forgot the half damage, my bad. +2 hardness/hp per +1 enhancement rating isnt all that serious, since reflex tends to be the worst save of those big hulking bastards with swords. around level 10, yeah, you're looking at around 14-16 hardness 14-16 HP on that +2 or +3 greatsword. after half damage, hardness, and a successful save(not a likely save at that) we're doing s~%# damage. if the save fails though, thats 38.5/2)-14= 5.25 damage to the weapon. does acid damage still do full damage to weapons, or was that just 3.0-3.5? if so the energy substitution feat makes it a guaranteed 1 shot.Chain lightning explicitly targets objects, and deals 11d6 damage baseline for wizard. weapons tend to average 10hp, on a successful item reflex save average damage from chain lightning is 19.25, - the average hardness (also 10). more often than not, you can disarm the BBEGroup's leader in the first round of combat, and finish group's weapons in the second round.Careful: at the level you have chain lightning, the enemies are likely to have magic weapons, which have boosted HP and hardness.
Also, you forgot to apply the half-damage-to-objects rule.
It's +10 HP per +1 enhancement bonus, actually.
HA
|
forgot the half damage, my bad. +2 hardness/hp per +1 enhancement rating isnt all that serious,
It's +2 hardness & +10 hp per +1 enhancement. And that's not to mention any extra from special materials that they may have.
Edit: Double-ninja'd. *shakes fist*
does acid damage still do full damage to weapons, or was that just 3.0-3.5? if so the energy substitution feat makes it a guaranteed 1 shot.
No - that was 3.5, and I believe that electric did 1/4 at the time. Pathfinder simplified it so that it all did 1/2.
Just gonna say: There is no action listed for "hold breath". You don't immediately start drowning if you're shoved in the water during the surprise round, nor does being teleported without warning into the ocean deprive you of your benefits by RAW. This reading of Aboleth's Lung is not exactly "you may not like it, but that's how it works" material.
Honestly, it shouldn't matter much, though. The duration is hours per level. There are situations where this could reasonably be an assassination spell. The target only gets one save, after all.
As many people like to point out, saying anything after being affected should, in theory, cause you to no longer be holding your breath.
Just gonna say: There is no action listed for "hold breath". You don't immediately start drowning if you're shoved in the water during the surprise round, nor does being teleported without warning into the ocean deprive you of your benefits by RAW. This reading of Aboleth's Lung is not exactly "you may not like it, but that's how it works" material.Honestly, it shouldn't matter much, though. The duration is hours per level. There are situations where this could reasonably be an assassination spell. The target only gets one save, after all.
As many people like to point out, saying anything after being affected should, in theory, cause you to no longer be holding your breath.
If that was the case, it would mean that casting a spell underwater that has verbal components would insta-ko the caster. Since *nothing* of the sort is mentioned in the aquatic terrain rules(just a concentration check for casting when unable to breath water), it is safe to say that this is not the case.
It doesn't matter if people can or can't talk (I always took the concentration check to represent mumbling the verbals without opening your mouth), because it's hours per level. Unless the guy you cast it on can make the spellcraft check to identify what you did, they'll just slowly suffocate regardless. Nobody's first reaction is, "Oh, hey, I can't breathe--better submerge my head in water to see if I can breath that now!"
It doesn't matter if people can or can't talk (I always took the concentration check to represent mumbling the verbals without opening your mouth), because it's hours per level. Unless the guy you cast it on can make the spellcraft check to identify what you did, they'll just slowly suffocate regardless. Nobody's first reaction is, "Oh, hey, I can't breathe--better submerge my head in water to see if I can breath that now!"
The issue is that 99% of the time you are far better off with Hideous Laughter or Hold Person, because with those it is close to guaranteed death if a martial combatant is within reach.
No one mentioned GLITTERDUST!
Because those are the things that the spell is for. This thread is for exploitable secondary effects, or under-utilized menu choices. That's why aboleth lung is under discussion - it's written as 'water breathing with a drawback', but you can use that drawback offensively.
Or manipulating the pattern of dancing lights to pass messages, like OotS hobgoblins, instead of just as a light source.
Sound burst is a decent candidate because it makes the target stunned - an oft-ignored consequence of being stunned is dropping held items.
Identify functions as detect magic in addition to it's bonus to identifying magical items, and lasts without concentration.
Erase works on magical writings better than dispel magic because the DC is a flat 15 instead of 11 + caster level.
