Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Wolf

BigNorseWolf's page

RPG Superstar 7 Season Dedicated Voter. FullStarFullStarFullStarFullStar Pathfinder Society GM. 29,564 posts (31,032 including aliases). 16 reviews. 4 lists. No wishlists. 30 Pathfinder Society characters. 6 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 29,564 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Shadow Lodge ****

Ferious Thune wrote:
I added the Hammond, LA PFS Lodge. I think I did that right.

works!

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

when you see a bald eagle cry on tv, chances are pretty good it's a red tailed hawk doing a voice over. Bald eagles sound like a giant seagull

Shadow Lodge

ahah, found it

Lethal Damage with a Weapon that Deals Nonlethal Damage: You can use a weapon that deals nonlethal damage, including an unarmed strike, to deal lethal damage instead, but you take a –4 penalty on your attack roll.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Two weapon fighting
thrown weapons
tanking
mobility based characters

Shadow Lodge

I want to do a brownfur transmuter and a mouser.

Shadow Lodge ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kate Baker wrote:

Could you add Gamescape North in San Rafael, California? We are restarting PFS there.

Warhorn.

Thanks!

added

Shadow Lodge ****

John W Johnson wrote:

Now, since we are talking about RAW here, let me point this out for monks:

** spoiler omitted **

The only reason I post this is because Vow of Silence EXPLICITLY STATES that monks with Vow of Silence can communicate with others with Sign Language, so to me that shows that it is legal for Pathfinder play.

No, because the book isn't written for PFS. There's no mechanics for sign language , whether it's with another language or universal across species. What's happened is that this thing is legal but the secondary powers aren't.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quiche Lisp wrote:
It appears you haven't read the second article I provided, from the Nature website, no less, which exposes and discusses the problem of reproducibility in many disciplines of science -

This is not news.

Quote:
Because I'm interested in science, though I'm not a scientist, I've been made aware of the "reproducibility crisis" unfolding in the scientific community for some years. Have you ?

There's pretty good evidence Mendel tweaked the pea plants results. Sir Arthur Eddington's measurements on the solar eclipse were inconclusive at first and only showed the expected result on a second measuring. If by "some years" you mean since the start of science then yes.

Science is done by fallible human beings dealing with physical realities of time, fallible funding funding, fallible equipment, and pressure to get results.

Quote:
Because I'm interested in science, though I'm not a scientist, I've been made aware of the "reproducibility crisis" unfolding in the scientific community for some years. Have you ?

I know how the sausage is made. I'm fine with it. I'm fine with it precisely because there is another garbage can waiting at the end of any result. You can only build something working in reality on a fantasy so far before it collapses. Then you go back and figure out why.

Quote:
I'm not trying to convince you. I'm trying to provide data - scientific, peer-reviewed data - to challenge some lazy thinking and tendency to suspend critical reasoning because... Science !

No. You are trying to equate science and anything else because you don't like that science is fundamentally different, and more important, fundamentally better than your preferred, easier, post modern mechanism for arriving at the truth. Since rational argument would not let you do that you're trying to do that through scary buzzwords like "crisis", "problem" and insulting it as "faith" while simultaneously insulting me through the goldleaf thin veneer by casting aspersions on my "thinking" rather than my person.

Quote:
To reiterate: the scientifical methodology poses specific problems - as do all methodology - and benefits from a critical analysis.

Your analysis is in not critical in any sense of the word.

Quote:
I never said nor implied that what is western is wrong

"trite western doxa."

"Or do you really think western science has invented knowledge and knowing ?"
The brain, and your thoughts, can be altered by blows to the head, drugs, and EM waves: there's even groups performing self experiments hacking their brains with the latter.

You ARE your brain. That is the best conclusion that the best methodology for investigating the world, sicence, can come up with. If your brain is decomposed or reduced to it's component ash you are gone and there is nothing resembling you coming back. Dealing with that problem is more useful than denying it.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Diplomicide?

Shadow Lodge

RSX Raver wrote:


Giant Raven is an AC choice.

