| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm wondering about the trompe l'oeil being an inherited template. It would seem to me that it is intended to be a reflection of someone as they are when they are portrayed, rather than something that simply takes their physical form and then acquires class abilities on its own afterward.
If this is correct, then the template should be able to be applied to a creature with existing class levels and therefore be an acquired, rather than an inherited, template.
It's inherited rather than acquired because the trompe l'oeil was never anything other than a trompe l'oeil. It is created with any class levels the subject has (that is, the example tromp l'oeil is modeled after a 7th-level aristocrat, it didn't gain seven levels).
It's inherited rather than acquired because the trompe l'oeil was never anything other than a trompe l'oeil. It is created with any class levels the subject has (that is, the example tromp l'oeil is modeled after a 7th-level aristocrat, it didn't gain seven levels).I'm wondering about the trompe l'oeil being an inherited template. It would seem to me that it is intended to be a reflection of someone as they are when they are portrayed, rather than something that simply takes their physical form and then acquires class abilities on its own afterward.
If this is correct, then the template should be able to be applied to a creature with existing class levels and therefore be an acquired, rather than an inherited, template.
I understand what you're saying but the template isn't being used by the trompe l'oeil, it's being applied to the aristocrat in order to create the (separate) creature. The resulting trompe l'oeil does not have the trompe l'oeil template.
An inherited template, say, half-fiend, applies at birth and the creature that inherits the template has the template, e.g., half-fiend human.
We don't have a ‘trompe l'oeil trompe l'oeil.’ We have a trompe l'oeil human. The human didn't inherit the template from his parents. It was applied to him later in life, and thus acquired.
This is, of course, a strange application of the template rules because we're using it to create something completely separate to the aristocrat but we have to work with what we have.
Thoughts?
That doesn't seem to be how the trompe l'oeil works at all, Al Rigg.
I'm not sure why you think you need the template to create trompe l'oeil, the creation requirements for the canvas are just craft construct, animate objects, enter image, sufficient gold and a craft(painting) check. The template is then applied to the creature you made a magic painting out of.
You're right, you have a trompe l'oeil human, but that creature is the thing that comes out o the magical painting and not anything else.
One could argue that the aristocrat didn't acquire the the tromp l'oeil, the tromp l'oeil inherited the aristocrat. But I wouldn't, because what's the point when there's no mechanical difference between acquired and inherited templates? Name it whichever way makes sense to you. :-)
That doesn't seem to be how the trompe l'oeil works at all, Al Rigg.
I'm not sure why you think you need the template to create trompe l'oeil, the creation requirements for the canvas are just craft construct, animate objects, enter image, sufficient gold and a craft(painting) check. The template is then applied to the creature you made a magic painting out of.
You're right, you have a trompe l'oeil human, but that creature is the thing that comes out o the magical painting and not anything else.
I understand all this, Squiggit. I'm talking about whether the template should be an acquired or inherited template for the creation of the creature's stat block using the game rules and whether those rules are correct. Hence, why this is in the potential errata thread. I think the template should be an acquired template, and not an inherited template. Nothing you've said addresses that.
One could argue that the aristocrat didn't acquire the the tromp l'oeil, the tromp l'oeil inherited the aristocrat. But I wouldn't, because what's the point when there's no mechanical difference between acquired and inherited templates? Name it whichever way makes sense to you. :-)
One could argue those things but they're irrelevant to the correct application of the rules. I understand the 'story' aspect of the monster. It is a duplicate of an intelligent creature that emerges 'whole cloth' from a painting. What I'm discussing here is whether the template we use to create the creature is correctly specified or not. I'm interested in the correct application of the rules for something I'm designing that will be published and I'd like the reasoning to be correct for the adventure's storyline. While, of course, you're correct that there's no mechanical difference between them, inherited and acquired templates are conceptually separated for a reason: how and when they can be applied.
We have the following situation:
Inherited templates are gained at birth or creation. They must, therefore, be applied before class levels.
Acquired templates can be gained at any point. They can, therefore, be applied after class levels.
The trompe l'oeil results from the application of the template to another stat block. It does not receive the template and so doesn't inherit it. It "is" the template.
The trompe l'oeil results from the application of the template to a human aristocrat. Therefore, the human aristocrat stat block receives the template and so it cannot be inherited and must be acquired.
I hope my reasoning makes sense. I accept it's a minor point I'm raising but, initially, I wasn't entirely sure of the reasoning behind the template's development. It seems clear now that the intention is to have the creature emerge with class levels, though, and so I conclude that the template is in error and should be an acquired template, not inherited.
Thanks for your help.
I understand all this, Squiggit. I'm talking about whether the template should be an acquired or inherited template for the creation of the creature's stat block using the game rules and whether those rules are correct. Hence, why this is in the potential errata thread. I think the template should be an acquired template, and not an inherited template. Nothing you've said addresses that.
