pathfinder 1e – Are Lower Tier Magical Items Available in a City if They’re Under the Base Value but Not the Spellcasting Limit?

Let’s take a look at the explanation of settlement statblocks:

Base Value and Purchase Limit: This section lists the community’s base value for available magic items in gp. There is a 75% chance that any item of this value or lower can be found for sale in the community with little effort. If an item is not available, a new check to determine if the item has become available can be made in 1 week. A settlement’s purchase limit is the most money a shop in the settlement can spend to purchase any single item from the PCs. If the PCs wish to sell an item worth more than a settlement’s purchase limit, they’ll either need to settle for a lower price, travel to a larger city, or (with the GM’s permission) search for a specific buyer in the city with deeper pockets. A settlement’s type sets its purchase limit.

First, there’s a flat 75% chance of any item below the Base Value being there. This means that +2 stat items, which only cost 4000 gp, have great odds of being there, and you can retry in a week to get them if they’re not.

Spellcasting: Unlike magic items, spellcasting for hire is listed separately from the town’s base value, since spellcasting is limited by the level of the available spellcasters in town. This line lists the highest-level spell available for purchase from spellcasters in town. Prices for spellcasting appear on page 159 of the Core Rulebook. A town’s base spellcasting level depends on its type.

Secondly, the spellcasting line isn’t the caster level limit of the town, it’s the highest level spell you can buy services for. This means that the highest caster level available spellcasting services is, at minimum, 14 (the level a spontaneous caster needs to cast 7th level spells, and higher for 4th and 6th casters as all of their spells are available). The caster level for purchased spellcasting services could even be higher as there’s no minimum set for them, but it’s also reasonable for a gm to restrict this.

pathfinder 1e – What Parts Of Price Are Reduced By Magical Item Restrictions?

My question here is that, for creating magical items in Pathfinder 1e, when applying item price reductions due to restrictions (like only for certain classes, or requiring skill usage), do you apply the price reduction at the very end of calculating up the items cost (thus also reducing the included base item’s price, the masterwork addition and any special material cost components)? Or, do you only apply the reductions to whatever portion of the price is derived from magical enhancements?

So, for example, for a ranger’s flaming longbow +1, would the final price be 5,975 gp (8,000 x 0.7 = 5,600, + 75 + 300), or 5,862 gp and 5 sp (8,375 x 0.7)?

I was applying the reductions at the very end, but on second thought, have realized that may not be right. Does anyone have any thoughts on this?

pathfinder 1e – Does a weapon imbued with the Inquisitor Bane ability count as magical for bypassing DR and damaging incorporeals?

Yes, it count as magical.

It is sure that the weapon count as magical related to bypass damage reduction and so on when you apply the bane inquisitor ability to it since the bane ability it is a (Su) ability (and therefore is magical).

In short, yes it bypass dr and damage incorporeal foes.

Su: Supernatural abilities are magical but not spell-like. Supernatural abilities are not subject to spell resistance and do not function in areas where magic is suppressed or negated (such as an antimagic field). A supernatural ability’s effect cannot be dispelled and is not subject to counterspells.

Your other question can be a bit more tricky but what I suggest to you (so do not take that as a rule because what are you asking is not directly specified in manuals as far as I know) is to follow the rule that specific override general and the bane inquisitor ability just say that you can apply the bane ability to a weapon regardless it is already magical or not (since it does not specify anything in this matter).

Bane (Su): At 5th level, an inquisitor can imbue one of her weapons with the bane weapon special ability as a swift action. She must select one creature type when she uses this ability (and a subtype if the creature type selected is humanoid or outsider). Once selected, the type can be changed as a swift action. This ability only functions while the inquisitor wields the weapon. If dropped or taken, the weapon resumes granting this ability if it is returned to the inquisitor before the duration expires.

As an example you can see that in other abilities of this kind (where you apply effects to a weapon) are very specific:

From paladin divine bond:

(…) These bonuses are added to any properties the weapon already has, but duplicate abilities do not stack. If the weapon is not magical, at least a +1 enhancement bonus must be added before any other properties can be added.

From magus arcane pool:

(…) Adding these properties consumes an amount of bonus equal to the property’s base price modifier. These properties are added to any the weapon already has, but duplicates do not stack. If the weapon is not magical, at least a +1 enhancement bonus must be added before any other properties can be added.

Hope it helps,


dnd 5e – Are you aware that you are cursed when you attune to a cursed magical item?

Are you aware that you are cursed when you attune to a cursed magical item?

I have looked up if you are aware of being cursed while under the effects of one. The spell might indicate the nature of the item, but nothing indicates if you know what the item is doing to you or not. Hopefully someone knows the answer to this and could clarify.

dnd 5e – What happens when you use the knock spell on an object with a magical lock that isn’t specifically arcane lock?

