Having access to the Internet should not be assumed, while my phone can technically do it I wouldn't want to stake a life on it's ability to do it. There are a lot of people who do have some way to get online but phones are not the most reliable or fastest way to do it. Then there's the time it takes to search through the forums to find something. A FAQ document that is both online and downloadable would be a preferred option.
It's also the way that this is worded that kind of irks me. A GM just has to be "aware" of the rule. They don't need to be able to show a player the ruling, the GM just needs to say "I read it on the boards so it's true, who cares if it contradicts the RAW". Players could do this as well, "I read this or that ruling on the boards so this is how I'm going to play my character".
These are extreme situations but possible. It's also possible for a GM who feels that characters aren't being challenged enough to use this as a way to make things harder for them by changing how class abilities or such work, or players who try to bend the rules to better suite their wants.
Like the title says, how can this be realistic? I can see this leading to more than a few problems at a table between GM's and Players. What happens if a player is aware of a ruling that changes something that their character does but the GM isn't? What happens if the GM is aware of something that NONE of the players are aware of?
This is one of the WORST things that I've ever come across in a organized play campaign.
If there's a rule that the campaign staff feels needs to be changed or clarified in any way it should be in the FAQ.
There's also the situation of less than honest players that become "aware" of messageboard rulings from campaign leadership that give them an unfair advantage. What happens then?
Bottom line, if we're all supposed to be playing by the same rules in PFS there needs to be one document that both players and GM's can print out and take with them (or at least bring an e-version along) to use as rules clarifications. If not a official FAQ, then something along those lines.
Yes it's common sense, but it's also implied in the rules.
Answer this simple question questions:
If you do NOT threaten an area, can you take an AoO?
From everything I've read in the rules the answer I come up with is "no". So if you can't make an AoO if you do not threaten an area, then you cannot take an AoO with a weapon you do not threaten with. It's using "common sense" to take the RAW to a logical conclusion.
Here's another situation: Say a monster has a natural bite attack and is wielding a reach weapon. You provoke an AoO from the reach weapon as you move through its threatened area. The monster cannot take the AoO with it's bite attack because at the time you provoked the AoO the bite isn't what was threatening you, it was the reach weapon so that's what the monster has to take the attack with.
It's the same thing if you have two weapons of equal reach but only one of them threatens an area. You take the AoO with the weapon that caused the area to be threatened.
As you know if you've played this game for any amount of time. The RAW don't cover everything that comes up in the game so it requires more than a little common sense and logic to read the rules and come up with the answers for the rules that aren't explicitly covered in the RAW.
If there's some part of the RAW that say that you can make an AoO if you don't threaten an area then that opens up a whole new line of thought that would definitely support your point of view but I'd need you to point out where it says that. Of if you could just point out the specific rule that you're reading that makes you think that you CAN take an AoO with a weapon or UAS that doesn't threaten an area I'd appreciate that too.
Ok, so say that you have a whip (without the Improved Whip feat) and a dagger. You only threaten the 8 squares around you since you don't threaten with the whip. If someone provokes an AoO from you they are provoking from your dagger not your whip so you can't take the AoO with your whip.
It's the same if you have a sword in one hand and your other hand is empty. If you don't have Improved Unarmed Strike you don't threaten with your empty hand so you could only take an AoO with your sword.
That's just how it is. If you want to run it differently in a home game that's within your right but that's not what the rules intend.
Misunderstood Monk wrote:
An AoO is provoked if you do something in another character's threatened area. If you do not threaten any areas around you then you cannot take AoO. So if you're not wielding a weapon (usually a melee weapon) you cannot take AoO unless you threaten with your "unarmed" attacks. This would not change if you have the Quick Draw feat either because Quick Draw just changes the action to a Free Action (even these can only be taken on YOUR turn not during someone else's, with the exception of speech). The only type of action that can be taken on another characters turn is an Immediate Action as they can "interrupt" another character's actions.
I don't think it's explicitly stated in the rules but it is there in the logic of the rules. In order to make and Attack of Opportunity on a target you must threaten the target, so if you don't threaten the target you can't make an AoO. If you threaten a target with more than one weapon you can choose which one you make the AoO with but as stated, just because you threaten a target with a reach weapon doesn't mean that you can kick it from 10 feet away unless you have reach with your kick as well and your kicks threaten the target.
As for unarmed strikes, unless you have Improved Unarmed Strike (or some other ability that lets your unarmed attacks threaten) not only does your unarmed strike not threaten the target but you provoke an AoO from the target you're attacking.