Your original post seemed to imply you thought the template was applied to the aristocrat himself, though I see what you mean now, but I still think your fundamental premise is in error:
"This kind of template is applied to a creature well after its birth or creation" is the blurb that first describes acquired templates. "Some templates are part of a creature from the beginning of its existence" is the phrasing used to described inherited templates.
The trompe l'oeil template is applied to the creature upon its creation and cannot be gained after the fact. There is no way within the trompe l'oeil's rules that allow an already existing creature to gain the template. So by definition inherited is the only sort of template that makes sense.
That the trompe l'oeil copies it stats from a creature that already exists doesn't really seem relevant here.
Your original post seemed to imply you thought the template was applied to the aristocrat himself, though I see what you mean now, but I still think your fundamental premise is in error:
"This kind of template is applied to a creature well after its birth or creation" is the blurb that first describes acquired templates. "Some templates are part of a creature from the beginning of its existence" is the phrasing used to described inherited templates.
The trompe l'oeil template is applied to the creature upon its creation and cannot be gained after the fact. There is no way within the trompe l'oeil's rules that allow an already existing creature to gain the template. So by definition inherited is the only sort of template that makes sense.
That the trompe l'oeil copies it stats from a creature that already exists doesn't really seem relevant here.
The trompe l'oeil isn't the creature that receives the template. The creature that receives the template is the human aristocrat. Therefore, the template must be applicable to a creature with class levels. Ergo, the template must be an acquired template.
Edit: look I completely understand that the original human aristocrat isn't changed in any way, and that the trompe l'oeil is a completely separate creature that is simply mirroring the human aristocrat's stats. BUT the way in which we create the trompe l'oeil's stat block is to apply a template to a human aristocrat which means that the template has to be able to be applied AFTER class levels. The trompe l'oeil isn't a creature with a template. It IS the template that's applied.
Further Edit: Ask yourself "what is inheriting the template?" By your argument, you're saying the trompe l'oeil is. So what you're saying is that it's a trompe l'oeil trompe l'oeil. Do you see what I mean? The trompe l'oeil does not exist to inherit itself. A human that inherits the half-fiend template does exist, however, and so we get a half-fiend human. But we want to create a trompe l'oeil of a human aristocrat. So who is inheriting the template?
Further Further Edit: Alternatively, stop thinking about who or what is acquiring or inheriting anything and instead think about the rules of templates. One can be applied after class levels, the other can't. We need to apply it to the stat block of a human aristocrat. Which do we have to use?
Your entire point seems to be predicated on this assumption that inherited templates can't be applied to creatures with class levels. This is a rule that doesn't actually appear to exist anywhere I can find it and there are other inherited templates that are applied similarly (i.e. the waxwork template, though that one specifically removes class levels).
All acquired/inherited does is indicate whether a creature can gain the template at some point during their life or has to be born/created with it and the trompe l'oeil template fits decidedly into the latter. Class levels never factor into it.
Ok. Thanks for expressing your views.
Uh, plenty of templates can be either inherited or acquired. For example, half-fiend can be inherited (child of a fiend) or acquired (you use the demonic rituals in the relevant Book of the Damned). There's no mechanical difference between the two concepts so I don't understand the point of this discussion.
Compelling Rant - Page ???
This spell does nothing but drain your wisdom by 1d4.
Compelling Rant - Page ???
This spell does nothing but drain your wisdom by 1d4.
Ha! Maybe it was supposed to be a version of Enthrall?
I'm late to the party, but the hive warrior's attack bonuses are incorrect: bite should be +10, tail should be +8. Claws are correct.
|
Pgs. 46 & 47 - Fight response rage power
The last sentence says that skalds can't grant this rage power to allies with raging song, but this appears to be an unnecessary thing to mention. Per the rules of a skald's rage power selection, he wouldn't even be able to take this rage power since it's one that's activated by spending rounds of rage.
|
|
Pg. 49 - Void domain and Isolation subdomain
Right before the mention of the Void domain on this page, the paragraph under "New Domain" says who has access to it. It mentions a few Outer Gods and Great Old Ones, then says "as well as various daemon harbingers."
According to Inner Sea Gods, the only daemon harbinger with the Void domain is Uaransaph. Likewise, the Isolation subdomain on this same page says "daemon harbingers with the Void domain" have access to it. While this is in fact true for Uaransaph, two other harbingers have the Isolation subdomain without the Void domain (that happens sometimes) - Mneoc and Roqorolos.
|
|
Pg. 123 - Night terrors and pessimism spells
Seems strange that 2 spells that don't show up on the spell list of any divine spellcasting class would list a divine focus as part of their components. Possibly this could have been intentional for the random archetype that allows a divine caster to add spells to their spell lists.
|
|
Pg. 129 - Symbol of exsanguination spell
Because this spell says it functions like symbol of death, it's possible it was meant to inherit its status as a spell that can be made permanent with a permanency spell, but it's not explicitly stated. If it can, it's uncertain what the minimum caster level and gp cost would be, but based on other spells at this spell level, it'd probably be CL 10th or 11th, with a gp cost of at least 7,500 gp.