Animate Rope can entangle and force concentration checks.
|
forgot the half damage, my bad. +2 hardness/hp per +1 enhancement rating isnt all that serious, since reflex tends to be the worst save of those big hulking bastards with swords. around level 10, yeah, you're looking at around 14-16 hardness 14-16 HP on that +2 or +3 greatsword. after half damage, hardness, and a successful save(not a likely save at that) we're doing s&@@ damage. if the save fails though, thats 38.5/2)-14= 5.25 damage to the weapon. does acid damage still do full damage to weapons, or was that just 3.0-3.5? if so the energy substitution feat makes it a guaranteed 1 shot.Chain lightning explicitly targets objects, and deals 11d6 damage baseline for wizard. weapons tend to average 10hp, on a successful item reflex save average damage from chain lightning is 19.25, - the average hardness (also 10). more often than not, you can disarm the BBEGroup's leader in the first round of combat, and finish group's weapons in the second round.Careful: at the level you have chain lightning, the enemies are likely to have magic weapons, which have boosted HP and hardness.
Also, you forgot to apply the half-damage-to-objects rule.
Acid doing full damage is at GM discretion:
Energy Attacks: Energy attacks deal half damage to most objects. Divide the damage by 2 before applying the object's hardness. Some energy types might be particularly effective against certain objects, subject to GM discretion. For example, fire might do full damage against parchment, cloth, and other objects that burn easily. Sonic might do full damage against glass and crystal objects.
Misdirection works against discern lies.
Phantom Trap can't be cast within 50 feet of another phantom trap.
Clairvoyance/Clairaudience allows no save throw, but takes 10 minutes to cast.
Tiny Hut provides total concealment to a large area.
Phantom Steed makes no sound.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Create pit and friends are extra dimensional spaces, so you can't pull gear out of your handy haversack while stuck in one.
Tiny hut, although often used for utility against harsh weather and prying eyes, makes a surprisingly amazing combat spell. Since it puts up a one way blind, it can give you and your allies a distinct advantage in ranged combat.
Would you be able to get a height advantage from riding a floating disk?
GATE
A GATE spell facing toward your enemy would make you completely immune to any spells/projectiles/whatever they fire at you, as the projectile would enter the GATE (and possibly hit something else?) instead. If used in a corridor or tunnel, you can effectively block the corridor completely from one side.
It is - however - worth noting that as this is a 9th level spell, chances are your opponents will have some way of getting around your 20 foot wide GATE (and it's a very expensive and short lived "wall" spell). It's also worth noting that while the spell says creatures can move through the GATE from the back without traveling to another plane, it doesn't say that the GATE is see-through (or that it's not...?)
The gate itself is a circular hoop or disk from 5 to 20 feet in diameter (caster's choice) oriented in the direction you desire when it comes into existence (typically vertical and facing you).
The GATE is "typically" vertical, meaning you should be able to open a horizontal GATE under the feet of your opponent. There's nothing specifically confirming or denying this in the rules, but as it's a 9th level spell I'd probably allow any shenanigans the player can reasonably argue.
One last thing I just thought of is that opening to an elemental plane might cause a torrent of Water/Fire/etc. to pour forth into the material plane. Again this isn't directly supported or denied by the wording of the spell, so this will depend on your GM.
(Note: I'm new to the Paizo forums, if any of this has been confirmed/denied by Paizo staff, let me know)
|
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
Theoretically you can use the pit spells to circumvent floor things that are even more inconvenient. Pressure plate that sets off a trap? Pit and it's gone. Small pool of lava or acid? Pit and it's gone. You can take out the middle of a bridge. You can temporarily erase a trap door/escape hatch. And so forth.
I wouldn't say that the pit spells destroy any of these things, but the real floor is suppressed for the duration of the pit.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Theoretically you can use the pit spells to circumvent floor things that are even more inconvenient. Pressure plate that sets off a trap? Pit and it's gone. Small pool of lava or acid? Pit and it's gone. You can take out the middle of a bridge. You can temporarily erase a trap door/escape hatch. And so forth.
I wouldn't say that the pit spells destroy any of these things, but the real floor is suppressed for the duration of the pit.
We have used my pit spells to get past doors a couple of times. But we only did that in desperate situations, since the only pit I had at that time was the one with spikes at the bottom.
