Planar Ally in PFS


Pathfinder Society

Liberty's Edge 5/5

I had a question about the Planar Ally line of spells in PFS.

The spell description reads:

SRD wrote:
By casting this spell, you request your deity to send you an outsider (of 6 HD or less) of the deity's choice. If you serve no particular deity, the spell is a general plea answered by a creature sharing your philosophical alignment. If you know an individual creature's name, you may request that individual by speaking the name during the spell (though you might get a different creature anyway).

Are there any restrictions on what outsiders can be called by a player in PFS? What about templated creatures (for example, the Celestial template reads that a creature with the template can be called by Planar Ally). Could a player therefore request (for example) a Celestial animal or a Half-Celestial Unicorn? Should I as a GM allow basically any reasonable outsider to a player?

I was thinking that I would basically allow the player to call whatever outsider they desired within the limits of the spell, their deity, and alignment, but I was wondering what others had done in a Society environment. I figured that the power of the spells would be balanced by the cost.


Here's a related discussion (dealing with the Call Celestial Ally class feature):

http://paizo.com/forums/dmtz4481?Call-Celestial-Ally

I believe the official answer from the Campaign Coordinator was "**eyeroll** +1". :-)

But the general tone of the discussion seemed to be that templates are a bit of an iffy subject.

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 ***

Actually, I was discussing this very spell recently, and technically, it wouldn't work for PFS. The reason -- none of the creature in any of the books is stated legal in the Additional Resources. Of course, technically, the same argument could be applied to any Summoning spell, although, we all know that the lists in the CRB are legal per RAI. Just thought that was interesting.

The biggest problem with Planar Ally is that there is a GM adjudication expected as to the payment for said services. What is an "especially hazardous" task vs. just a "normally hazardous" one? Or even a "nonhazardous" one? And what happens if the task changes after the fact? Will you be able to pay the now more expensive fee?

We could always hand-waive the cost as well do that with other requirements in the game, but that makes the spell very cost effective and would result in clerics running around with hordes of archons.

Dark Archive

Tristan Windseeker wrote:

I had a question about the Planar Ally line of spells in PFS.

The spell description reads:

SRD wrote:
By casting this spell, you request your deity to send you an outsider (of 6 HD or less) of the deity's choice. .

Restrictions on what outsiders can be called by a player in PFS? Should I as a GM allow basically any reasonable outsider to a player?

I cast it almost every game I play my 11th level cleric, I pull a Hound Archon. I sacrifice some item we find on our enemies body. The creature I am pulling is really strait forward and doesn't require a long stop to look at the monster manual. I have never had a DM question my choice of outsider. Once you confuse things with templates I think it starts going down hill. Pick an outsider which matches the deities alignment and keep it simple. I have been questioned on using loot which we find but I use the argument that we use potions and scrolls why cant we use other magic items.

I DM too, I would suggest keep it simple, but don't nerf the spell.

4/5 ***

Assuming an 11th level CN cleric of a CE god, one could summon a glabrezu (highest CR monster of 12HD or less on the planar ally list) and have it cast wish. Note that it is called rather than summoned so it's spells do not automatically end if it goes away and since wish is an SLA it has no material component...

I thought this sort of thing was fixed somewhere in the Pathfinder book but I'm unable to find it at the moment.

Dark Archive

Pirate Rob wrote:

Assuming an 11th level CN cleric of a CE god, one could summon a glabrezu (highest CR monster of 12HD or less on the planar ally list) and have it cast wish. Note that it is called rather than summoned so it's spells do not automatically end if it goes away and since wish is an SLA it has no material component...

I thought this sort of thing was fixed somewhere in the Pathfinder book but I'm unable to find it at the moment.

Then the Glabrezu kills the rest of the party...

Ya the players have to do the DM a favor and not do anything over the top. Don't give the GM a good reason to give you a yound non house trained Foo dog.

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 ***

Pirate Rob wrote:
and have it cast wish

I would rule against the wish. I would consider it a spellcasting service which would be covered by the rule...

"Spells that are 7th level or higher are not available from spellcasting services." (GtPSOP p.20)

Liberty's Edge 4/5

Good point Bob.
Also I would say that it is a real expensive service. This is a once a month thing he can do, so he's not just going to agree for some cheap two bit iteam.

4/5 ***

I suppose it is a spell casting service, good catch.