A slight correction they would all inflict the bleed but would over wright one another. So the best of the 3 bleed dice would be the one that sticks.
That's what I thought but then I started over thinking a little bit and thought that it might mean that while each hit does an extra 1d4 points of bleed damage the opponent only takes an extra 1d4 points of damage on their turn not 3d4 points of damage on their turn (that's what I thought it meant by stacking).
As it is this feat is almost useless since you take a -5 to all of your attacks (not just the one that does bleed damage) and the most you can hope for is an extra 4 points of damage.
Here's the text:
Prerequisites: Str 13, Power Attack, base attack bonus +6.
Benefit: You can choose to take a –5 penalty on all melee attack rolls and combat maneuver checks to inflict 1d4 points of bleed damage with your weapon melee attacks, in addition to the normal damage dealt by the weapon. A creature continues to take bleed damage every round at the start of its turn. Bleed damage can be stopped by a DC 15 Heal check or through any magical healing. Bleed damage from this feat does not stack with itself. You must choose to use this feat before making the attack roll, and its effects last until your next turn (although the bleeding lasts until healed, as normal).
So my question is this; If your character has three attacks in a round and you target all three on a single opponent and then manage to hit with all three attacks while using this feat do you do an extra 1d4 points of bleed damage with each hit and then the opponent takes 1d4 points of bleed damage on the beginning of his turn, or is it only one attack that get's the extra 1d4 points of bleed damage (no matter how many actually hit) and then the opponent takes an extra 1d4 points on his turn?
Golems are a specific class of construct. As the OP stated they're infused with the an elemental. Think of it as a Golem being a subclass of constructs.
Branding Opportunity wrote:
Yeah, and then James Jacobs went on to say he may have ruled it wrong like 25 or 30 posts later in the same thread. This should be FAQ'ed.
Actually the diagram on page 308 of the 3.5 Dungeon Master's Guide shows the diagram for a Large (10x10x10 reach) creature to go by the BOTTOM diagram. And then if the Large creature is using a weapon it goes out from there but at weird angles.
I know that, while Pathfinder is based on 3.5, it has changed more than a few rules and how things work. That's why I'm wondering if they're are some diagrams somewhere that I missed or something written out that I over looked. Otherwise I'll keep going by the diagrams in the 3.5 book to stay consistent.
So I was reading over the Protection from *Alignment* spells and discovered something that's a little weird. The "Second" part of the spell that covers mental control and influence has a sentence at the very end that reads:
This second effect only functions against spells and effects created by evil creatures or objects, subject to GM discretion.
Now this was from the "Protection from Evil" spell description but all of those spells refer back to this one.
So my question is this, say that a character has "Protection from Evil" cast upon them and then an evil vampire tries to dominate them, it's pretty cut and dry, the character is immune to the effects. But what if that same character went up against a good aligned caster for some reason or a true neutral caster? Is the character still at least immune to mental domination and influence or not?
Here's the whole text of the spell:
Ok, so this came up the other day while we were playing. We were being attacked by a monster that was 10x10 and had 10' reach. One of the players had said that the monster couldn't hit (didn't threaten) the second diagonal square because it was 15' away but I've always been under the impression (at least since 3.5) that reaching into the square was enough.
So to better (I hope) illustrate what I'm asking; the diagram on the top shows that the bad guy can't reach or threaten the outer most 4 squared because they're 15' away vs. the diagram on the bottom that shows it can get all of those squares.
Now in the 3.5 DMG there was a really nice set of diagrams in the back of the book that illustrated how reach works and what squares were within the creatures reach. I still use those since Pathfinder is based on 3.5, but does Pathfinder have it's own set of diagrams or even just something written out that changes how reach for larger and larger creatures work?
Mike Mistele wrote:
I did see your list (after I made my post, oops). I knew there were more but having not really been to a big gaming Con in almost 5 years and not having a ton of time to even spend at my local gaming stores makes it difficult stay up on what's out there.
Andrew Christian wrote:
And I would guarantee you that if you were to sit down with one of my characters that changed a trait or a feat, you'd never be able to tell. Also, while this is a Roleplaying Game it is also a GAME. It has rules to follow when building your character but the rules don't define the character of your character they define what he can or can't do. It's up to you to create the character's personality and make his "in game" decisions. No Racial Trait, or feat can do that for you.
