Quick questions and answers - Page 1066 - OG Myth-Weavers

Notices


Gaming Discussion

For all things gaming related.


Quick questions and answers

   
The wording implies that the list it gives is not a complete list. They're 'considered' attacks, not they 'are' attacks. Combine that with the following line, in the same paragraph:

(Emphasis mine)
Quote:
"Spells that summon monsters or other allies are not attacks because the spells themselves don’t harm anyone."
And it seems fairly clear that chaining Share Pain or similar effects is indeed RAW. Something isn't considered an attack because it doesn't harm anyone. It follows that something would be considered an attack if it DOES harm someone, which Share Pain does do.

Share pain itself doesn't harm anyone. People who harm you harm them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tedronai View Post
The psicrystal also has the advantage of being able to share Vigor.
I'm not sure that the behaviour of things like Vigour under Share Spells/Powers is ever actually well-defined. The most obvious interpretation would be the typical one and I'd probably consider that the default but an arguably more balanced one is that the temp HP are literally shared, so you don't gain any particular benefit from this combo. This would be the Pathfinder interpretation, at any rate (of course, what do they know?).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raging Golem View Post
By definition, yes it does. Luckily ANY spell is specifcally ruled an attack if has a save or deals damage (or both) which makes share pain's damage an attack.
Is this not contradictory? Either only things with attack rolls are attacks, or other things (such as damaging spells) are too.

For comparison, look at Invisibility. It uses its own definition of an "attack" for what breaks it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheFred View Post
I'm not sure that the behaviour of things like Vigour under Share Spells/Powers is ever actually well-defined. The most obvious interpretation would be the typical one and I'd probably consider that the default but an arguably more balanced one is that the temp HP are literally shared, so you don't gain any particular benefit from this combo. This would be the Pathfinder interpretation, at any rate (of course, what do they know?).
"Shared" spells typically affect each party fully. You don't get half a shared Teleport, nor half the benefit of a shared Resist Energy. Why would these be any different?

Share spells/powers merely says that the spells or powers "also affect" the familiar/psicrystal/etc. This probably means the spell just gets duplicated onto them, but it's ambiguous that you could interpret it other ways. As I said, even if it's tenuous it's plausible enough that I believe that's how Pathfinder interprets it (or chooses to interpret it), though admittedly Paizo don't seem to understand the 3.5 ruleset very well. This is also arguably more balanced so a DM might decide it's a nice rule even if they call it a houserule, but that's by the by.

Where does it say that Pathfinder views it that way?

I forget. If I remember correctly it was a sidebar on the PFSRD somewhere about Mirror Image (i.e. you share the images with your familiar) and I don't know what the source of that was - but I may not even be doing so.

In Mage: The awakening 2nd edition, if I cast "suppress aura" on myself and then cast another spell (say, invisibility) on myself, does it conceal that spell? In other words, is supress aura useful in long durations, or would one need to recast it if they wanted to add another spell to the target?

I could use a good mapping program for my upcoming game to provide battle grids for may players; any suggestions? Cheap is good. Free is better.





Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2024 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Last Database Backup 2024-03-19 06:25:58am local time
Myth-Weavers Status