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 ***

Chot wrote:
I cast it almost every game I play my 11th level cleric, I pull a Hound Archon. I sacrifice some item we find on our enemies body

Can you clarify how you use the spell a bit? It might help people to adjudicate how it will work in their game.

What are you using the Hound Archon for? Considering the casting time is 10 minutes, it's not really a combat spell. So you have to cast it in advance. Then you have to declare the specific purpose for the contract. If you keep it around for the entire scenario, that would likely be in the long-term task category (6000gp) or at least the mid-term category (3000gp). Either option is relatively expensive for a one-shot consumable. If it is expected to fight in combat, that can easily be considered an especially hazardous task with the archon requesting an even higher payment. Do you actually role-play the negotiation or is it automatic by the GM?

Also, you mention sacrificing items you find on enemies. Does that mean you are delaying the payment to the archon? The spell specifically states the payment must occur prior to the task.

Finally, are you giving the archon the reward/treasure items found during the scenario with the thought that since items are not expended at the end of the scenario those items will still be there for the gold reward on the chronicle? That might apply to consumables, but I'm not sure it applies to permanent items.

4/5 ***

Another good catch, you seem to get sharper all the time Bob.

Dark Archive

Bob Jonquet wrote:
Chot wrote:
I cast it almost every game I play my 11th level cleric, I pull a Hound Archon. I sacrifice some item we find on our enemies body

Can you clarify how you use the spell a bit? It might help people to adjudicate how it will work in their game.

What are you using the Hound Archon for? Considering the casting time is 10 minutes, it's not really a combat spell. So you have to cast it in advance. Then you have to declare the specific purpose for the contract. If you keep it around for the entire scenario, that would likely be in the long-term task category (6000gp) or at least the mid-term category (3000gp). Either option is relatively expensive for a one-shot consumable. If it is expected to fight in combat, that can easily be considered an especially hazardous task with the archon requesting an even higher payment. Do you actually role-play the negotiation or is it automatic by the GM?

Also, you mention sacrificing items you find on enemies. Does that mean you are delaying the payment to the archon? The spell specifically states the payment must occur prior to the task.

Finally, are you giving the archon the reward/treasure items found during the scenario with the thought that since items are not expended at the end of the scenario those items will still be there for the gold reward on the chronicle? That might apply to consumables, but I'm not sure it applies to permanent items.

As noted it is not a combat spell. I usually cast it halfway through the mission. By then you the party usually has a fair bit of items that no one is using. For role playing when wouldn't a cleric call to his god to assist him with an ally. For items used and reward on chronicles players get the same amount if they use potions and scrolls or what ever else or not. I have seen no rule on Permanent items. If you don't kill a bad guy and he gets a way do you get less gold?? You may not have access to an item but gold wise do you get less?

Shadow Lodge 2/5

If you are in Absalom you can't take found gold and spend that on scrolls/ items/ etc, which you then use during the game and expect that gold is still available at the end of the chronicle. The way I see it, this shouldn't be any different. You are spending the gold and it should be deducted from your chronicle sheet.

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 ***

Driving an enemy away is equivalent to defeating them, kill or otherwise, so earning the reward is good either way. My concern is that intentionally giving away your treasure has a different feel to it. To be able to use that to cover the material cost of a spell is definitely an edgy thing that would be judged differently from table to table.

Even still, you are still in the 3K-6K cost range. Is you character paying that cost or is it being split between the party? At tier 10-11 that's roughly 40-80% of the entire reward. At lower tiers, it would be all or perhaps more than the reward. Makes casting it every time a bit problematic.

Perhaps your comment of "everytime" was an overstatement. Otherwise, I am not understanding how you can afford it.

Please understand, my main intent by my questions is to find a way for the spell to be viable. As it stands, my understanding of how it works will make it an extremely rare spell with a excessive material cost.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Bob Jonquet wrote:
Chot wrote:
I cast it almost every game I play my 11th level cleric, I pull a Hound Archon. I sacrifice some item we find on our enemies body

Can you clarify how you use the spell a bit? It might help people to adjudicate how it will work in their game.