As for the whole consequences of choices, are you talking "in game" choices or "character creation" choices. Becuase if I don't have a choice then there can't be any consequence from it. If I have a character that was created in Year 1 before APG, Ultimate Combat, Ultimate Magic and ARG came out I was never given the choice of the content in those books. Should I have waited to create and play that character? If so, how long do I wait? A year? Two? Maybe I just never play hoping that the option I want eventually comes out in a book before the campaign ends?
All that I'm asking is to be giving a chance to explore some of these new choices that have been giving to me with characters I've been playing for a while and have an investment in. I don't want to have character clones because that one rules option that didn't exist when I created my character and would fit him PERFECTLY wasn't around when I made him. Where's the roleplaying in that?
Seth Gipson wrote:
I'll give you the Year of the Shadow story line, though I think calling it "muddier" is a little of an understatement.
Seth Gipson wrote:
That's the conclusion you let me too with your post as a whole, I didn't realize I should read them as two separate posts on two separate topics.
As for what 4e does or doesn't do I couldn't tell you. I played 4e when it first came out. I ran through the first mod "Keep of the Shadowfell" or whatever it was called and the me and the group I played it with didn't really care for it so we switched to Pathfinder. As to why Living Greyhawk gets brought up a lot, it was one of the MOST successful "Living" style campaigns ever done. It lasted the entirety of the 3E and 3.5 and had a ton of players across the world. As for ones that are still around, like I mentioned before, Living Arcanis is still around, as is the 4e LFR (but I don't play LFR). Most of the rest either didn't have enough of a player base to keep it going or the companies behind them pulled support and shut them down.
Seth Gipson wrote:
It would be necessary to help those people who had a specific character in mind when they sat down to create them but didn't have the rules that allowed them to create what they had in mind (see my example I gave in my reply to Andrew). And yes, the campaign runs fine now but why summarily dismiss a change that more than a few people want "because this is how we've done it so far so why change it". The type of changes I'm asking for are minor, Racial Traits, Feats, and Archetypes (this is probably the most complicated) but none of these changes would be game breaking, in my opinion.
Andrew Christian wrote:
Again, let me state, I'm not asking for a TOTAL REBUILD OF THE CHARACTER. Here let me give you an example of what I'm talking about. Say that I have a Half-Orc *Insert Class Here* with all the standard Racial Traits out of the core book. What is so complicated about switching out his Intimidating racial trait for Rock Climber? You loose a +2 to Intimidation and get a +1 to Acrobatics and Climb? Or maybe I picked up the Improved Sunder feat and but then rarely ever used it and would instead like to swap it out for the new Surprise Follow-Though feat out of the ARG. I start taking AOO's when/if I ever attempt to sunder things but when I use Cleave or Great Cleave now the second target is denied his Dex to AC. Where's the complication?
Things like I stated above don't even "change the character" or how it would be played. It would be changes that make the character more like I pictured it in my head kind of thing.
Mike Lindner wrote:
Please read my original post. I even said I'm NOT asking for a total rebuild. Just something where we can swap out traits, feats, or archetypes. Make us have to keep our race, class, and ability scores. The campaign staff could put together a Chronicle sheet to do the tracking on that the player prints out, brings to his next event and whatever GM is running the table signs off on it. They already put out those silly little Chronicles for the various Holidays/Celebrations.
Some people have said that it would make certain builds that are "unappealing" at lower levels something people just "make" at a higher level. To them again I say, I'm NOT asking for a total rebuild and I'm NOT asking to have anything "retconned". But there are new options that come out in EVERY book that Paizo puts out and there are some options that would really fit some of my characters. But because I've already played them I can't use those options unless I create another character that's exactly like the one I'm already playing with a different trait or feat or archetype. That just doesn't sound fun to me.
To those people who say, "Oh just make a another character". Let me tell you something. I played Living Greyhawk, I had three characters I played throughout the entirety of the campaign and I played Living City, I had three characters I played during the time I invested in that campaign. I remember those characters vividly, they had personalities, they had flavor and they ALL had stories they could tell. I already have five PFS characters and there is a increasing likelihood that I will have to make more before the end of the campaign. I try my hardest to put personalities to all five of my characters and make them memorable and unique, but I honestly don't remember who they are sometimes. I'll look at the character sheet and I won't remember what adventures that character had or what personality they had. I think that some players, like me, are starting to get bogged down by the number of characters they have, but that is a topic for another thread.
