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

I’m currently in a Rise of the Runelords Pathfinder 1E campaign. I understand that being an earlier campaign it is fairly magic item starved. My character is at level 10 and I have been absolutely dying to just purchase a belt of dexterity +2, headband of wisdom +2, or even bracers of armor +1 or +2. After a long stint away from Magnimar dealing with the concerns around the Turtleback Creek area (during which we leveled up twice, possibly thrice) we will now be making a pit stop in Magnimar before continuing on to our next time-sensitive task.

Our DM laid out Magnimar’s economical stats:
Base Value 12,800 gp; Purchase Limit 75,000 gp; Spellcasting 7th

Does this mean that even at level 10 in this campaign I am still unable to purchase any of these mainstay items? Bracers are listed at CL 7, the headband and belt at CL 8. So this means a city the size of Magnimar does not have a simple headband of wisdom +2? It seems frankly absurd to me that a caster would need to be at caster level 7 or 8 to create a simple bracer of armor +2 or headband of wisdom +2, as well as absurd that a level 10 character in a campaign is still missing any of these things from his equipment.

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 because the bane ability is a supernatural(Su) effect (and therefore is magical).

In short, yes it overcomes DR/magic and can 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 the manuals as far as I know) is to follow the rule that specific overrides general and say that you can apply the bane ability to a weapon regardless of if 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,

Marco.

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

This is pretty much answered on page 139 of the DMG:

Cursed Items

Most methods of identifying items, including the identify spell, fail to reveal such a curse, although lore might hint at it. A curse should be a surprise to the item’s user when the curse’s effects are revealed.
Attunement to a cursed item can’t be ended voluntarily unless the curse is broken first, such as with the remove curse spell.

So in general, no, you don’t immediately know that you’re cursed until “the curse’s effects are revealed” or until you try to unattune from the item and can’t, though it is up to the DM and how they want to play it.

If the DM decides that the curse should be a surprise then you’re not going to know about it until the effect bite you in the… well, you know.

If the DM decides that something like the identify spell will reveal a magic item’s curse then that’s their prerogative.

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 – What happens when you use the knock spell on an object with a lock that is magical but 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 they aren’t a mundane lock, and we have good grounds to presume they aren’t limited to the arcane lock spell either.

Is something locked by a magical lock considered stuck for the purpose of what happens to a stuck object? This would be strange to me because why then do they specify mundane lock. Moreover the part referring to things that locked by a mundane lock, stuck, or barred seems to have an inclination towards the mundane (non-magical), are there magical means of making something stuck which would be included in this description? If so, what is the line between being magically locked and magically stuck?

Is the creation of noise the only result for using the knock spell on a magical lock that isn’t arcane lock?


I’m interested in the answer to this because I’m wanting to break out the dimensional shackles infusion on my artificer. Dimensional shackles seem to be magically locked for all intents and purposes. Moreover the item is designed to prevent teleportation, among any humanoid they were probably made for mages, can a mage simply open them with knock?

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?

There is no clear rule that an adamantine animated sword can or can’t take damage from magical fire. Reasonable people may disagree as to whether it should, but absent a specific rule, it is at the discretion of the the DM.

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 paper being vulnerable to fire damage. So it is certainly not the 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 Monster Manual isn’t the only source of creatures, and the DM can modify a creature’s stat block to make it a different creature, or to make an encounter more or less challenging.

Your argument seems to turn on the DM using the construct’s object material to make the case that the adamantine sword was immune to fire damage. But construct stats cannot be cleanly derived from object materials. You don’t specifically say that the “animated sword” is a Monster Manual flying sword, but let’s assume that it is. Steel has a suggested AC of 19, so presumably a flying sword would have an AC of 19 (natural armor) or 21 (natural armor +2 DEX modifier). Instead, the MM flying sword has an AC of 17.

So, either it’s a creature, in which case the DM has wide leeway, or it’s an object, in which case the DM has wide leeway.

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?”