What are you using the Hound Archon for? Considering the casting time is 10 minutes, it's not really a combat spell. So you have to cast it in advance. Then you have to declare the specific purpose for the contract. If you keep it around for the entire scenario, that would likely be in the long-term task category (6000gp) or at least the mid-term category (3000gp). Either option is relatively expensive for a one-shot consumable. If it is expected to fight in combat, that can easily be considered an especially hazardous task with the archon requesting an even higher payment. Do you actually role-play the negotiation or is it automatic by the GM?

Besides if you just need a Hound Archon for a quick fight, It's much more efficient to just cast Summon Monster IV.


0gre wrote:

If you are in Absalom you can't take found gold and spend that on scrolls/ items/ etc, which you then use during the game and expect that gold is still available at the end of the chronicle. The way I see it, this shouldn't be any different. You are spending the gold and it should be deducted from your chronicle sheet.

(For reference, here's the wording on using items during a scenario.)

Spoiler:
You may use items that you find during the
scenario until the end of the scenario, but you must
purchase the item when the scenario is over in order for
your character to be able to continue to use the item. This
rule is most applicable to consumables such as potions,
scrolls, and so on, but also applies to weapons, magic
items, and so on.

While I agree that giving away items in exchange for favours is probably not what was intended, I'm hard pressed to figure out how those words allow you to permanently consume a potion or sunder an item without affecting your treasure amount while simultaneously saying that giving away an item does affect your treasure amount.


LazarX wrote:


Besides if you just need a Hound Archon for a quick fight, It's much more efficient to just cast Summon Monster IV.

On top of that.. at 11th level a hound archon is more of a yay team kind of thing as opposed to something game changing.

As you said he could burn a similar level spell and get something in a round and then place them anywhere in range...

-James

Shadow Lodge 2/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.
hogarth wrote:
0gre wrote:

If you are in Absalom you can't take found gold and spend that on scrolls/ items/ etc, which you then use during the game and expect that gold is still available at the end of the chronicle. The way I see it, this shouldn't be any different. You are spending the gold and it should be deducted from your chronicle sheet.

(For reference, here's the wording on using items during a scenario.)

** spoiler omitted **

While I agree that giving away items in exchange for favours is probably not what was intended, I'm hard pressed to figure out how those words allow you to permanently consume a potion or sunder an item without affecting your treasure amount while simultaneously saying that giving away an item does affect your treasure amount.

How is it any different from selling items and buying spell components during a scenarion? Or selling items and buying a scroll?

Why can you trade a +1 flaming longsword for an outsiders service when you can't trade it to a wizard to cast stoneskin on the whole party for the encounter?

I just don't see where being able to trade goods for services from outsiders is ok but trading with real world merchants is not ok.

Liberty's Edge 4/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I have let PC's spend just gotten loot money, if they are in city. This would be the same, you are spending your just acquired treasure. This means that at the end you note it on "gold spent". Using a just acquired item worth say 10,000 would mean others can chip in to the cost if they want. At the end of each act, there is a gold piece total for each person based on selling the stuff, so from this I would deduct payment.


0gre wrote:
How is it any different from selling items and buying spell components during a scenario? Or selling items and buying a scroll?

I give up -- how is it? All of those things seem to be equally allowable (or disallowable) under the rules.

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 ***

hogarth, the part we are objecting to is the idea that you can take the treasure you have earned mid-way through the scenario, sell it, buy new stuff, and poof, the original wealth is restored at the end of the scenario. Essentially you get to double-dip some, or most, of your wealth.

The intention of allowing consumables not to be expended during the scenario was so that healing potions, etc could be added to help balance the challenge level of the encounters.

I am completely against the idea that an 11th level character can call a 12 HD ally, owing it 12,000gp in payment, but pay it entirely with "found" treasure without risking max gold at the end.


Bob Jonquet wrote:

hogarth, the part we are objecting to is the idea that you can take the treasure you have earned mid-way through the scenario, sell it, buy new stuff, and poof, the original wealth is restored at the end of the scenario. Essentially you get to double-dip some, or most, of your wealth.

The intention of allowing consumables not to be expended during the scenario was so that healing potions, etc could be added to help balance the challenge level of the encounters.

I am completely against the idea that an 11th level character can call a 12 HD ally, owing it 12,000gp in payment, but pay it entirely with "found" treasure without risking max gold at the end.

But they can get that same 12,000gp in gear sundered without risking max gold at the end?

It seems to be a double standard here.

