lbs for a riding dog seems too much for a medium-sized saddle. Is there any ruling on this? It is the same in 3.5, although I had never played a medium-sized mounted character before, so I never knew about it.

To extend the implausible situation to the bounds of incredulity, suppose on of those classes grants Shield Focus as a bonus feat, even if you don't meet the prerequisite.

If that happens, then the 8th level player with +0 BAB deserves Greater Shield Focus, even if he doesn't have the +1 BAB!

Suppose there are 8 different "base" classes released in PF splatbooks, that each have medium or slow BAB progression, and that count levels in those classes for the purpose of qualifying for fighter feats.

Then it would be quite possible to have 8 "virtual fighter" levels while still having +0 BAB.

Is the situation unlikely? Yes.

Is it impossible? No.

Shield Focus is a prerequisite for Greater Shield Focus. Shield Focus requires a BAB of +1. That means that a +1 BAB is already a necessary condition for Greater Shield Focus, without it being a prerequisite.

I don't know, I see where you're coming from, but it sounds to me kinda like the guys in 3.5 who would argue that by RAW being dead didn't mean anything because the death rules weren't spelled out, so once you die just continue adventuring.

I'm not saying that your interpretation is a wrong one, but just because something isn't stated doesn't mean that it can't exist. but thanks for the quotes. as far as it goes I do think that it was a mistake.

Yeah, for instance, the player who tries to say, "I have a 1 Charisma, so my -5 Charisma Modifier must get added as a bonus. Since the Deflection bonus must Increase my AC (according to the text that meabolex posted), the only possible solution is to take the absolute value of the Charisma modifier in order to make it a bonus! Voila! All of a sudden, the paladin's abysmal charisma turns into a huge boon! So, I agree with the OP. This is an error that should be fixed. There are too many ways to misinterpret the text if it is not standardized.