|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
So, the CRB 5-foot step rule states that you cannot 5' step when in difficult terrain or in darkness.
This is a rule duplicated from the 3.5 PHB. However, 3.5 then went farther (in the Rules Compendium) and stated that you cannot 5' step when your movement is hampered.
FAQ question: Can you 5' step when you have hampered movement (such as poor visibility or over an obstacle) or when your movement is slowed (such as Grease)?
FAQ question: If an AoO (or Readied Action) prevents you from completing an action can you change your action or change the order of your actions?
Example: I declare I am using a "Move" move action to move out of a threatened square. I move zero distance when the Attack of Opportunity (or Readied Action) results in my being tripped.
Change action: Did I actually use my "Move" move action even though I didn't travel any distance before I was tripped? Ie. Can I replace the "Move" move action with another action?
Change Order of actions Can I use the Stand Up action and then use the "Move" move action I had already declared?
This has come up in multiple threads (this is the latest).
I was wondering what people though regarding whether or not this weapon property allows SR or not.
First quote, phase locking weapon property:
Ultimate Equipment p146 wrote:
A phase locking weapon interferes with dimensional travel. A creature damaged by a phase locking weapon is affected as though by the dimensional anchor spell for 1 round.
Second quote, Dimensional Anchor:
CRB p270 wrote:
My own feelings are mixed. It says 'as though by...' which could be read as the entire thing (including SR) or just the effect.
What are your thoughts?
Ok, so let us assume that someone is using Shadow Conjuration to cast Mage Armor on themselves (perhaps they do not have another means to cast Mage Armor).
Let us also assume that a BBEG is attacking the creature with the Shadow Mage Armor and, after the first attack, has successfully made the saving throw.
Question 1: what is the effect of the Shadow Mage Armor after the save?
Question 2: If the BBEG has Spell Resistance does the caster of the Shadow Conjuration need to make an SR check for the Mage Armor to be effective?
I was looking around for a feat similar to Planar Wild Shape but for undead. Not finding any I decided to create the following. Please let me know what you think.
Undead Wild Shape (custom feat):
Benefit: When you use Wild Shape to take the form of an animal, you can expend an additional daily use of your wild shape class feature to become a skeleton or zombie animal. Add the following bonuses and penalties to those already gained from Wild Shape:
As with the spell Undead Anatomy, you are treated as undead for the purposes of effects such as detect undead, channeled energy, cure spells, and inflict spells. See the spell Undead Anatomy for details.
Skeleton: +2 Dexterity, Darkvision, DR 5/Bludgeoning, and Cold Resistance 20. Unlike true skeletons you have thin membranes for wings and thus retain an animal's fly speed and maneuverability.
Zombie: +2 Strength, -2 Dexterity, Darkvision, DR 5/Slashing, and the zombie's slam attack. Unlike true zombies you are not staggered and your flying maneuverability is not reduced to clumsy.
I recently had a frustrating experience with a friend of mine where she played a druid and she had a hard time leveling her character due to needing to update all of her wild shape forms. I decided there had to be a better way to level up a character with a significant number of alternate forms. Not finding any I liked I decided to create my own.
Thus, I present: the Polymorph Sheets excel file
What it is: It is a way to quickly level your Polymorph (wild shape) forms via significant automation.
What it is not: It is not a database of creatures, you still have to know the rules. It is not a full character sheet but will handle just about anything polymorph can throw at it.
How is it used? Fill out the base creature information (Ability Scores, Armor Class, some Skills, etc.). This information will be plugged into all of the Polymorphed forms you create and then modified by the size and type of Polymorph effect you use. Then fill out the Polymorph form's attack data (a bit more complex but still automated once you fill it out the first time.)
Extra information: There are four Polymorph sheets per printed page. This allows you to have only a few sheets for all of your polymorph forms.
I am looking for feedback. Anything I missed, anything that is broken, opinions on color scheme, layout, and the clarity of the instructions.
In general, have at it and let me know what I can improve.
As debated Here there appears to be two camps regarding this.
A) The Paladin ability Detect Evil takes a Standard Action to activate. After activation you may then use a move action to concentrate on a single target to shortcut 3 rounds worth of concentration regarding that target.
B) The Paladin ability Detect Evil takes either a Standard Action to activate as the spell OR a Move action to concentrate on a single target to gain 3 rounds worth of Detect Evil information.
So which are you? Please vote below by favoriting your choice.
Shatter CRB p341 wrote:
What it can target:
1a) unattended nonmagical objects made of crystal, glass, ceramic, or porcelain up to 1 pound per level.
2a) single solid nonmagical object of up to 10 pounds per caster level.
Note: No statement that the object must be unattended so it appears attended objects are eligible.
3a) crystalline creature of any weight
What it can target appears to be clear.
What is the effect?:
1b) 5' radius area attack that destroys objects in #1. Will negates (object).