Also you have to reach that 12,000gp before the end of the scenario, be able to have the time to cast the spell, etc... it seems fairly situational that the poster was doing to be able to get a relatively weak outsider to help them.

To sum up.. meh.

-James


Bob Jonquet wrote:
hogarth, the part we are objecting to is the idea that you can take the treasure you have earned mid-way through the scenario, sell it, buy new stuff, and poof, the original wealth is restored at the end of the scenario. Essentially you get to double-dip some, or most, of your wealth.

You're missing the point.

I understand the intention 100%.

I'm just pointing out that what the Guide says is vague.

There's no way to read that sentence (in isolation from whatever comments people may have made on this message board in the past) and somehow end up with the interpretation that:

(a) if items are permanently destroyed, that doesn't affect your treasure total, and yet

(b) if items are permanently given away, that does affect your treasure total.

It just doesn't say that. That's all I'm trying to say. Do you agree or disagree?

Shadow Lodge 2/5

hogarth wrote:

I understand the intention 100%.

I'm just pointing out that what the Guide says is vague.

I've always thought it was pretty clear that spending gold or treasure was always deducted but apparently it needs to be more specific.


0gre wrote:
hogarth wrote:

I understand the intention 100%.

I'm just pointing out that what the Guide says is vague.

I've always thought it was pretty clear that spending gold or treasure wasn't allowed but apparently it needs to be more specific.

That's a valid interpretation. But then how is drinking a potion not "spending treasure"?

Shadow Lodge 2/5

Converting to alternate goods/ services?

I was thinking of the more specific definition of 'spending' as in buying something.


I don't know. Maybe it's just me, but I just don't see the degree of subtlety in those two sentences to realise "Hey, if I give a potion to a hound archon and he drinks it, it doesn't cost me money. But if I give a potion to a hound archon and he doesn't drink it, it does cost me money."

Paizo Employee Director of Brand Strategy

3 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Staff response: no reply required. 2 people marked this as a favorite.

Whatever price a PC pays to bargain with an outsider needs to be listed as gold spent at the end of the scenario the same as if he had spent real gp out of his amassed wealth. Whether or not the equivalent of that gp value came from his own existing gear, an item found in the scenario, or his cache of coins is immaterial. You cannot use the proposed workaround to get free material components.

This will be clarified in the FAQ as soon as Mike gets back from vacation and we can put together clear language for it that covers all such loopholes.


Wow.

I guess I understand the intent here, and I see the potential for abuse if some kind of control is not put in place.

Fundamentally (like Hogarth), I simply don't understand the idea behind the ruling:

This is PFS.
I will find potions on enemies. They will often be cure potions. I can consume them at will, without hurting my final reward for the scenario. If I am lucky and I find a wand of cure, I can do the same thing, with NO penalty/cost.

If I find any other items of note, I can take them; I can wield/wear them, or I can just lug them around. If that's all I do, my final chronicle reward is unaffected. (heck, even if I defeat an enemy and DON'T take his loot, I can get full gold on my chronicle sheet)

If I choose to use them in casting a spell, or resale, or barter w/ NPC, or any other situation, I reduce my final chronicle gold amount.

I assume the INTENT is to allow parties without clerics/druids/oracles/witches/paladins/etc to function by providing some 'built-in' healing options. After all, we really do want to "play, play, play".

The result, however, is weird. And gets weirder when sunder and other methods of item destruction are concerned. If my party willingly destroys items, I get full reward... but only if that destruction is not for casting a spell, or some other 'gain'.

I hope there is a more 'polished' way to word the ruling, that makes this more clear/less seemingly arbitrary.

Marcus

Dark Archive

Mark Moreland wrote:

Whatever price a PC pays to bargain with an outsider needs to be listed as gold spent at the end of the scenario the same as if he had spent real gp out of his amassed wealth. Whether or not the equivalent of that gp value came from his own existing gear, an item found in the scenario, or his cache of coins is immaterial. You cannot use the proposed workaround to get free material components.

This will be clarified in the FAQ as soon as Mike gets back from vacation and we can put together clear language for it that covers all such loopholes.

The rules on this are vague and an update is needed. My 11th level cleric doesn't care much(I have only ever pulled hound archons which are not overly powerful). My 1st and 2nd level guys are more in a fix since they now cant use potions and found scrolls freely (they will cost at the end of an adventure).