Doesn't matter. There's more than one way to reskin a big cat.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quiche Lisp wrote:


Scientism, on the other hand, which is thinking knowledge and reason is solely to be found in science (I'm not saying you think that way) is short-sightedness, the result of shoddy thinking and frankly nothing more than trite western doxa.

Insulting a way of thinking does nothing to show an error in that thinking. you're not even articulating what's wrong with it, much less why, other than that you disagree with it.

You are not going to convince me that science has a problem by citing problems in psychology. I consider it a very soft science...when I'm feeling generous.

It's western and therefore, wrong, is the only thing that's trite here. It's old hat, boring, dull, and thrown out in lieu of argument, reason, evidence, sense. or respect for the irony of saying that on a device running on western science.

Shadow Lodge

RSX Raver wrote:
Murdock Mudeater wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
i don't think everyones lion animal companions would be invalidated if paizo came out with a lion animal companion.

And that is certainly a concern of mine.

Really, the only thing invalidating this option, from a rules stance, is that they later released a more specific bird companion for ravens....

It seems this archetype would have been a good candidate for an errata to add the new bird companion options.

BNW, you are right, but the fact is they are not likely to release a Lion AC stat block because they count it as covered by Big Cat. Clearly though, they felt Raven and Vulture needed their own stats.

There isn't a [raven animal companion] as far as I know.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
RSX Raver wrote:
Murdock Mudeater wrote:

So, BNW, you support the idea of using the Bird Companion stats to represent a Raven via this archetype?

And yea, with either the Raven or the Bird rules, my plan was to go for the +2 dex and +2 con for the 4th/7th companion option. Especially on the Raven, since they'd otherwise get a size increase, which means I need a new model....

I think you should be prepared for possible table variation. I have always been told it is not reskinning if the stats exist for it already. A big cat covers a lot of different large felines, but the Druid does not also have a specific Lion AC stat block. There is however a Raven and Vulture set of stats.

i don't think everyones lion animal companions would be invalidated if paizo came out with a lion animal companion.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Murdock Mudeater wrote:
Why didn't you chime in earlier? That is my understanding and why the question was posed.

While i do spend an inordinate amount of time here i don't see EVERY post.

Can I re-skin or re-flavor an animal companion or item?

You may choose a specific type of animal companion from any of the base forms listed on pages 53–54 of the Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook or a legal Additional Resource but may not use stats for one base form with the flavor of another type of animal. Thus, a small cat could be a cheetah or leopard, as suggested, as well as a lynx, bobcat, puma, or other similar animal; it could not, however, be "re-skinned" to be a giant hairless swamp rat or a differently-statted wolf. If a GM feels that a re-skinning is inappropriate or could have mechanical implications in the specific adventure being played, he may require that the creature simply be considered its generic base form for the duration of the adventure. A player may not re-skin items to be something for which there are no specific rules, and any item a character uses for which there are no stats is considered an improvised weapon (see page 144 of the Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook).

Quote:
The issue here is that the Falconer archetype specifically mentions you can have the animal be a vulture (or pretty much any other bird), but you have to use the Bird Companion option from the CRB.

Feathered Companion (Ex): At 1st level, a falconer earns the trust and companionship of a bird of prey. The bird can be of any type of large hunting or scavenging bird (even a vulture). This ability functions like the druid animal companion ability (which is part of the nature bond class feature), but the falconer must take the bird animal companion, and that companion has only half the normal hit points.

That puts it in the same catagory as a cat: as long as the bird is both large (as in, omg that's a big bird, not the large size catagory) its legal, even if there are two ways to get a vulture with different stats.

You could make a pretty good argument that a raven is a large scavenging bird, as they're bigger than some owls and hawks.

for your bird you probably want to get them an agile amulet of mighty fists and up their dex and con at level 4 instead of strength and con

Instead of taking the listed benefit at 4th or 7th level, you can instead choose to increase the companion's Dexterity and Constitution by 2.

Druids log

Shadow Lodge ****

Lau Bannenberg wrote:


I copy-paste all my spells into a single document along with book and page reference. That's 32 pages on my wizard actually, and he doesn't have level 6 spells yet.

That is kinda nuts if you're doing that for multiple characters on public transport. Or non pack mule transport...

It gets launched even further on a divine prepared caster.

