udalrich's page

Playing first edition, a cleric casts antimagic field. On his next turn, he attacks an enemy dwarf, rolling a natural 20. Can a cleric ally of the dwarf, who is completely outside the AM field, use divine interference to force the cleric to reroll the attack?

I am looking for a strict rules interpretation and what would be reasonable for the GM to rule.

Since divine interference requires sacrificing a spell, it seems reasonable that anti-magic field should negate it. The feat does not give an Ex/Su/Sp rating, but that is something that a feat creator would not neccesarily think about.

Benefit: As an immediate action, when an enemy within 30 feet hits an ally with an attack, you can sacrifice a prepared divine spell or (if you are a spontaneous caster) an unused spell slot and make the enemy reroll the attack roll. The second attack roll takes a penalty equal to the level of the spell you sacrifice. You must sacrifice a spell of 1st-level or higher to use this ability. Whether or not the second attack is successful, you cannot use this effect on the same creature again for 1 day.

In my game, I need an NPC party made of fey. For game reasons, they need to be creatures that started out not very powerful (about CR 3 or less and CR 1/4 is fine) and have grown powerful through adventuring.

They will be fighting the PCs at level 16 or higher, so I expect that most of them have a lot of class levels, although an advanced form with a lot of extra natural hit dice is possible, if that development is plausible on the timescale of PC leveling.

A mixed race party is also possible and probably likely. (Good fighter races rarely are also good caster races.) There will definitely be a straight up fight, although some previous indirect interaction is possible.

What would work to make a good party?

Fine print: I am running the original pathfinder, not the playtest. 3rd party sources are fine.

Does the ability to reflect a Phantasmal Killer spell back on the caster work with any type of telepathic link, or only if you have an inherent telepathy ability or the helm?

A player of mine is asking about using it with Telepathic Bond. I am not sure how they plan to make this work, since Telepathic Bond requires a willing target, but I suspect they will be able to find a way. (My first guess would involve enchantment spells.)

I can see either way applying: you do not have the ability named telepathy, but you do have the ability to communicate telepathically.

The last session ended mid-combat with much of the party grappled. (Yay Black Tentacles.) They are looking for ways, beyond Dim Door, Grease and Aid Another, for one character to help another get out of a grapple.

One concept that came up is Drag. One PC would be attempting to drag a willing PC out of the area of the grapple. The rules do not seem to support this, although it does make sense.

Does anyone know of optional rules or common house rules (or even official rules that I am overlooking) to let this work?

Let's say that your are a succubus , leading a demon horde that is invading the city. You learn that the PCs are leading a party of about a dozen heroes to assault your headquarters in the sewers, and that they are about two hours away. They have shown themselves compentent, and you are worried that they might be able to defeat your plan.

You have access to three Major Creation spells. What do you create?

I have a player asking about using Use Magic Device with Mnemonic Vestment to cast a spell that is not on his spell list with a UMD check.

The relevant parts of the rules are

I don't think it will work for a Sorcerer casting a Paladin spell, since UMD says nothing about changing the arcane/divine nature of the spell, while the vestment explicitly requires that to match.

I am less clear about a Sorcerer casting a Bard spell. The arcane/divine problem is not present. One one hand, UMD says "as if you had a particular spell on your class spell list". On the other hand, this is talking about directly casting it from the scroll and explicitly extends it to only spell completion items. Since the vestment does not consume the scroll, it is not a spell completion item.

If it does not work by the rules, would a house rule to allow it to work be a bad idea? I suspect that allowing arcane users access to other arcane spells would not be a serious problem, but I can see arcane/divine combos being problematic. Mixing 3/4 and full caster spell lists could also be a problem: I'm not sure that I want to see a Magus casting Righteous Might or Harm, even if it is only once a day.

What sort of defenses would a mid to high level NPC have against assassination?

To provide context, they live in a large city and are among the leaders of the city. The city is has a definite Lawful Evil bend, and the laws are written so that, if you are powerful enough, you can get away with almost anything. It is less that, if you killed your most powerful enemy, that you would be acquitted in court, but the trial would be delayed, and then key evidence would be declared inadmissible. The trial might never happen, or the prosecution might be hindered enough that a conviction would be unlikely. Or you might offer a scapegoat and have him convicted instead. (Even better if you make another of your enemies the scapegoat.)

The city runs on an ever shifting set of alliances, both between equals and patronage style. As a result, having several lower level NPCs to help with the defenses is perfectly reasonable.

I've already though of Alarm spells and Contingency+Defensive/Escape spell. However, Dim Door still lets them bring in the caster and three others. The others should get an attack in the surprise round, which can be rather debilitating.