To get back to my original topic though. I don't see what I'm asking for as a huge game breaking thing, or even a huge strain on the campaign staff since this could be taken care of at a table with a GM. If it is though, I'd appreciate being told why. I'm only looking to use rules that are already approved but weren't available to me when I originally made and played my characters. And like I said, it's not appealing to me to remake my character start over from level 1 all because I wanted to use a different rules option that would have been perfect for him.
Seth Gipson wrote:
You're right, in some ways it's better in other ways it's quite inferior. My biggest complaint has been, and probably always will be, the lack of a central story. Year 3 has been much better in that department but it's stall lacking compared to others that have come before.
Seth Gipson wrote:
So you're implying that by letting players have an occasional character rebuild that's what made the other "Living" campaigns go away? Could you be any more fallacious in your implications? There's enough room there to drive a Tarrasque through. For starters, Living Arcanis is still on going and, if I recall correctly, allowed their players a character rebuild once a year so they could uses the newest rules from the newest books. It was also one of the MOST story driven "Living" style campaigns I've ever played in.
Seth Gipson wrote:
Why is allowing a person to rebuild their characters using new and approved rules that came out after they started playing their characters such a bad thing? What would be so wrong with The Powers That Be allowing a character rebuild every new PFS year so that players can incorporate the new rules into the characters that they've already invested time into? Why is this something the the "Campaign does not need"?
Seth Gipson wrote:
Unless you have been exclusively been running/playing low level scenarios and dont get to play that often, I dont see how it would take years to get a character past level 4.
As a matter of fact, up until recently, I haven't had the opportunity to play very frequently. And since I have more than one character most of the scenarios I've been playing have been in the lower tier (though I finally have one character that's made it to the high tiers).
So, yes, it very well could take me years to use some of the new options to get characters out of the first couple of levels. I'm sure I'm not the only one either.
Not to mention that almost every other "Living" style campaign like PFS has given their players options for rebuilds as the years have gone by so that long time players can utilize the newest rules for their mid and high level characters without having to start over from first level yet again.
The problem is that I already have 5 characters that I've created over the years, all are above 1st level. I've played MANY of the PFS Senarios and run almost all of the ones I've played at least once. So saying that you can just create a new character and play more isn't really a great option for people like me since it would take years of playing to get the characters past level 4 or 5.
So there have been a lot of new books that have come out since the beginning of Pathfinder Society. The newest of these is the Advanced Race Guide that's just come out today. With all of these new books and new rules and options will The Powers That Be consider allowing us players to have a one time rebuild of our characters to make use of some of these new rules options (such as traits, archetypes, feats, ect).
I'm not asking for a total rebuild, maybe something like you have to keep your race and/or class but you can change other things out. Then you'd take your old character sheet and the new one and have your next GM sign off on the rebuild.
Just a thought.
One thing you have to keep in mind is the weight limit for flying creatures. I believe that they have to stay within their "Light Load" in order to fly.
If you're going for a thematic thing, then as a GM, you can certainly say that a creature with Flyby Attack, and Snatch could swoop in, grab a character and start to fly away with him.
Or if you're playing strictly by the rules then the creature would have to swoop in and make the attack (and grapple), and then next round try to fly away with the character.
Ok here is the curve, do you suffer the shooting into melee penalty if you're the one in melee with the target?
I believe the answer is "Yes you still take the -4". The main reason is simplicity. The combat system that Pathfinder uses is incredibly abstract. If you use a battlemap and you view combat as one guy standing next to the other guy swinging swords at each other your missing the point. The combat system, hit points, and the like are all used to take combat like you see in the movies (Gladiator, Game of Thrones, LotR, Zorro, etc) and make it work with in the game rules.
The combatants, while standing still (for the most part) on the battlemap, are representing swings, misses, dives to the side, circling each other, and the like. But to keep things simple the system uses a turn based combat system where people are "standing still" and only swing there swords or shoot their bows on their turn. There have been other game systems that handled combat better IMO, but they were a lot more complex too.
So while you may be the character in "melee" with the baddy, he's still considered to be in melee because he threatens you so you take the penalty (and AoO for that matter) if you shoot him from that position.
The one way to get around needing 8 hours of sleep/rest is a Ring of Sustenance.
Ring of Sustenance
Slot ring; Price 2,500 gp; Weight —
You are still limited by the fact that you can't get spells back that have been cast within the last 8 hours (since you're only actually sleeping/resting 2 hours) this can make for some problems.
