|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
After. However, you do not start out at middle age or older. The ages you start out at are on CRB p169.
Now, many people might try to game the system by getting extra age bonuses but then you have to explain why you have not had any kind of career (even an NPC class of Commoner) until you are middle age.
Frankly, any GM should immediately tell you no.
The internal volume of the extradimensional (not mundane) space of the Pathfinder's Pouch is set at 2cubic feet, how can you say it is not set when you then quoted how much it can hold?
You are correct, a full or empty bag of holding is the same size. Specifically, 2feet by 4feet.
Since empty or full has no bearing on that exterior volume and the rules define the exterior volume and there is no rule stating that you can do so then you cannot scrunch it up to fit a smaller space.
You are trying to apply real world physics to a game rule. The rule is that a bag of holding is 2feet by 4feet in size. There is no rule that allows you to reduce this size.
Aranna, Snowblind, it may not be a rigid body but it has a specific external volume that is larger than the internal volume you are trying to put it in. It is not about fitting it through the opening.
To put it another way, you can fit an empty burlap potato sack through the opening in your pants pocket but there is no way you are putting the entire thing in there.
What more evidence do you require? It specifically calls out using a feat to bump up the Spell DC.
It does not specifically state you can use any spell related feat as normal.
Where does it stop? Do you want to apply metamagic feats to spells in staves?
Spells in a 'can' cannot be normally affected by any of the spellcasters normal abilities. There are three specific exceptions here.
1) The spellcaster's ability scores can be applied to the DC's of the spell.
2) Feats that apply to spell DCs can be applied to the spells of a staff.
3) That the spellcaster may use his caster level. What it does not state is that you may also apply feats or abilites that modify caster level.
While your interpretation is a great houserule, and one I would probably use, it is not within the rules.
Barachiel Shina, comparing how easy it is to destroy magic items in the game to other fantasy sources is a poor comparison at best and apples to oranges at worst.
First, there are many elements of standard fantasy genres that this game breaks.
In normal fantasy genres magic weapons are RARE. They are often the equivalent of a Pathfinder artifact in rarity. Of course they would be difficult to destroy.
Second, you have to look at the internal consistency of a game, not consistency against external elements such as other fantasy games or settings.
In Pathfinder it was inconsistent that you could not damage a magic weapon when just about every other magic item could be readily damaged or destroyed. It was effectively an "I am immune" button to one aspect of the game.
Is it a part of the game that is not always fun? Sure.
Especially since, as ZZTRaider stated, there are numerous ways around it. Adamantine, hardness, etc.
Ultimately, if you have a GM that is constantly sundering your weapons then the issue is probably with the GM and not the rule because a GM who really wanted to destroy or remove your weapon can get around the old rule rather easily.
Because it doesn't make sense in the context of all the other rules of the game. Magic items should not be immune to damage just because they are magic. They are not artifacts.
GM: The Titan does 200 damage and sunders your weapon!
(In this context titan and damage are fictional examples of some creature doing ridiculous amount of damage and still failing to sunder a weapon).
Enhancement bonuses still add hardness and hitpoints, that is reasonable. Being immune to damage is not reasonable.
BigNorseWolf, apparently you are NOT reading ALL of my post. You are clearly not reading the part where I am saying "by some".
Let me spell it out for you: I am NOT arguing for what I was saying. I was providing a rationale for why some people may be arguing for that.
Perhaps you should try to read ALL of my post rather than focusing only on the part you can argue with.
BNW, please re-read my post. I did not state that there is no reach category. I stated that since it is not listed some people could interpreted as minimum (ie: 5' for large).
The logic for that being that, like other abilities not listed, if it isn't listed you don't get anything extra.
Lune, the line that says 'personally' doesn't give it away? :P
I swear, people read too much into what I write rather than actually reading what I write.
Lets turn this around slightly.
Assume for a moment that the Bestiary entry for a creature lists an ability that the Animal Companion entry does not list. Do we add the ability to the Animal Companion? (Examples: Tigers racial stealth bonuses or a Tyrannosaurus' Swallow Whole ability.)
What a creature's Reach is *could* be interpreted by some as the same thing. Ie. if it does not list that it has reach it defaults to the minimum amount for the size (5' for large).
Personally, I just look up the stats in the Bestiary and compare them to the AC listing and apply some logic.