Sovereign Court 5/5

Chot wrote:


... My 1st and 2nd level guys are more in a fix since they now cant use potions and found scrolls freely (they will cost at the end of an adventure).

That's not what he said.

He didn't say that consuming a chronicle item means you have to pay for it afterwards..

He only said that if during play you give away a chronicle item as payment for a spell cost, THEN you still have to pay for it. Seems that even in this situation, the item will still appear on the chronicle, if you want to buy ANOTHER one to keep.

Dark Archive

deusvult wrote:
Chot wrote:


... My 1st and 2nd level guys are more in a fix since they now cant use potions and found scrolls freely (they will cost at the end of an adventure).

That's not what he said.

He didn't say that consuming a chronicle item means you have to pay for it afterwards..

He only said that if during play you give away a chronicle item as payment for a spell cost, THEN you still have to pay for it. Seems that even in this situation, the item will still appear on the chronicle, if you want to buy ANOTHER one to keep.

Now it makes a difference on how it is consumed.

another spell dies in PFS (clerics are strong enough they don't need more help)

Liberty's Edge 5/5

hogarth wrote:
0gre wrote:

If you are in Absalom you can't take found gold and spend that on scrolls/ items/ etc, which you then use during the game and expect that gold is still available at the end of the chronicle. The way I see it, this shouldn't be any different. You are spending the gold and it should be deducted from your chronicle sheet.

(For reference, here's the wording on using items during a scenario.)

** spoiler omitted **

While I agree that giving away items in exchange for favours is probably not what was intended, I'm hard pressed to figure out how those words allow you to permanently consume a potion or sunder an item without affecting your treasure amount while simultaneously saying that giving away an item does affect your treasure amount.

As far as I'm concerned, you can't get something for nothing. If you give the sword away, then you aren't recovering it for treasure. This isn't really using it, its giving it up.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

Chot wrote:


Now it makes a difference on how it is consumed.
another spell dies in PFS (clerics are strong enough they don't need more help)

So to be clear, you are upset that you now have to actually pay the cost of the spell as it was designed and balanced?

What kind of entitled logic is that?

Paizo Employee Director of Brand Strategy

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite.

It's not just this spell that will be clarified. Any time you have a spell requiring an expensive material component, you need to pay for that component. That means if you find 250 gp worth of diamond dust in a dragon's lair, you can use it to cast stoneskin, but you don't magically get that diamond dust for free. It's value comes out of your cut of the loot at the end of the scenario.

If people don't like that spell components are treated differently than consumable magic items, then maybe we need to revisit how found consumable items are handled in the campaign. Regardless of where that discussion goes, spell components have costs for a reason; you can't circumvent that by using a campaign-specific rule meant for a different thing.

Liberty's Edge 4/5

This has made me wounder if people were doing the same for raise dead. pooling the ingame treasure to pay for and still getting it at the end. You may scoff but what is the difference. It's trading ingame treasure for a material spell component.

Dark Archive

Andrew Christian wrote:
Chot wrote:


So to be clear, you are upset that you now have to actually pay the cost of the spell as it was designed and balanced?

What kind of entitled logic is that?

Upset??? no

it was gray
In PFS the consumables rule is strange, and it was a play on that. In campaigns you must "pay" for cure potions or scrolls or what ever. In PFS they are "free" to be used in the scenario. I understand spell components have a cost for a reason, usually scrolls and potions have a cost for a reason too.

Some of the Alchemist abilities will most likely follow suit (potion to poison as well as Dilution).

I guess I will find out if I can sacrifice NPCs as bargaining tools for outsiders too... Torag would most likely not approve... well maybe for an elf...

5/5

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

It seems clear to me that the "used consumables don't impact wealth" rule is primarily to avoid party in-fighting over the gold they would represent:

  • Fighter drinks cure light potion
  • Wizard: "Why'd you do that! Now I get 10 gp less. The cleric could have healed you!"
  • Fighter: "I want him to be able to heal me later instead during battle."
  • Wizard: "But now I won't be able to buy my Pearl of Power!"
  • Cleric: "Guys... I channel negative..."

    Since the wealth is not divided until the end of the scenario, there would be no way to avoid this. And most often it represents a small fraction of the total wealth gained.

    Sundering is also not really applicable, since even magic items destroyed by sunder can be repaired with make whole.