The PC's in my game are in a lawful neutral city. The powers that be have had decades to work on the laws of the city, with the result being that the law is generally ambiguous and/or contradictory. The rules for collecting evidence have been similarly twisted. The end result is, if you are sufficiently powerful, you can generally get charges against you dismissed by having a favorable judge either rule the evidence inadmissible, or that what you did was not actually against the law.

Similar techniques are often effective at getting someone less powerful than you convicted if you desire to exert your influence against them.

The PC's are about to attempt to take down an operation of questionable legality, and will want to not just go in and kill everyone (as that could lead to murder charges against them) but apprehend and turn them over to the authorities for prosecution. This will require them to collect evidence for the future trial and not break any of the many rules in the process. They have a copy of the rules, which are large, complicated and contradictory. ("Section 6.3.7.4.3 says you must do what section 8.4.5.3.2a appears to forbid.")

What are some good ideas on how to do this?

Is there any logic to the cost of poisons? For 75 gp, you can get a dose of Drow poison, which knocks the target unconscious for at least a minute (i.e., the rest of the combat) and possibly for several hours. For an 90 gp (20% more cost), you can get small centipede poison, which has a DC that is 2 lower and does all of 1 Dex damage. The only advantage seems to be that it has a higher frequency.

Going from deathblade to wyvern poison almost doubles the cost (1800 to 3000), drops the DC by 3 and increase the effect from 1d3 Con to 1d4 Con. Given the drop in DC, I'd expect the cheaper one to inflict more damage in general.

Aside from the apparent lack of logic in the price, does the price generally seem high? A one shot item the duplicates the effect of Ray of Sickening would have a cost of 50 gp (less than any injury poison), but would act like -4 to all of the physical stats for most purposes. (Sickened is -2 to most rolls.)

If I don't object to the PC's using poison, would it be reasonable to lower the cost of poison? If so, how far?

I was looking through the words of power last night, and I found something that looks wrong.

There are words which are clearly intended to replicate the effects of Raise Dead and (True) Resurrection. However, I did not see a costly material component.

Did I miss something, or does coming back from the dead now just cost a spell slot from your friendly local wordcasting cleric?

I recently realized that many levels from now, it would make sense for my players to encounter an enemy party that covers the traditional party roles (at least for combat) but consisted entirely of dragons.

Has anyone done an NPC party of dragons?

This would look like a typical adventuring party, except that it consists of dragons instead of PC races. There would be a tank, a healer, an arcane caster, scout and someone to generate DPR.

The immediate concerns that I can think of are these.

• Dragons are designed to be effective as a solo encounter. Will 4-5 at once have a synergistic effect that makes them much stronger than expected?
  
• Are there classes that do not work well when applied to a dragon?
  

There would be, for example, 4-5 saves against fearful presence and probably the same number of breath weapons in the first round. They would be lower since I'm probably using dragons with a CR 4 lower than what I would for a single encounter, but that's still a lot of chances to roll a 1 (or even a 5).

I think a dragon sorcerer and a dragon "fighter" would be effective. I less certain how well they would be able to handle the healer and scout rolls. Healing spells would be several levels behind, since a significant part of their CR comes from being a dragon.

I'm thinking about this now since this is also something that would be foreshadowed long before it actually happens.

Anybody have experience with this?

An oracle with the blind curse has her vision limited to 30 or 60 feet but gains darkvision.

Deepsight increases the range of your vision from 60 feet to 120 feet.

Is there a reason this combination should not work?

The thematic reason that I can see for not allowing it is that most creatures with darkvision can see with normal vision for as far as line of sight exists. An oracle can only see 30 or 60 feet with any type of vision. The feat is not only extending the range of her darkvision, but extending the range of all her vision.

I think that RAW, the combination works, so I'm more looking for RAI and/or balance considerations.

I've seen the FAQ button on threads, so I assumed that there was a FAQ about pathfinder specific questions like "how does stealth work in this situation?".

However, the links at the top of the page seem to only point to a general FAQ about things like "what is pathfinder" and "how do I use the messages boards".

Is there a link somewhere that I'm missing?

This came up last session, and we were not certain how it should be resolved.

The enemy drank a potion of invisibility and started to flee. The rogue made her perception check to determine what square the enemy was in and attempted to grapple. The rogue made the CMB check and passed the 50% miss chance, so the enemy was grappled.

On her turn, the enemy tried to escape the grapple. This is normally a CMB check, which is based on attack stats. Should the escape attempt break invisibility?