The knock spell’s description reads:

Choose an object that you can see within range. The object can be a door, a box, a chest, a set of manacles, a padlock, or another object that contains a mundane or magical means that prevents access.

A target that is held shut by a mundane lock or that is stuck or barred becomes unlocked, unstuck, or unbarred. If the object has multiple locks, only one of them is unlocked.

If you choose a target that is held shut with arcane lock, that spell is suppressed for 10 minutes, during which time the target can be opened and shut normally.

When you cast the spell, a loud knock, audible from as far away as 300 feet, emanates from the target object.

As far as I see it, the description of the knock spell describes 4 things:

  • What the knock spell can target.
  • What happens if the knock spell targets something locked by a mundane lock, or is stuck or barred.
  • What happens if the locking mechanism is specifically the spell arcane lock.
  • The spell creates noise.

Valid spell targets include magical locks. But it doesn’t seem the spell says what it does when such a target is selected (except for create a loud knock sound). This is the case, unless a magical lock is considered ‘stuck’ in which it is according to the spell the lock would be unstucked.

However, the spell says what it does to stuck things where it specifies what happens to a target that is held shut by a mundane lock, or stuck or barred. If magical locks were considered stuck, there wouldn’t have been any need to specifically say what happens to a mundane lock, because it would apply to non-mundane locks too.

I originally asked this question here, but the question unfortunately got edited into a different question. The answer there addresses the question it got edited to. So I feel it is appropriate readdress the main issue in a new thread. For this reason, I don’t think this is a duplicate question, even though I copied the majority of the content of this question from that thread.

dnd 5e – Can a Warforged’s Integrated Protection feature be bypassed by some magical means?

Your armor can only be removed if you are dead.

Integrated Protection states:

While you live, the armor incorporated into your body can’t be removed against your will.

This is not ambiguous. The armor cannot be removed against your will, unless you are dead.

D&D 5e has a specific beats general rule:

This compendium contains rules that govern how the game plays. That said, many racial traits, class features, spells, magic items, monster abilities, and other game elements break the general rules in some way, creating an exception to how the rest of the game works. Remember this: If a specific rule contradicts a general rule, the specific rule wins.

For a feature, such as a spell or monster effect, to be able to remove a warfored’s armor, it would have to explicitly create an exception to the Integrated Protection feature. No such features exist.

The spell feign death might work, but it’s complicated.

There is a case to be made for the spell feign death creating a loop hole here. Feign death states:

You touch a willing creature and put it into a cataleptic state that is indistinguishable from death.

For the spell’s duration, or until you use an action to touch the target and dismiss the spell, the target appears dead to all outward inspection and to spells used to determine the target’s status.

One could argue that being in a state that is indistinguishable from death implies that I should not be able to determine you are alive by being unable to remove your armor.

But even if this is the case, the creature must willingly submit to the effect of feign death, so it probably couldn’t be used by a hostile creature to remove a warforged’s armor without significant deception.

This does raise the question, “can an unconscious creature be willing or unwilling?” Rather than rehash the discussion here, I’ll call “up to the DM” and direct you to these Q&As for further guidance:

So this comes down to choosing which feature to make weaker. Do you make Integrated Protection susceptible to feign death, or do you make feign death not as good for warforged? Discuss this with your DM if you anticipate these features ever interacting.

Warforged aren’t magic anyway, so effects and spells that stop magic wouldn’t work anyway.

The Sage Advice Compendium contains detailed guidance for determining if a feature is magical:

Determining whether a game feature is magical is straightforward. Ask yourself these questions about the feature:

  • Is it a magic item? [No]
  • Is it a spell? Or does it let you create the effects of a spell that’s mentioned in its description? [No]
  • Is it a spell attack? [No]
  • Is it fueled by the use of spell slots? [No]
  • Does its description say it’s magical? [No]

On the last point, nowhere in the race description of warforged found in Eberron: Rising from the Last War is it stated that warforged are inherently magical.

So a spell or effect such as the one created by antimagic field would not bypass Integrated Protection, because Integrated Protection isn’t magical. It’s just good mechanical construction.

dnd 5e – Can an animated sword, made of adamantine, take damage via magical fire?

The ruling “has a basis in fact” insofar as the DMG account of how objects are effected by different damage types is extremely permissive (DMG p. 246):

Objects and Damage Types: Objects are immune to poison and psychic damage. You might decide that some damage types are more effective against a particular object or substance than others. For example, bludgeoning damage works well for smashing things but not for cutting through rope or leather. Paper or cloth objects might be vulnerable to fire and lightning damage. A pick can chip away stone but can’t effectively cut down a tree. As always, use your best judgment.