    Pay for the spell components, continue to be happy that you don't have to pay for potions you find and drink during a scenario.

  • Dark Archive

    jjaamm wrote:
    This has made me wounder if people were doing the same for raise dead. pooling the ingame treasure to pay for and still getting it at the end. You may scoff but what is the difference. It's trading ingame treasure for a material spell component.

    Raise dead would not work under the same logic, it would have always required you to buy the spell components, buying stuff is clear. Not that it would not ever be mistaken. I have been lucky enough to catch them most the time with breath of life.

    Material components are an odd handling condition out side of PFS (really where did you collect a few hairs, or a pinch of dung, from a bull for bull str). I have also had liveoak be unusable in a game, so now I need an oak....


    Majuba wrote:


    Since the wealth is not divided until the end of the scenario, there would be no way to avoid this.

    You could avoid this by not tying wealth gained to items found at all.

    Pathfinders are given a certain amount for completing the mission, etc. What they find gets shuffled along, helps pay other missions, etc. It's no more of a disconnect than finding the item you want, then selling it for half and throwing away some of the proceeds when in a home campaign you would be keeping and treasuring it.

    You could then also give reward by character level rather than by 'tier' and avoid the usual play up/down problems/incentives.

    -James

    The Exchange 4/5 5/5

    Majuba wrote:
    Sundering is also not really applicable, since even magic items destroyed by sunder can be repaired with make whole.

    Amusingly, there was just a debate about this on our regional boards. Here's the issue people have with that statement:

    PRD- Caster Level for Weapons wrote:
    For an item with only an enhancement bonus and no other abilities, the caster level is three times the enhancement bonus.
    PRD - Make Whole wrote:
    Make whole can fix destroyed magic items (at 0 hit points or less), and restores the magic properties of the item if your caster level is at least twice that of the item.

    The argument is that if you sunder a +1 weapon and don't have a wizard or cleric of at least 6th level along, you have to pay...let's see...2x6x10 = 120gp to have make whole cast or forfeit the total value of the item from your chronicle. If it's a +2 weapon, you have to be level 12 or pay 240 gp, etc. (Please don't post about +4 weapons not being able to be repaired, search for that thread and post in it.) Why should I have to pay for a make whole on MY destroyed longbow, but not on the greatsword I'm "selling" as part of my chronicle wealth gain?

    There's a big difference between 6500 gp in payment for a hound archon and 240 gp to have a weapon fixed. The question is where do you draw the line? You do have to pay for the planar ally but not for the make whole? What about drinking a found potion of heroism (750 gp)?

    I really don't want to have to do bookkeeping on every little item. I don't know where the line should be. This is one case where I'm glad I'm not the one who has to make this decision.

    (For the record my opinion is that sacrificing valuable items for a summon is too much but using consumables is fine. Logically defensible? No. But it makes common sense.)

    Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 ***

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Majuba wrote:
    Sundering is also not really applicable, since even magic items destroyed by sunder can be repaired with make whole.

    They CAN be, yes, but the caster must be at least twice the caster level of the item. That can get a bit dicey for even moderate items. It would be possible that you not only lost the reward value of the item but could be out the cost of the spell service as well. Essentially a net loss.

    Personally, I think that if you sunder an item intentionally, that character should lose the value of the item. It was a choice after all and makes more sense than it re-spawning at the end of the scenario. But, then again, I tend towards harsher rules. And I said above, a sundered item is not necessarily lost.


    Bob Jonquet wrote:


    Personally, I think that if you sunder an item intentionally, that character should lose the value of the item.

    But if the whole table benefits from it, you just charge the PC that did the work?

    That's frankly the same grey area of mixing resources for a shared campaign that separates them.

    Also, are we able to purchase spellcasting at higher than minimal level cost? I would assume yes, yet PFS has drawn this line in the sand elsewhere for reasons that are arcane to me.

    The 'sample' list has a minimum level make whole listed (3rd CL) for 60gp, but honestly that requires the same knowledge of the game as knowing that a 2nd CL wand of magic missiles would be 1500gp and that is verboten.

    -James

    Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 ***

    The guide seems to be silent on the issue of spell-casting services above minimum level, but since it does have a rule regarding magic item purchases, I would err of the side of consistency and assume it applies to all spell usage outside of the PC's.