I don't know if it is actually legal, but we made a pit centered right at the front of the door. So just under half of it was extending to the other side of the door. Climb down on our side walk across (under the door) climb up the other side. It did mean we were trapped in a vault until I could refresh my spells in the morning.
Even if it opened under the target's feat they should get a Ref save-- see the Create Pit line.
Sounds reasonable.
The water/fire thing has been specifically shut down; only creatures pass through.
Awww, oh well. Would this also shut down the idea that you could use it to protect you from arrows and such? or were they more trying to shut down the use of this as an offensive elemental spell?
Arcane Mark glows and is permanent on inanimate objects. Even if this is only as bright as a candle (5' rad Dim Light) if spammed around it can provide light forever.
In one game we had a wizard with an owl familiar. He put Arcane Mark on a pebble and had the creature carry it in it's mouth on scouting flights. Owls get Low Light and the wizard himself got +3 Perception in Dim Light. This simple rock made sure the two were never completely blind (unless magical darkness) and the wizard's Per was better than the ranger's.
While I love Arcane Mark shenanigans, and I'd concede that brightness of the glow should be at least that of a dim candle, I'd debate the glowing part - as the spell only mentions the invisible variant of the Arcane Mark 'glowing' when hit by a Detect Magic. Quite a specific set of circumstances (which can be used to one's advantage to trigger a Programmed Image, for example).
Nothing else, other than assumption or House Rule, that a visible mark should glow. It has no need to glow, it's already visible.
Then how do you get all those glowing runes in video games? It's not just Symbol spells or Explosive Runes since they don't ALWAYS kill you. I always just assumed that's what Arcane Mark was: a magic version of a small neon that says "eat at Joes."
If not Arcane Mark, then could you do this with Prestidigitation? Create a heatless candle flame that only illuminates a 5' rad with Dim Light? Or does that violate the "infringes on another spell" clause?
I have used summon monster - d4+2 small earth elementals to earthglide and find out if there are underground chambers or caves to even bother trying to find a secret door.
I used summon monster - d4+2 small air elementals and haste to scout. Each one goes a bit further than the other and screams back to the ones before what it can see and the last one tells me. Can get just about a mile out of them that way at level 10. Not sneaky at all, but hella quick way to scout what's visible for a mile in one direction.
.
.
Arcane Mark glows and is permanent on inanimate objects. Even if this is only as bright as a candle (5' rad Dim Light) if spammed around it can provide light forever.
In one game we had a wizard with an owl familiar. He put Arcane Mark on a pebble and had the creature carry it in it's mouth on scouting flights. Owls get Low Light and the wizard himself got +3 Perception in Dim Light. This simple rock made sure the two were never completely blind (unless magical darkness) and the wizard's Per was better than the ranger's.
While I love Arcane Mark shenanigans, and I'd concede that brightness of the glow should be at least that of a dim candle, I'd debate the glowing part - as the spell only mentions the invisible variant of the Arcane Mark 'glowing' when hit by a Detect Magic. Quite a specific set of circumstances (which can be used to one's advantage to trigger a Programmed Image, for example).
Nothing else, other than assumption or House Rule, that a visible mark should glow. It has no need to glow, it's already visible.
Then how do you get all those glowing runes in video games? It's not just Symbol spells or Explosive Runes since they don't ALWAYS kill you. I always just assumed that's what Arcane Mark was: a magic version of a small neon that says "eat at Joes."
If not Arcane Mark, then could you do this with Prestidigitation? Create a heatless candle flame that only illuminates a 5' rad with Dim Light? Or does that violate the "infringes on another spell" clause?
I have usually allowed it as long as it doesn't even come close to what the infringed spell can do. Since light is touch, 10 min/lev, and torch bright. I would allow prestidigitation (same level) to be touch, concentration, and candle bright.
Don't know if it is RAW, but no one has ever disagreed as player or GM.
Not sure about arcane mark though. I think the permanent would have me saying no to that one. I would say it glows enough to read, but not enough to provide useful light.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Theoretically you can use the pit spells to circumvent floor things that are even more inconvenient. Pressure plate that sets off a trap? Pit and it's gone. Small pool of lava or acid? Pit and it's gone. You can take out the middle of a bridge. You can temporarily erase a trap door/escape hatch. And so forth.
I wouldn't say that the pit spells destroy any of these things, but the real floor is suppressed for the duration of the pit.