Note that this doesn’t even establish, for example, a hard and fast rule for a common sense ruling like paper being vulnerable to fire damage. So it is certainly not that case that the rules clearly state that adamantine objects can’t be immune to fire damage.

Of course, these rules specifically apply to inanimate objects. You say:

In this instance, it was an animated sword that was attacking us, and therefore a creature, no longer just an object.

I feel that this undercuts your concern over an object’s damage resistances/vulnerabilities/immunities. After all, if it is a creature, the DM can modify a creature’s stat block in any way they would like. The DM is not restricted to creatures in the Monster Manual. Your argument seems to turn on the DM using the object material to make the case that the adamantine sword was immune to fire damage. But note that the statistics for the flying sword (and you don’t specifically say that the “animated sword” is a Monster Manual flying sword) cannot be derived from the object properties. According to the DMG, steel has a suggested AC of 19, the flying sword has a DEX modifier of +2, so arguably it should have an AC of 21. Instead, it only has an AC of 17. For reference, adamantine has a suggested AC of 23. Did the sword you were fighting have an AC of 23, or 25 with DEX bonus?

So, either it’s a creature, in which case the DM has wide leeway (the DM is not restricted to creatures in published works, and even constructs in published works diverge from characteristics of the materials they are made of), or it’s an object, in which case the DM has wide leeway (because most of the rules around objects are suggestions, including AC, hit points, and damage resistances/vulnerabilities/immunities).

For what it’s worth, I probably wouldn’t make adamantine immune to fire damage. If it was forged in fire, fire can unmake it (except for artifacts). Maybe resistant? But I also wouldn’t spend a lot of time thinking about precise damage types for objects, unless it was really critical to the narrative.

dnd 5e – can a sword made of adamantine be damaged by magical fire?

This ruling isn’t “standard” D&D5e. (Assuming the GM was using the Flying Sword as presented in the Monster Manual.)

Of course, this could be–effectively, is–a homebrewed animated sword. In which case the GM is free to give it whatever damage immunities they would like.

But the Flying Sword (MM p.20) has no immunity to fire. (It is immune to poison and psychic damage, so even in that stat block we can see it’d have been easy to add “fire” to that list, but the developers didn’t.)

Additionally, adamantium in 5e traditionally grants the nullification of critical hits, rather than immunity to fire. See DMG p.150, for example.

That said, I’ve seen this sort of misunderstanding/mistake/mismatch in expectations cause too much grief at tables. I strongly recommend that out of session you take a moment to ask the GM about it, rather than let it fester. And that conversation doesn’t have to be confrontational: “hey, that’s neat that some materials grant fire immunity–can I quest for some of that and have it crafted into a shield?” can work just as well as “oh, so I guess I’m going to have to have cantrips ready to deal two different damage types, now?”

spells – What is the mechanic of the check when using detect magic, Greater to identify magical signature?

Detect magic, greater says:

You can recognize this signature if you succeed at a Spellcraft check when later identifying a spell to determine whether or not that spell was cast by the same individual.

I am confused what is the mechanic for the DC and other functions for identifying spells signature features:

  • isn’t it supposed to be a knowledge (arcana) to recognize spells currently in effect?
  • is the DC calculated using spellcraft skill’s “identify spell as it being cast” math or the one presented previously on the spell regarding “identify last spell cast by creature” effect of the spell?

dnd 5e – When specifically stated “this weapon is magical for overcoming resistances” does that mean it does full damage against a character in rage

Generally speaking, such a feature would not overcome the barbarian’s resistances from their Rage feature.

First, for an example of such a feature, let’s refer to the (NPC) archdruid’s Wild Shape feature, which states:

The new form’s attacks count as magical for the purpose of overcoming resistances and immunity to nonmagical attacks.

Most of the features I’m aware of are phrased similarly enough to not make much of a difference.

The resistances that are part of the barbarian’s rage are described as the following:

You have resistance to bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing damage.

This resistance does not care about the magical or non-magical status of the damage dealt to the barbarian, so “magical for the purpose of overcoming resistances” doesn’t apply here. In the same vein, magical ‘physical’ damage from a spell like catapult, or from weapon attacks with a magical weapon would be halved against a raging barbarian as well (see this Q&A for a more thorough breakdown on this).

This is in contrast to things like air elementals’ resistances, which are phrased as the following:

Bludgeoning, Piercing, and Slashing from Nonmagical Attacks

Such a set of resistances would be overcome by a feature like the archdruid’s, as the attacks counting as magical means that those resistances are inapplicable. Similarly, those resistances would be ineffective against magical attacks causing ‘physical’ damage, such as thorn whip, or weapon attacks with magical weapons.