Shadow Lodge

Tableflip McRagequit wrote:

Yeah, but are you really sure that's such a good thing? I mean, the thought that someday everyone involved in the seemingly endless parade of banality that is any given internet argument will certainly die, and probably of old age, is sometimes the only thing that gives me even a smidge of comfort... well, that and flipping tables.

I think long term planning would be a lot more popular if people thought they would see the consequences for themselves.

Shadow Lodge ****

crashcanuck wrote:
Instead of searching through pdfs you could always note not just what book but what page an ability is on

depends on the character and the sheet layout. ALso kind of goes out the window on a prepared caster

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Dor wrote:
True. Repetition can cement that memory in reality however.

Which can be a problem, not a solution, when you're repeating a memory to yourself you solidify it in whatever shape it was in.

Yes, i can remember that De Sota DE scocervered DE mississippi (or was the first white guy in charge of an expedition to get there anyway) because it was drilled into my head 70 times in the 7th grade, but your brain isn't built to do that all day every day with everything you see.

Quote:
You don't have much faith in people do you?

Have you met people?

Quote:
Can't say I blame you though. More than a few atrocities have been committed using lies.

Its always the same lie. We're different and better than them so this course of action is just.

Quote:
True. Ease of reproducibility is part of what makes science such a powerful tool. However, you are still taking someone else's word for it, and science has been known to be wrong at times.

You don't take 1 persons word for it, you take 100s of peoples word for it. And THEN in a good scientific education you take bits and pieces of the whole and test them directly. The conspiracy required to maintain the subterfuge is rarely more likely than the results

Quote:
Hmm... Not sure how to respond to that one without going into subjects best left to another time and place.

You can PM if you want. But the fact is that a lot of science can be brought to the observational level for 500 bucks and a soldering iron.

Quote:
It's not that I dislike the answers of science. I just don't think science can answer everything.

The mistake is thinking that just because science can't answer something then something else must have to. That doesn't follow.

You can ask scientists around the world from different backgrounds facts and they all give you the same picture at anything but the bleeding edge of what we know. Religion can't do the same, and its not because they share an education. Its because science has a trash bin

Stephen Hawkings bet when scientists have a disagreement about how something works there is an independent way to figure out who's right and who's wrong through experimentation. That isn't possible in any other human endeavor and it's the reason that science works.

To the best of sciences ability to say, you are your brain. You are just your brain. Interfere with the brain function and you're not you anymore. You're not you when you're hungry, grab a snickers, is a saying with a bit of truth in it. We know what brain tumors, missing parts of the brain, and traumatic brain injuries can do to a person. So when your brain is gone, you are gone.

Society not accepting that is harmful. For starters it keeps us for looking for a way to to avoid death and age when it really should be our top priority. People used to think that plagues and famines were god's will until we discovered what caused them and how to stop them. Aging to death could be the same in a hundred years, or sooner if we stop pretending there's anyone thats going to save us but us.

Shadow Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Dor wrote:


Experience and the testimony of reliable witnesses come to mind.

and has been shown to be absolutely terrible. Even well meaning people have a large disparity in between reality and memory.

Quote:
We first learn that the sun rises every morning, not by our understanding of astronomy and the powerful forces of gravity, but by the fact that we have seen it rise every morning since childhood.

Observation. there's a reason that's a big part of science.

Quote:
As powerful as experience can be in teaching us things, the words of others are just as powerful.

And very often wrong, even on the odd chance that they're not being used to manipulate people for some end.

Quote:
Almost everything that society has learned through scientific reasoning are things that we will never of ourselves take the time to observe and reason out.

But someone will. Being able to have dozens of people check something and get the same conclusion is an amazingly powerful tool to get at reality compared to "i saw this. no. really!"

Quote:
We believe that atoms form our bodies and that the earth revolves around the sun because that is what we learned in school.

And being the kid in the class that asked "well how do we know that" often enough to turn a teachers hair grey i can tell you that a science teacher can keep that up a LOT longer than a religious teacher can, yes, right down to walking outside and putting a stick in the ground.

Quote:
I think that these two things can teach us about matters that science does not (and perhaps cannot) touch.