Yeah, charm person is all but useless in combat, unless you have a very well-coordinated team and have pre-planned tactics for making it work.
Actually it's not;
This charm makes a humanoid creature regard you as its trusted friend and ally (treat the target's attitude as friendly). If the creature is currently being threatened or attacked by you or your allies, however, it receives a +5 bonus on its saving throw.
The spell does not enable you to control the charmed person as if it were an automaton, but it perceives your words and actions in the most favorable way. You can try to give the subject orders, but you must win an opposed Charisma check to convince it to do anything it wouldn't ordinarily do. (Retries are not allowed.) An affected creature never obeys suicidal or obviously harmful orders, but it might be convinced that something very dangerous is worth doing. Any act by you or your apparent allies that threatens the charmed person breaks the spell. You must speak the person's language to communicate your commands, or else be good at pantomiming.
If you can manage to get the humanoid you're trying to charm to fail his save then you can attempt an opposed Charisma check to give them an order. I've used this spell very successfully in combat (if they fail their save). It just takes a little imagination.
Thanks! I knew there was something somewhere about it but I couldn't remember where I read it.
Ok, so if the author used distance to a city as a basis to raise the EL of this one encounter then he would need to do it for ALL of the encounters since it's a constant (for example the fight with the Oracle and her henchmen should have been increased because you may not have had access to healing after that fight, all the traps should have had their EL increased for the same reason, and the same with the Mummies at the end for that same reason). Unless the EL was raised for ALL encounters because of distance to the city, distance to the city is not a valid reason to raise the EL of one specific encounter.
Also, of the top of my head I believe that it's a 50% increase to EL for doubling the creatures in an encounter, so a base EL 4 counter (1 stock Sea Hag) would go to an EL 6 encounter if you have 2 stock Sea Hags, and then environmental conditions would increase or decrease the EL based on who they favor, but I could be mistaken as I don't have my book at the moment.
As for the curse, I'm thinking that the two coma's ARE separate and I would be willing to concede that the Will Save coma would be permanent since there's not a cure line or a wake up condition, listed, but I'm not 100% convinced of it yet.
Alright Jiggy, I see your point about the condition line. So let's say that some one was affected by the Evil Eye. After failing the initial save the poor character is staggered, but then the following day they fail their save again and go comatose. Now since this is the effect of just suffering the curse they would make another Will save the next day, if they make it, they wake up, if they fail they stay comatose. Per the description of the curse, the ONLY reason for the character to make a Fort save is if the Hag uses her Evil Eye ability on the character a 2nd time because then that poor character has been doubly cursed and go into a coma that could kill them.
Again, this is a base CR 4 creature and should not threaten low level characters with near instant death. As for the scenario raising the EL of the encounter, I will guarantee you it's because it took place completely underwater, which extremely favorable to the creatures, in a desert so most casters won't have Water Breathing to make the encounter easier, also there are severe penalties for fighting underwater unless you have a Ring of Freedom of Movement or the spell Freedom of Movement cast upon you. That's why the CR would have been increased, not because you're a few days outside of a city. The also may have advanced the creature, to make it's save DC's higher which could have gone into the increased EL of the encounter.
Evil Eye Curse: Gaze—failed save; save Will DC 14; frequency 1/day; effect staggered (or fall comatose if already under the effects of the evil eye).
After re-reading the above stat block combined with the actual text of the ability I read it as follows.
1)After you've failed your safe and have been cursed you get a 1/day save to avoid being staggered for that whole day.
2)The part in parenthesis must be referring to the second sentence of the ability that says you must be effected by an Evil Eye twice before falling into a coma and reiterating that you only get a 1/day save while in the coma.
You have to look at the whole ability to get the whole picture of how the curse works, is this an auto kill curse in and of itself, no, but in this scenario though it's pretty rough if you're not prepaired. The adventures go into a completely submerged room and then have no choice but to face off against this creature/s and if they're not prepared with Water Breathing of the like they will drowned if they fail the initial Will Save to avoid the curse and the Fort Save when glared at a second time and fall into a coma.
One other thing to consider too is that the base Sea Hag is only CR 4 and that if 3rd or 4th level PC could play in this scenario most of them would die because they failed their original Will save. Also look at the ability of the CR 9 Night Hag, it causes one 1 point of Con DRAIN every night it effects a chaotic or evil creature with nightmares, so even a creature who's of the same type who's over twice the CR of the Sea Hag must spend at least 8 nights before it kills your average commoner.