No, because there is no one right way to play Fighter. Typically, I pick a focus...either damage, defense, or 'tricks' (combat maneuvers or other special stuff).
That is not to say that you ignore other types of feats. If you are going defensive you still want the basic damage feats (Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization and Power Attack).
Regarding defense, get 3 ranks in Acrobatics so that if you go fight defensively or go into total defense your AC is higher.
Not really, Armor Master does not actually buff your AC and the DR/3 is not going to save you if you take big hits.
Additionally, not all forms of 'defense' are based on AC/hp. You should also consider saving throws.
For example, the Unbreakable Archetype has bonuses to mind-affecting Will saves and gives you several bonus feats which result in longer survival. Eventually you can reroll some saves.
Shielded Fighter can allow you to go into a defensive mode where your AC jumps up a lot.
Phalanx Soldier allows you to simultaneously use a heavy or tower shield and a reach weapon (polearm). At level 9 you can give yourself and adjacent allies partial cover (+2 AC).
Tower Shield Specialist gives you a huge bump in AC via a tower shield that has some advantages.
It really all depends on what you want and what your group needs.
Ok, to summarize (your wall of text is difficult to read):
Human: traded out bonus feat and skill point for a +2 stat increase.
So what do you want out of this? Damage, Defense, or Combat Maneuvers?
As for not coming back until raised, you are looking at weeks or months of gameplay (assuming 4-6hrs a session) until you guys are high enough level to be able to raise/resurrect someone. What's worse, anyone who dies early will have to wait even longer until resurrect can be cast because of Raise Dead's time limit.
Edited to ask the raised question.
Uhhh, not a magic item, it is a mundane item and provides total cover.
Ultimate Equipment p64 wrote:
The troll would have to make a sunder attack against the satchel to destroy it, then it would have to attack your familiar.
I don't know about your GM, but most creatures aren't going to go after an armored case strapped to your backpack when you are casting spells on them.
If your GM really did make every monster go after your familiar satchel then you may want to find a new GM because that should not be the primary focus of 99.99% of creatures. Only creatures who are aware that your familiar is in that AND is aware what the loss of your familiar would do to you when you try to memorize spells AND actually has plans for you to walk away from this battle would do such a thing. For anyone else this would be an idiotic move.
CRB p188 wrote:
So, those people stating that you can take a swift action anytime you can take a Free action are correct.
CRB p189 wrote:
Immediate actions are effectively interrupts. They happen immediately, before anything else is resolved. However, the immediate action determines at what point things can be interrupted. It is pointless to interrupt an attack to add AC AFTER the attack is resolved.
In the OP's case, your player should have declared he is using the cover option before the dice are rolled (or the results are revealed). Afterwards the attack roll is made and the results are revealed. However, there are some specific immediate actions that do allow you to see the results and then declare the immediate action.
GinoA, the problem here is that this is not two different class features. They are the same compatible class feature.
It is the player's choice of choosing an incompatible familiar archetype that is the problem. The familiar archetype should go.
To put this another way:
A FAQ on Animal Companions may supply some insight.
Based on that FAQ, if the two class abilities (that normally stack) are incompatible then they don't stack.
However, this is not that situation. Instead of being forced into an inappropriate familiar type due to a class ability you have selected an inappropriate familiar type.
In short, your familiar cannot have the figment archetype if you want it to function correctly for a Witch. Select a new familiar.
As for the Gravewalker archetype, Gravewalkers do not have a familiar so there is no conflict. You have your familiar ability from your other class and it does not interact in any way with a Gravewalker Witch.
calagnar, I can think of several possible reasons for the PDF to not be released until the second printing.
1) If they release the second printing PDF now and then make changes before the physical second printing they have to release an updated second printing PDF. That means there would be two second printing PDFs floating around which would be confusing for people.
2) You are assuming that the second printing is already created. The errata does not mean all the text fitting is completed already, it could just mean that they know what they want the new text to say.
3) Those people who want the physical copy may feel slighted that the PDF is published before the physical copy. IE: why would Paizo alienate one group (hardback purchasers) over PDF purchasers?
These are just possibilities, I am not a publisher so I don't know the industry specifics but there are probably very good reasons not to publish a PDF until the physical book is also published.