You are basically making an attack roll, so there is an argument that it should break invisibility. OTOH, you are not going to harm anyone (even indirectly), so there is an argument that it should not. Does it make a difference if you Escape Artist instead of CMB?

How do you handle the following situation?

The PCs are talking with a group of NPCs. The NPCs are not allies, and the two groups have no strong inhibitions about fighting each other. However, at the moment, they are talking. At some point, somebody decides that talking is not going to work and takes an offensive action.

Clearly, we need to roll initiative, but how do you handle the actions of the character that started? Everyone is aware of everyone else, so it seems that there should not be a surprise round. On the other hand, since only that character knew what he was going to do in advance, it seems that he should have some advantage towards going first.

I can think of several ways to handle this.

1. Since the character was the only one aware that the situation had turned violent, he is the only one to be considered "aware" and can act in the surprise round.

1a. Other characters can make a sense motive to determine if they realize what the first character is about to do. I can see this being opposed by bluff (if the character tries to hide what he is doing) or something like dex + BAB (the character is skilled enough to quickly act before others have time to realize what she is doing).

2. Combat starts with a normal round but the character gets a bonus (+2, +5, +10?) to initiative, so is more likely to go first.

How do other people handle this?

I finally got around to looking at my GM screen, since I'm about to start running a pathfinder game. It looks to me like there's an error in the armor class modifiers. So I have a question and an error report.

Is there an errata document or thread for the GM screen? I searched, but could not find any. The product thread itself was full of people raving about the card stock and discussing portait vs landscape, so if it's discussed there, it got lost in the reviews.

Under Armor Class Modifiers, a grappling defender is listed as having a +0 AC modifier, with a footnote that he loses his Dex bonus. That is a 3.5 rule, not Pathfinder. Above that in the Attack Roll Modifiers, grappling is not included (which could just be due to the limited space). Under common conditions, grappling is listed with what appears to be the correct description.

A creature with tremorsense is sensitive to vibrations in the ground and can automatically pinpoint the location of anything that is in contact with the ground. Aquatic creatures with tremorsense can also sense the location of creatures moving through water. The ability's range is specified in the creature's descriptive text.

It seems logical that you would have to be touching the ground to use tremorsense, yet that is not states. Would an oracle with Lure of the Heavens (who can levitate six inches off the ground at will) and Tremorsense (from the Deaf curse) need to be on the ground to use tremorsense?

It does not seem right to have a creature using tremorsense while 20 feat in the air, but it also seems wrong to say that two class abilities that were not obviously constructed as an either/or choice can't be used at the same time.

The durations of multiple effects are tracked separately. See the Effect Word section for more information on adding multiple effect words to a single spell.

Duration: This is the duration of the spell. If a spell has more than one effect word, the shorter duration is used

By the first rule, if I cast a spell that has two effect words, one with a duration of 1 round and one with a duration of 1 minute, the effect of the second word lasts for one minute. By the second rule, the effect of the second word lasts for one round.

This looks like a failed attempt to restate the same rule in two locations, not an instance of one being general and the other being specific.

I confused as to why you would ever use the personal target.

Personal
Level all 0; Cost 0
Range no range

Single
Level all 0; Cost 0
Range close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)

Single is available at the same level and the same cost, and gives you the option of casting the spell on someone else. At least in the playtest, every word that allows the personal target also allows the single target. So anything that you can do with personal, you can also do with single and you gain additional options.

It would make sense to me if single had a higher cost. One of the limiting features when discussing spell balance is that a spell can be somewhat (sometimes much) stronger if the range is personal rather than touch. (Consider what level a touch True Strike or Shield spell should be.)

Is there something I am missing?

One problem with many offensive magic items is that the DC is to low to be useful for the price. For example, a Crystal Ball costs 42,000 gp, but a DC 16 Will save negates. If you spend 1/4 of your wealth on this, you are at about 14th level. At that level, even characters with poor Will saves can usually make a DC 16 save.

The standard formula for this (use Heighten spell to increase the spell level in the calculation) provides a slow increase for a lot of money. DC 17 (based on a 5th level spell) costs 9*5/7*4=1.6 times as much, so +1 DC for a 60% increase in price. The next increase (to DC 19) is another 46% increase. At 23%/+1 DC, I suppose it might be considered a bargain. However, 115k gp is one quarter the wealth of a 18th level character and the targets will save has probably also gone up by almost as much.

I am contemplating the following house rule.

Magic Item DC: When creating a magic item, the DC to resist its effects can be increased. Each +1 to the DC adds 5% to the cost of the item.

Applied to the above crystal ball, a crystal ball with a DC of 26 (+10 above normal) would have a cost of 63k gp: +10 DC = +50% cost, 42k + 50% = 63k.