Those things are absolutely terrible whenever we've been able to examine them. Why would they be good just because you don't like the answer science is giving you?

Shadow Lodge

Quiche Lisp wrote:


You seem to subscribe to the belief that humanity was fundamentally ignorant before the advent of Science.

I think science has been with us a lot longer than you're giving it credit for.

Quote:

I think the fundamental truths aren't exhausted by scientific pursuits.

And I think the fundamental truth is beyond our usual earthly knowledge - and I've (mostly) made my peace with that.

You have no good reason to think this and would not accept the reasoning for any other conclusion.

Shadow Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Quiche Lisp wrote:


Or do you really think western science has invented knowledge and knowing ?

Not neccesarily western but definitely science. Because most of what you listed isn't a way to know anything. Its a way to think you know something when you don't, and that difference is why we've advanced more in the last 200 years than the previous two thousand.

Shadow Lodge

PFS won't let you skin one animal into another but the example in the faq is "Big cat" that cat can be a lion a tiger a panther leopard, jaguar, black panthar, snow leopard, etc.

and flamingo swarms can reduce t rexes to bones in seconds

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Dor wrote:
but I think that it is a mistake to assume everything must be known by scientific reasoning

What else works?

Shadow Lodge ****

Jared Thaler wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
GM Lamplighter wrote:
It's just not ownership, it's also having them accessible at the table.

Most people seem to use google for that because it's faster.

Except google usually takes you to d20pfsrd, and periodically it is wrong, or lacking context.

and sometimes a PDF is out of date, lacks erratta, or misses a clarification that d20pfsrd will point to. If I"m looking up a rule during the game fast is better than perfect. Close enough for state work.

Shadow Lodge

Komoda wrote:

But in the game we play, distance traveled is on the map.

Distance traveled in the jump is not.

Shadow Lodge ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lau Bannenberg wrote:
Maybe there's too many Aspis agents running around planting wayfinders at crime scenes, and now we're running low?

Venture captain: Pathfiders can't take more flack for causing mayhem.

Party: Got it boss

Party Arives. Proceed to pathfinder the place. Arsons and bodies pile up. "Everyone put on your aspis badges!"

Player arives late Party: "if you're really a pathfinder... where's your aspis badge?"

Shadow Lodge

3.5: it affects your alignment slowly, meaning that you use it on occasion but it isn't your SOP.

Shadow Lodge ****

2 people marked this as a favorite.

now so tempted to make Linus the tree warden and his pumpkin leshy companion...

Shadow Lodge ****

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Vinyc Kettlebek wrote:
There are Pathfinders running around Golarion without their wayfinders?

considering how often being seen with one will get you killed..

Shadow Lodge ****

baring anything else I'd say armor and barding as it's the default.

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

is part pointer, and tries to point back to the topic

Shadow Lodge ****

Is a ratfolk tailblade something anyone with a tail can use or just ratfolk? the additional resources parses a little vague on this one.

Shadow Lodge ****

spartanfury1 wrote:

My point norse wolf...is that that is exactly how it describes it.

In the catfolk entry, it specifically says only catfolk may use them. In the kobold entry it specifically says only kobold may use them. In the solidsmoke pipeweed, it specifically says only a halfling gets any benefit and others cannot (and beyond that take penalty for trying).

Just because there's A way to say no and another thing said no a different way does not mean that all things have to say no the same way or they're not saying no.

Quote:
And this is continued among the other equipment in the book. The book is fairly good at actively calling out what is only usable by their parent race.

The book was not written with pfs in mind.

The additional resources WAS written with the book in mind. That additional resource clause requires positive evidence that other races can use the item in question, and the ratfolk tail blade does not provide that. AR has a positive evidence requirement: the burden of proof is on "other races can use this" or anyone can use this, the tailblade doesn't sound like it can be.

Quote:

"could it be used by races with tails?" yes

"could a ratfolk use it better?" probably

The argument is equally valid that other races can't use it because they don't have the specific anatomy for it: the tail isn't as dexterous, the fur is in the way, etc.

Quote:
<- You know that thing that isn't what normally happens with a secondary natural attack.