    5/5

    Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
    Bob Jonquet wrote:
    Majuba wrote:
    Sundering is also not really applicable, since even magic items destroyed by sunder can be repaired with make whole.

    They CAN be, yes, but the caster must be at least twice the caster level of the item. That can get a bit dicey for even moderate items. It would be possible that you not only lost the reward value of the item but could be out the cost of the spell service as well. Essentially a net loss.

    I'm afraid you lost me here.

    My point was that the majority of items that would be sundered can easily have that condition fixed, at a cost easily in the range of the consumables "allowance".

    3/5

    Bob Jonquet wrote:
    Personally, I think that if you sunder an item intentionally, that character should lose the value of the item. It was a choice after all and makes more sense than it re-spawning at the end of the scenario. But, then again, I tend towards harsher rules. And I said above, a sundered item is not necessarily lost.

    I thought that Make Whole was only necessary for during-that-session usage. If you're right, then I'm no longer sure on the rules for sunder as it relates to PFS. For instance, see this thread:

    Sundering is OK

    And its further clarification in:

    Clarification

    If this isn't right, can we get this specifically called out please?

    Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 ***

    Rubia wrote:
    If this isn't right, can we get this specifically called out please?

    As it stands, sundering is legal. It can be an effective way to counter an enemy's strengths if they have very protective armor, or a strong weapon, even a wand, etc. Since those items are considered part of your treasure, they will not be deducted from the final rewards on the chronicle even though, technically, you would be unable to sell them for cash at the end, like normal.

    Even permanent magic items follow the same rules that cover consumables. If you drink a potion, you do not lose its value from the rewards.

    Personally, I just don't like that campaign specific rule, but that's what it says. It applies to this thread in the respect that since no treasure is "lost" during the scenario, you can willfully give it away and still have it at the end. So if you earned 12,000gp worth of stuff in act one of the scenario, you could use that wealth to pay the material costs of Planar Ally, call a 12HD archon, and the gold would re-spawn on the chronicle sheet. All I'm saying is that makes no sense whatsoever and smells of moldy cheese. As Mark stated, this was not the RAI.

    Dark Archive

    Rubia wrote:
    Bob Jonquet wrote:
    Personally, I think that if you sunder an item intentionally, that character should lose the value of the item.

    I thought that Make Whole was only necessary for during-that-session usage.

    If this isn't right, can we get this specifically called out please?

    Please Note I am pulling your leg, some may call it sundering...

    If you damage anything intentionally, you must lose that value of the item. If you kill some ones pet dog, 25 GP. If you kill their pet dog and then kill the master, then it is the 25gp plus 200gp/HD for the master(life to gp relationship from from sacrifice spell). If you sundered the masters +1 sword and his Leather armor but saved his socks, killing the master and his dog... forget about it stay home and just make your day job roll adventuring is to expensive...

    Mend/Make whole your leg

    3/5

    Bob Jonquet wrote:
    Rubia wrote:
    If this isn't right, can we get this specifically called out please?

    As it stands, sundering is legal. It can be an effective way to counter an enemy's strengths if they have very protective armor, or a strong weapon, even a wand, etc. Since those items are considered part of your treasure, they will not be deducted from the final rewards on the chronicle even though, technically, you would be unable to sell them for cash at the end, like normal.

    Even permanent magic items follow the same rules that cover consumables. If you drink a potion, you do not lose its value from the rewards.

    Personally, I just don't like that campaign specific rule, but that's what it says. It applies to this thread in the respect that since no treasure is "lost" during the scenario, you can willfully give it away and still have it at the end. So if you earned 12,000gp worth of stuff in act one of the scenario, you could use that wealth to pay the material costs of Planar Ally, call a 12HD archon, and the gold would re-spawn on the chronicle sheet. All I'm saying is that makes no sense whatsoever and smells of moldy cheese. As Mark stated, this was not the RAI.

    Ok. I saw the relationship to the Planar Ally discussion, but I just wanted to be certain it didn't imply something regarding sundering rules.

    And, as far as I can recall, it doesn't "say" anything about the sundering yet -- I think it's only those posts I linked that confirm the behavior. Perhaps that ought to be specified in 4.2 of the guide.

    Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society / Planar Ally in PFS All Messageboards

    Want to post a reply? Sign in.
    Recent threads in Pathfinder Society