Here you go:
4th printing Errata p4 wrote:
Here is the original 4th printing text:
CRB 4th printing p468 wrote:
Damaging Magic Weapons: An attacker cannot damage a magic weapon that has an enhancement bonus unless his weapon has at least as high an enhancement bonus as the weapon struck.
1) Yes, a large creature with a reach of 10 can attack 2 diagonals away, this was covered in this FAQ.2) Yes, a medium creature with a reach weapon can attack 2 diagonals away, this was covered in this FAQ.
3) Yes, a medium creature using a reach weapon riding a large creature can attack 2 diagonals away, this was covered in this FAQ.
A creature with 10' reach (or a 10' reach weapon) has the same reach mounted as not mounted, 10 feet. Only where you start to count changes due to the creature using the space of the mount instead of his own.
In any case, I am not sure how your questions regarding reach attacking 2 diagonals away relates to your question(s) regarding reach attacking one diagonal away.
CRB p127 wrote:
Improved familiars otherwise use the rules for regular familiars, with two exceptions: if the creature’s type is something other than animal, its type does not change; and improved familiars do not gain the ability to speak with other creatures of their kind (although many of them already have the ability to communicate).
So, type does not change and they do not gain the ability to speak with other creatures of their kind. All other rules are in effect.
Note: this creates an odd situation where the intelligence score can drop from the base creature's intelligence to the score in the familiar chart on CRB p83. Most GM's houserule this to be the better of the two.
I don't have to imagine it, I just have to look up the rules. The rules state that a rider on a mount occupies the entire mounts space.
Going with your large example, if a rider is on an huge creature, where is the rider? The rider is in all 27 (3x3x3) cubes, even the mount's feet!
Reach is not determined by space, you are conflating the two. You have a small creature occupying a medium, large, huge, or whatever, space. That does not change the small creature's reach (5' or 10' with a reach weapon).
Summary: the rules clearly state that the rider occupies the same space as the mount.
Lune, lets change tack a moment, can an Ogre, using a Longspear, attack any square adjacent to him? Nope.
Same thing here, a Halfling using a Longspear while mounted on a Horse cannot attack any square adjacent to the Halfling/Horse.
The Halfling is considered to take up the same space as the Horse, which is also the same space as an Ogre.
Positive and Negative energy are not "energy" attacks in the same way that the classic energy types (Acid, Cold, Electricity, Fire, and Sonic) are and do not usually do damage to objects for the same reason that they do not do damage to Constructs. There is usually an 'alive or undead' clause in there.
In 3.5 there was actually term definitions that supported this. Pathfinder did not bother to define many terms and that has created many problems.
Regarding Kaiju, you'll notice it does not say "acid energy" or "cold energy" but it does say "negative energy".
"Negative Energy" is not one of the 5 types of energy, it is a name.
Edit: here are a couple of quotes from 3.5
3.5 PHB p308 wrote:
energy damage: Damage caused by one of five types of energy (not counting positive and negative energy): acid, cold, electricity, fire, and sonic.
3.5 PHB p310 wrote:
negative energy: A black, crackling energy that originates on the Negative Material Plane. In general, negative energy heals undead creatures and hurts the living.
The CRB does not have a basic word defintion section and as a result these questions repeatedly come up. Heck, people even argue over whether "character" and "creature" are interchangable (some people think they are not). Back in 3.5 the glossary stated they were and without these basic definitions there is a lot of confusion and debate that shouldn't happen.
You do not need to wait until the previous activation expires. You can activate it again and replace the previous activation.
Note: I could have turned into a Leopard again, I used Eagle to avoid confusion.
CRB p212 wrote:
You can only be affected by one polymorph spell at a time. If a new polymorph spell is cast on you (or you activate a polymorph effect, such as wild shape), you can decide whether or not to allow it to affect you, taking the place of the old spell. In addition, other spells that change your size have no effect on you while you are under the effects of a polymorph spell.
So what you are doing is using a new activation and replacing the old activation. You would lose whatever time was remaining on the old activation though.
So, here is the feat:
ACG p153 Pack Flanking wrote:
So the key here is that it is allowing you to count as flanking if adjacent or sharing the same square. Not just if you are sharing the same square.
What does that mean? It means the typical use will be adjacent creatures fighting together, not creatures sharing the same square.
However, it allows for creatures who share the same square (such as Rider and Mount) to still benefit.