It doesn't come out and say it, but the rules listed for it use the rules for a primary (but not only) natural attack that can be used in conjunction with other weapons: which adds 1x strength bonus and is treated as a secondary natural attack if used as part of a full round action (for a ratfolk, presumably with a manufactured weapon)

Click the FAQ button up top and hope for a response. I'm hardly the most weird ideas adverse DM out there, but additional resources is one area where pfs is absurdly persnickity.

added it to the campaign clarification request thread.

Shadow Lodge ****

2 people marked this as a favorite.
spartanfury1 wrote:


Tell me where it says "this can only be used by a ratfolk".

That is not how you do rules adjudication. The options are not "it absolutely 100% says you can't do this" and "it absolutely 100% prohibits this" and something in the middle.

Racial equipment and magic items can be purchased and used by any race as long as the specific item permits it (for example, only halflings can purchase and use solidsmoke pipeweed).

To decide if something meets that criteria I'm looking for something along the lines of

Strong "other races with tails may use..."
weak "used primarily by..."

To see if they don't meet the criteria

Strong: "only ratfolk have the tail that allows them to..."
weak: used by ratfolk

So when i look at this, all I see is a weak "no". baring any other evidence that leaves me with no as the best answer I can derive from the rules.

In a PFS campaign where You have multiple DM's that is a very bad place for an idea to be. You don't just need 1 dm to sign off on it, if its a core part of your character you want 90 to 100% of the dms signing off on it, and baring official clarification, I don't think thats very likely.

I would be absolutely ecstatic to be wrong, as I have an adorable bundle of fluffy death foxform kitsune that would duct tape one of these on in a heartbeat.

Shadow Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

you need 12 ranks in perform to make a rock zombie

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
Except for people who want to play a White-Haired Witch.

I'm at a loss at why you wouldn't take the hex rather than the archetype post clarification.

Shadow Lodge

Komada wrote:
We are talking about how far a character moves.

you are.

The rules aren't. You are equating distance traveled with distance traveled in the jump. They're not the same thing.

move 20 feet jump 20 feet move 20 feet.

distance moved, 60 feet. Distance jumped 20 feet.

It's plain in the text. It was plain in the table. It got FAq'd. Leave over.

Shadow Lodge ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.
andreww wrote:

Blend is great.

Ward of the Season is quite useful given its duration and multiple effects.
Bestow Insight is great for skill monkeys.

.. i think ward of the seasons just replaced blend. But i probably have almost a year to make that decision. not that i've been mulling it over for 2 years or anything...

Shadow Lodge ****

Blend is an amazing choice, it's on a number of spell lists and is hard to reproduce any other way.

flutter has TWO "aram zey doesn't yell at you quite so much" boons. I wonder if you can get 3 then he actually likes you...

Shadow Lodge

pm'd to avoid further derail :)

Shadow Lodge

Neither anything i've said or any of your refutations of.. mostly things i didn't say warrant the "LOL".

Quote:
And beyond that, we all ignore that part of the rule anyway. Otherwise, it would be almost impossible to jump a 5' pit onto a 5' landing with another 5' pit on the other side.

Reading the rule the right way, and doing that as 2 5 foot jumps, with a DC of 5 is not "ignoring the rules". Your misinterpretation of the rules is not the rules, especially when I just pointed out the inconsistency in how you arrived at that conclusion. Treating the creature as either a euclidean dot or a creature with anatomy will get you a viable conclusion. You created the "inconsistency in the rules" when you switched between the two mid argument.

Shadow Lodge

Komoda wrote:

This is what is known as edge-to-edge measurement. If your toes start at the edge of a 5' pit, and you travel 5', you fall in.

his is what is known as edge-to-edge measurement. If your toes start at the edge of a 5' pit, and you travel 5', you fall in. Your toes will just touch the other side of the pit. There is NO way around that.

Its very easy to go around that, you don't switch back and forth between treating a character like a 3 dimensional being with an anatomy and treating them like a euclidean dot on a line just to find a "contradiction" in the rules.

If the character is a euclidean dot they move 5 feet and have gone from one line to the other and are fine

If the character is a creature with an anatomy they put their heel at the edge of the cliff they're leaving jump 5 feet in the air and put their toes on the far side and are also fine. Distanced moved and distanced moved in the jump don't have to be the same thing.