My reasoning for the cost is as follows. Increasing the DC is most valuable for save-negates effects. Each +1 to the DC is an additional +5% chance to fail the save, so the value of the item should only actually increase by 5%.

This could be applied to scrolls, but I think I would want the caster to be able to cast that spell with the given DC, similar to how the caster currently must have a high enough mental stat. For example, if Willy the Wizard has an Int of 15 and Spell Focus(Evocation), he could read a scroll of Slow with a DC of 15 or less, but could read a scroll of Fireball with a DC of 16. (As with any scroll, it only matters if the spell is on his spell list, not in his spell book.)

The logic there is that a DC 16 Fireball is a more complicated spell than a DC 15 Fireball, much like a 4th level spell is a more complicated spell than a 3rd level spell. If you are not "smart enough" (or wise enough or nice enough) to cast the more complicated spell, neither can you manage to cast it from a scroll.

Thoughts?

I am trying to find some alternate rules that I remember seeing a while ago, that I am pretty sure came from SKR.

It started with the question: why does almost everything in cold environments have cold-based attacks, when they local fauna are resistant/immune to cold? A winter wolf breathing on a yeti is just wasting his time, since the yeti will ignore the cold damage. Any creature that evolved a fire-based attack would have a great advantage. So why aren't there any?

He then went on to suggestion some rule alternations that result in it being logical that creatures in cold environments have cold based attacks.

I've looked in my bookmarks and at seankreynolds.com, but I can't find it. Does this sound familiar to anyone? Anybody know where it is?

One problem with making a character who specializes in thrown weapons is that at high level, you need to purchase a lot of magic weapons. An 11th level fighter could throw eight knives in a full attack: 3 from iterative attacks, 3 from the TWF tree, 1 from rapid shot and 1 from haste. Even if you are only expecting combat to last three rounds, that requires 24 weapons, so if the two-handed fighter can afford a +5 weapon, you can only afford 25 +1 weapons.

The returning enchantment helps with this some. However, it means that you cannot move and would still need 8 weapons. Also, arguably, you can only catch two of them when they return, which makes it even less effective. Essentially, it is a +1 price tax on all your weapons so that you can sort of use the style. (This is on top of the feat tax for Quick Draw).

To resolve this, it seemed that someone would develop an item that lets thrown weapons actually work at high levels. The basic idea is a sheath places an enchantment on the weapon, and causes it to return to the sheath immediately after it is thrown. This allows you to only need a single magic item, much like the other fighting styles.

Master Thrower's Sheath
This sheath adjusts to hold any thrown weapon. The sheath can be enchanted as if it was a thrown weapon. If it is enchanted, the enchantment is granted to any weapon that is placed in it, but fades after one round or when another weapon is placed in the sheath. The enchantment from the sheath replaces any existing enchantment on the weapon. If the weapon is thrown while it holds the enchantment, the weapon returns to the sheath immediately after the attack is resolved. This refreshes the enchantment and allows the wearer to immediately draw the weapon and throw it again.

Price: 1000 gp plus the cost of any weapon enchantments
Slot: None
Weight: 1 lb
Aura: Conjuration plus any aura from the weapon enchantments
CL: 5 (or minimum required for the weapon enchantments)
Construction: Arcane mark, Instant Summons plus any for the weapon enhancements.

I expect this to be a must-have item for a throwing build, but I still want it to be fairly cheap, since IMHO the current rules don't work for a throwing build. That is also why it is slotless: I don't want to impose a slot tax on throwers.

How does this look?

Is it possible to use UMD to recharge a staff? I could possibly see it coming under "Emulate a class feature", but I feel like it is closer to "Emulate and use a class feature", which isn't an option for UMD.

Assuming you can't do it by the RAW but wanted to houserule a way to do it, what would you set the DC at? Something like 20 + caster level or 15 + 3*spell level seems reasonable to me. I like the last one, since it means that rogues can't keep up with actual casters in their ability to recharge a staff, but can still do it.

I just realized how the changes to Dispel Magic affect Permanency.

In 3.x, Permanency was generally a bad idea for PCs, because they were likely to get hit with a dispel that would end the spell, causing the XP to disappear.

Since Dispel Magic now stops after one spell (or a few for Greater Dispel Magic), the Permanent spell is likely to last for several levels, especially if cast just before leveling. Assuming the target normally has at least one long duration spell affecting them, Dispel Magic will probably either remove the other spell or completely fail. Only when the Dispel misses the other spell by the difference in levels with the Permanent spell go down.

I wonder if Jason et al actively thought about it, or if it's just a happy, unintended consequence.