Paizo has taken great steps to avoid the save or die situations a low to mid levels (there's still risks like Phantasmal Killer) but you usually have to be 9th to 10th level before you start to see those. The Sea Hag is only CR 4, technically a party of 1st or 2nd level adventures could take on one but in this scenario's situation, the way you're reading it, up to 3 of the PC would die even at the starting DC 14 Save.
This is NOT the best worded power in the game but if you read it, it does make sense and is NOT and instant kill if you don't have a remove curse handy. This is how I believe that the power works and if I'm mistaken about something please let me know.
First: the hag gazes at you and you have to make a Will Save or be cursed by the Evil Eye and be staggered until you get the curse removed.
Second: Per the second sentence of the ability, IF the hag uses here Evil Eye ability AGAIN on a creature ALREADY under the effects of the hags Evil Eye the creature must make Fort Save or slip into a coma for 3 days.
Third: If you're in a coma from this ability you make one save per day for the next 3 days and if you fail even one of them you die. If you make all three saves though you wake up and go back to being staggered until you get the curse removed or the Hag casts her Evil Eye on the creature again which would require another Fort Save to avoid going into another 3 day coma.
If the hag cannot use her Evil Eye ability on the creature she has already used her Evil Eye ability (because she's not near it, dead, etc.) then the creature has to suffer with the staggered condition until the curse is removed but doesn't have to worry about going into a coma.
The part at the end of the description that says frequency 1/day is referring to the character being put into a coma and only getting one save per day or die vs 1/round, 1/hour, etc. And I agree, if you were to drop someone into a coma underwater who was not protected by Water Breathing or some other spell like that, they would start drowning on their turn.
I don't know if it's been said yet, because I haven't read through all 100 posts but if you're going to make Faction missions more secretive, matter, and be a little harder to do in general I would strongly suggest that you add a part to the PFS Guide for each faction that says something to the effect of "Players of characters of these classe (insert class/classes) or who have ranks in these skills (insert skill/skills) will find these factions missions easier/more in line with their character".
For example maybe the Taldor faction lends itself to rogues, sorcerers, and wizards and having diplomacy, bluff, sense motive, knowledge nobility, ect. would benefit members of that faction in completing their missions. Meanwhile the Silver Crusade would be best suited for clerics, rangers, and paladins and having diplomacy, heal, and survival would make benefit those members in completing their missions.
Also, low level faction missions should be a lot less "secretive" than high level missions. Something like "Hey, you've done one or two missions for us so we'd like you to do one more, we need this item retrieved while you're raiding the tomb, if you can't do it yourself get help, just get us the item." and then at high level it would be, "Hey, you've done a lot of work for us in the past but now we need this top secret, ultra important, mission done for us, tell no one and do it yourself (if there are other members of the faction at the table the GM passes them a note telling the players about each other) and make sure that absolutely no one sees or catches you!"
So I've been playing PFS (Pathfinder Society) one and off since Year 0 and I know that originally the factions were something that were going to be a way to allow players to influence the game, whichever faction had scored more points got control of Absolom.
At the most recent game I played people were very open about what faction they part of and were even getting other players who's characters were not part of their faction to help them out. Now from a player perspective I don't mind this and even encourage it, no bad feelings at the game table and all, but from a character perspective it makes me ask, what's the point?
If there's absolutely no reason for the Andoran faction to NOT help out the Taldor faction why bother with factions? Why do so many of the faction missions say "Make sure know one see/discovers you doing this" when it doesn't seem to matter.
Also, for those of us who don't make it to GenCon, or PaizoCon are is there any kind of actual story that's trying to be told from scenario to scenario, or year to year? And if there is, is there a recap, or a "Story So Far", area on the web site?
Thanks for the answers!
I've looked but I can't find the answer to this: Do staves with spells that require an expensive material component still need the component or not? For instance, the Staff of Life can cast Raise Dead that needs a 5000gp gem, to cast the spell from the staff do you still need the gem or not?
I just have a quick question about the Spellstrike ability. So my magus is in combat and I go to cast a touch spell through my weapon, normally I'd make a concentration check and then make my attack, but what if I cast the spell before moving into melee? Normally with a touch spell you can "hold" the spell until you strike, does it work like this for a magus using spell strike? Could he cast the spell, and then movie into attack the next round (or use it on an AoO) to avoid making a concentration check?
Thanks for the info!