Reading one sentence of the rules, in isolation, with the assumption that the rules and ones understanding of them are both perfectly clear and non contradictory are going to get you some wonky results. If something could be read one way or another, look for other bits of evidence rather than trying to apply Aristotelian logic because that doesn't work.

Shadow Lodge

Linea Lirondottir wrote:


Indeed. I never claimed that path of glory was ever always superior to infernal healing, extended or otherwise; there will basically always be situations where one or the other is better.

Infernal healing blows path of glory out of the water in terms of amount healed per gold piece spent for an adventuring party, which is what you're looking for in a wand. If you're healing an army i'm sure path of glory is great, but for a party of 3-6 its very meh.

Shadow Lodge

Komada wrote:
So again, if the gap/DC is 5, and the result of the skill check is 5, by the first quote, you make it. By the second quote (found in the same paragraph) you fail to make it as you land 5' from your starting position, AKA in the hole.

While it can be read that way it does not HAVE to be read that way. You are assuming that the distance traveled and the distance jumped are the same: something that a dc 5 jump check on the chart should have precluded.

Shadow Lodge

Christopher Senz wrote:


Their argument is that e spell does not specifically say to apply the template to a creature and that rather than the word skeleton or zombie being a descriptor it's the name of the actual creature as displayed in the beastiary

The spell tells you to use a template

Templates

A template is a set of rules that you apply to a monster to transform it into a different monster. It gives precise directions on how to change the original monster's statistics to transform it into the new monster.

Acquired Templates: This kind of template is added to a creature well after its birth or creation.

Inherited Templates: This kind of template is part of a creature from the beginning of its existence. Creatures are born or created with these templates already in place, and have never known life without them.

A template is by definition applied to a monster, they don't need to spell it out in the spell or the particular template. its like how spells don't all say "requires line of sight": its a basic assumption of spells from the magic chapter.

Shadow Lodge ****

After. Which makes it a meh reward unless you can double it up from a lot of other seasons.

Shadow Lodge

Quote:
Apsu - His flaw is that he's kind of racist towards humans.

Meh. They've got it comin'

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Jurassic Pratt wrote:


It sounds stupid, but by the letter of the rules its true.

No. It is not. Having a listed price in the chart is not the only way to figure out a cost for something. There's no cost for an adamantium dagger, it does tell you how to figure it out though.

Liscense to play devils advocate revoked

Shadow Lodge

Jurassic Pratt wrote:


Do you see the point I was trying to make now? I was simply using their own logic to disprove the notion.

It's not quite working. 1 dose= 1 flask is a little arbitrary (unless that line with "worth 25 gp wasn't a figment of my imagination). That we don't know what the cost of unholy water is when we know it has a material component and we have prices for spellcasting services is NVTS nuts. While i disagree with them, their argument isn't THAT bad.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jurassic Pratt wrote:

You'll find that the price for unholy water isn't listed anywhere in the CRB or, to my knowledge, any other book Paizo has ever printed.

Going on the weirdest argument for something thread....

Mind you, and this is coming from someone that AGREES with the conclussion that there is no gp cost to the spell.

Temples to good deities sell holy water at cost (making no profit). Holy water is made using the bless water spell.

Curse Water

School necromancy [evil]; Level cleric 1

Casting Time 1 minute

Components V, S, M (5 lbs. of powdered silver worth 25 gp)

Range touch

Target flask of water touched

Duration instantaneous

Saving Throw Will negates (object); Spell Resistance yes (object)

This spell imbues a flask (1 pint) of water with negative energy, turning it into unholy water (see Equipment). Unholy water damages good outsiders the way holy water damages undead and evil outsiders.

So while unholy water might be 25 gp or 50 gp depending on whether evil temples hand it out at cost like good temples do , there is a definite in game price for an entire flask of holy water.

I could have sworn that some source listed the dose for infernal healings holy water as 25 gp, but as there's either an inconsistency in my memory or the sources. The devils blood is undeniably free.

1 to 50 of 29,564 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2016 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.