Also lets you get past doors/gates too heavy for your Knock or Open/Close spells. Create a pit under the threshold, climb down, go under then go back up the other side of the pit.
Arcane Mark glows and is permanent on inanimate objects. Even if this is only as bright as a candle (5' rad Dim Light) if spammed around it can provide light forever.
In one game we had a wizard with an owl familiar. He put Arcane Mark on a pebble and had the creature carry it in it's mouth on scouting flights. Owls get Low Light and the wizard himself got +3 Perception in Dim Light. This simple rock made sure the two were never completely blind (unless magical darkness) and the wizard's Per was better than the ranger's.
While I love Arcane Mark shenanigans, and I'd concede that brightness of the glow should be at least that of a dim candle, I'd debate the glowing part - as the spell only mentions the invisible variant of the Arcane Mark 'glowing' when hit by a Detect Magic. Quite a specific set of circumstances (which can be used to one's advantage to trigger a Programmed Image, for example).
Nothing else, other than assumption or House Rule, that a visible mark should glow. It has no need to glow, it's already visible.
Then how do you get all those glowing runes in video games? It's not just Symbol spells or Explosive Runes since they don't ALWAYS kill you. I always just assumed that's what Arcane Mark was: a magic version of a small neon that says "eat at Joes."
If not Arcane Mark, then could you do this with Prestidigitation? Create a heatless candle flame that only illuminates a 5' rad with Dim Light? Or does that violate the "infringes on another spell" clause?
I find that what works in a video game was done because of the needs of that video game - something has to translate onto a screen for the player of the game. Liberties with spell RAW sometimes need to be taken, for both functional reasons and aesthetically pleasing graphical reasons, by the game designer. Thus, they have their magical markings of various sorts "glow".
How I see Arcane Mark from the spell description - the standard version is just a permanent bit of spray painted graffiti. Fully visible, nothing special, no glowing, like a gang tag on a wall. It is, however, permanent - a nice feature.
Now, I see the invisible version of Arcane Mark a bit more like it was invisible ink - you don't see it, but under the right circumstances, you can make it glow and be visible (that circumstance being "scanning it with a Detect Magic"). Sort of like using a black light to see invisible ink. The invisible version can also be detected/read by True Seeing and similar things that can detect invisibility (as listed in the spell description). The degree of "glow" from the invisible variant when it gets hit with a Detect is probably up to GM fiat - but dim candle status isn't a bad rule of thumb.
I probably wouldn't let Prestidigitation do a lighting effect - there are other cantrips and orisons that do that.
All that being said - having even your regular, non-invisible Arcane Marks glow a bit isn't a big deal, but I'd see that more of a House Rule for the spell. If that was in effect in my game, I'm very sure every village/town/city street would effectively have dimly lit street lamps due to the free and endlessly spammable nature of Arcane Mark.
As far as Aboleth's lung is concerned it is presented as a spell known only to gillmen, so unless your playing a gillman you need DM consent to take this spell.
I am also not sure that it's not a matter of needing errata.
Although it says.....
Target living creatures touchedIt probably was supposed to be....
Target willing creatures touchedJust my 2 cents.
It has a Will save for a reason. :-)
Yeah but it's in the pirit of what Aboleths do to use such an ability offensively. After all they have that slime that's offensive with a minor defensive benefit.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If we're talking about "stealth" offensive spells, Aboleth's Lung shouldn't be on the table. It's save is not designated as Harmless. It's definitely offensive.
No, you want to talk about Marid's Mastery. It's a level 1 Harmless spell that, unless you and your foe are in water (or flying, I guess), gives the guy you cast it on a cripplingly brutal -4 to hit and damage! As a level one spell? Yes, please. That's like half of what Bestow Curse is for.
Stormbolts are one of my all time favorite spells. Granted, they're ridiculously high level, but they're a 30' rad. spread lightning spell that does 1d8/level and stuns. All of that is awesome enough, but it's the fact that it's a fort save that is truly fantastic. It's one of the few Area damage dealing spells that are.
Sculpt sound is fantastic for getting around lie-detecting magic. It's much better than glibness, because you can say the truth (that you're a murdering cultist) but you sculpt the sound to say that you're a hero. Since you're not lying, the spell can't pick up on it.
Time Stop is one of the few spells that can be simultaneously extended, empowered, and maximized.
most people miss that liberating command requires a immediate action from the caster AND the target, thus preventing them from casting it on themselves to effect.