|
|
Pg. 168 - Claw gauntlet fleshcraft
Based on the wording throughout the fleshcraft's description, this fleshcraft is apparently purchased one-at-a-time (so applying it to replace both of a humanoid's hands would cost double what's listed and require a second set of checks and saves). The opening sentence of the description suggests both hands are affected (pluralizing "hands") with this craft. The rest of the wording beyond this sentence suggests 1 hand is affected, however.
|
|
Pg. 168 - Grasping tendril fleshcraft
The arm-replacement version of this fleshcraft can be used as a secondary natural attack that deals "1d4 points of damage". I guess we're to assume this does bludgeoning damage. Also, I'm not sure if this was intentional but one thing it doesn't mention is if Small characters deal 1d3 damage instead. Other fleshcrafts that grant natural attacks do make this Small-character distinction.
Pg. 49 - Void domain and Isolation subdomain
Right before the mention of the Void domain on this page, the paragraph under "New Domain" says who has access to it. It mentions a few Outer Gods and Great Old Ones, then says "as well as various daemon harbingers."
According to Inner Sea Gods, the only daemon harbinger with the Void domain is Uaransaph. Likewise, the Isolation subdomain on this same page says "daemon harbingers with the Void domain" have access to it. While this is in fact true for Uaransaph, two other harbingers have the Isolation subdomain without the Void domain (that happens sometimes) - Mneoc and Roqorolos.
There are supposedly hundreds of daemon harbingers and only stats for a few, so it could be referring to some unstatted ones, I suppose.
|
|
Pg. 217 - Cephalopod staff & many-eyed staff
I make it a point to check the math on every staff that Paizo publishes, if only because previous books have had a habit of not following staff creation rules when pricing them. One thing that makes it hard however is when an additional effect or gimmick has been placed on the staff that the item creation rules don't have an exact calculation for pricing, but it can at least tell us how much the staff should be at least. One thing to note: the hungering staff isn't going to be mentioned, because it's at least priced above what the rules say it should be priced at, but only by a little bit, and the remainder could explain the higher bite damage dice when using beast shape I. Anyway...
Cephalopod staff
Pricing rules say this should have a price of at least 28,461 gp and a cost of at least 14,230 gp. Note that this actually pushes it up to the lesser major staff category of magic item.
Also, I'm not sure but if spell-like abilities are allowed to be cast as part of the construction requirements, then summoners could also craft this at CL 11 with a price and cost of 24,501 gp and 12,250 gp, respectively.
Many-eyed staff
This one's closer. Price says it should be at least 32,500 gp, and cost should be at least 16,250 gp.
|
|
Pg. 217 - Cephalopod staff & many-eyed staff
I make it a point to check the math on every staff that Paizo publishes, if only because previous books have had a habit of not following staff creation rules when pricing them. One thing that makes it hard however is when an additional effect or gimmick has been placed on the staff that the item creation rules don't have an exact calculation for pricing, but it can at least tell us how much the staff should be at least. One thing to note: the hungering staff isn't going to be mentioned, because it's at least priced above what the rules say it should be priced at, but only by a little bit, and the remainder could explain the higher bite damage dice when using beast shape I. Anyway...
Cephalopod staff
Pricing rules say this should have a price of at least 28,461 gp and a cost of at least 14,230 gp. Note that this actually pushes it up to the lesser major staff category of magic item.Also, I'm not sure but if spell-like abilities are allowed to be cast as part of the construction requirements, then summoners could also craft this at CL 11 with a price and cost of 24,501 gp and 12,250 gp, respectively.
Many-eyed staff
This one's closer. Price says it should be at least 32,500 gp, and cost should be at least 16,250 gp.
Correction to the cephalopod staff above, it seems that summoners were intended to be the typical crafter of this item based on its theme and associated spells. Unchained summoners would craft this at around 26,700 gp ("chained" summoners could do it for slightly less, but since unchained is the new norm). This also keeps it as a greater medium staff as the table says.
|
|
Pg. 218 - Table 7-8: Wondrous Items
This table mistakenly lists every item as a slotless item, which obviously isn't the case. Most are, but there are also neck, eye, hand, belt, and shoulder-slot items. The individual entries have the correct slot listed.
One thing worth fixing is that the four talisman items listed as least minor slotless items should instead become lesser minor neck items (neck slot items don't have a least minor category, the lowest it goes is lesser minor).
|
|
Pg. 108 - Appearance of life spell
This spell has the evil descriptor, but after reading the description, the act of disguising an undead creature as a living creature doesn't appear to be an inherently evil act all by itself. Likewise, greater appearance of life appears in Villain Codex, and the evil descriptor was removed. (EDIT: or left out by mistake, and it's actually Villain Codex that has the error)