It has a Will save for a reason. :-)As far as Aboleth's lung is concerned it is presented as a spell known only to gillmen, so unless your playing a gillman you need DM consent to take this spell.
I am also not sure that it's not a matter of needing errata.
Although it says.....
Target living creatures touchedIt probably was supposed to be....
Target willing creatures touchedJust my 2 cents.
Not really many spells that are strictly of benefit have a will save written into them...
Blessing of the Watch
School enchantment (compulsion) [mind-affecting]; Level cleric 1, inquisitor 1, paladin 1
EFFECT
Duration 1 hour/level
Saving Throw Will negates; Spell Resistance yesDESCRIPTION
This spell functions like bless, except as noted. It works only in the caster's home city, and in areas under the jurisdiction of the city watch. For example, if the watch patrols a shantytown outside the city walls but not the ruined subterranean tunnels that lie beneath the city, the spell works in the former area but not the latter.
Inner Sea Gods? That's a pretty obscure source to be citing as one of "many". Got anything from one of the splatbooks, or better yet, the core? It seems much more likely that Blessing of the Watch was meant to have a (harmless) after it.
I don't know if his is still a permitted use of the spell, but Rope Trick has been used for several past editions as one slightly awkward way to bypass a door or relatively thin wall. If the spell is cast immediately adjacent to a vertical surface then the opening at the top (which enters the extradimensional hideyhole) can be placed so that it appears on both sides of the barrier.
Using Prestidigitation as a light spell won't work. From the spell description: "prestidigitation lacks the power to duplicate any other spell effects."
My take on Arcane Mark: it can create a visible mark. This mark will not glow. Detect magic cast on it will simply identify it as have a faint magical aura. It can create an invisible mark. In that case, Detect magic cast on it will identify it as above and cause it to glow briefly (for the duration of the detect magic spell) so it can be read. I would rule that it glows only brightly enough to be read, and only as long as the detect spell is active. Note: you would probably have to cast read magic on it to understand what it says. Can a mage simultaneously maintain both detect magic and read magic? Seems unlikely.
Note: it is not entirely clear from the spell descriptions, but I would rule that once a mage knows where an arcane mark is, read magic will tell him what it says even if it's currently invisible.
I would logically say that if the invisible mark glows and can be read when Detect Magic passes over it, a normal mark would glow as well...you could just see it normally regardless.
==Aelryinth
And a spell only known to Gillman is not obscure?It has a Will save for a reason. :-)As far as Aboleth's lung is concerned it is presented as a spell known only to gillmen, so unless your playing a gillman you need DM consent to take this spell.
I am also not sure that it's not a matter of needing errata.
I
Not really many spells that are strictly of benefit have a will save written into them...
Blessing of the Watch
Inner Sea Gods? That's a pretty obscure source to be citing as one of "many".
My point is that an equally obscure spell is not valid evidence against it.
|
On the Aboleths lung issue. All it takes is a victim to pour water into their lungs. Water absorbs oxygen from air pretty easily so now it's fine. This is what snails do on ocean rocky shores during low tide. Just trap water inside so the gill system can still absorb oxygen until the tide comes back in.
So if they have a flask of water on them, all good.
Though it will take them out of combat for a bit.
I would logically say that if the invisible mark glows and can be read when Detect Magic passes over it, a normal mark would glow as well...you could just see it normally regardless.
==Aelryinth
The invisible mark glows because of the detect magic. There's no reason to assume a visible mark would glow without a detect magic, and given that the purpose of the glow is so that you can see the normally invisible mark, I see no reason to assume a normally visible mark would glow at all.
The invisible mark glows because of the detect magic. There's no reason to assume a visible mark would glow without a detect magic, and given that the purpose of the glow is so that you can see the normally invisible mark, I see no reason to assume a normally visible mark would glow at all.I would logically say that if the invisible mark glows and can be read when Detect Magic passes over it, a normal mark would glow as well...you could just see it normally regardless.
==Aelryinth
I agree with Ed - no reason a visible mark needs to glow at all, nor does the spell say that a visible mark glows. Only the invisible version and only under a specific circumstance will Arcane Mark glow.
MM, that's not what I was saying.
To further Define it, when a normal Mark is passed over by Detect Magic, it also glows...you can just also see it normally regardless (not glowing).
==Aelryinth