2b) "sunders" objects in #2 (single solid nonmagical object) with a Will save to negate.
3b) 1d6/level sonic damage (max 10d6) to a crystalline creature with a Fort save for half.
What the effect is for #1b and #3b appears to be clear.
However, what is "sunders" in the case of #2b?
Checking how Sunder works (CRB p201) you perform a Sunder attempt and then give damage to an object (subtracting hardness). If the object has equal to or less than 1/2 of it's hitpoints it gains the broken condition. If the object reaches 0 hitpoints it is destroyed.
Seems simple, you do enough damage and the object is either broken or destroyed.
The spell states that it sunders a single object but it then fails to give either a broken or destroyed condition clause or it fails to assign damage. Either condition (destroyed) or damage (1d6/level) are given in the other two cases.
So the question: what is the effect of 2b? Broken, Destroyed, or Damage and if damage how much?
Back in 3.5 Turn/Rebuke Undead hit the closest undead first and then each undead progressively farther away.
In Pathfinder I cannot find a similar clause for Command Undead (the Channel Negative Energy feat).
Who is controlled? Cleric choice or closest first?
Assuming there isn't an answer out there I missed, please FAQ.
Question: If you have reach can you use the non-adjacent cover rule against an adjacent target?
As per the cover rules on CRB p195 the answer seems to be an obvious...NO! However, the CRB also provides an example that is in fact a yes. On CRB p194 the second example is of an Ogre who is adjacent to the target (Merisiel) but is using non-adjacent (reach) cover rules.
CRB p195 Cover rules wrote:
Ranged cover rule: First paragraph.Melee adjacent cover rule: Second paragraph sentence one.
Melee non-adjacent cover rule: Second paragraph sentence two.
CRB p194 Example #2 wrote:
#2: Merisiel is adjacent to the ogre, but lines from the corners of her square to the corners of the ogre’s square cross through a wall. The ogre has melee cover from her, but if it attacks her, Merisiel does not have cover from it, as the ogre has reach (so it figures attacks as if attacking with a ranged weapon).
In this example Merisiel and the Ogre are adjacent. However, the Ogre (who has reach) is using the Melee non-adjacent cover rule instead of the Melee adjacent cover rule.
So, I have been rereading the rules regarding Ride and Handle Animal and realized that it may not be possible to have your mount attack when you make a full attack.
CRB p104 Ride wrote:
Fight with a Combat-Trained Mount: If you direct your wartrained mount to attack in battle, you can still make your own attack or attacks normally. This usage is a free action.
CRB p97 Handle Animal wrote:
Handle an Animal: This task involves commanding an animal to perform a task or trick that it knows. If the animal is wounded or has taken any nonlethal damage or ability score damage, the DC increases by 2. If your check succeeds, the animal performs the task or trick on its next action.
CRB p98 Handle Animal wrote:
Action: Varies. Handling an animal is a move action, while “pushing” an animal is a full-round action. (A druid or ranger can handle an animal companion as a free action or push it as a move action.)
So it would seem that the rules state it takes a handle animal check (move action) to command the horse to fight and a ride check to attack while the horse attacks. Thus, you are always limited to a standard action while the horse is attacking. But I do not think it is RAI.
I finished GMing CoT last night and here are some thoughts:
If I were to ever run this again I would move Infernal Syndrome to the end and revamp the storyline and power levels to match. Something along the lines of: You just killed Ecarrdian, a great explosion occurs nearby, pillars of fire rise up. It would require some rebuilding of the story but I think it would provide a more satisfying buildup.
The reasoning is that my group and I felt that 5 and 6 were a bit anticlimatic after facing (even reduced) a Pit Fiend.
It would require either placing a filler adventure in place of 4 (to get the appropriate levels for 5) or dropping the power levels of 5 and 6 a bit. It would also require ramping up the power levels of 4 considerably (something that would actually work out well I think).
Other thoughts: Probably a failing of mine but some sections of the campaign seem disconnected unless you find ways to drop hints to the players. The campaign gives a GM a lot of backstory without providing much in the way of a means to give it to the players. Again, this is probably a failing of mine as I am a tactical GM with less skill at RP than many other GMs.
With all that said the end was a satisfying finish.
The group provided proof to Chammady that she was being set up and when they got to the statue she confronted and attacked Ecarrdian.
The party Wizard kept most of the army at bay with Create Pit and Cloudkill spells.
Ecarrdian used the Rapier of Puncturing to give the Paladin -13con and then nearly killed her with feint attacks. In the end Ecarrdian was brought down by a combination of attacks from the Paladin, Rogue and Harm (Ecarrdian saved) from the Cleric.
It should be noted that a good reason the group did not die is that I use the Hero point system. It is usually the difference between them dying or not dying in my games and last night was no different. Not one single player had any hero points remaining when the battle was over and yet they still felt like they just barely survived. All in all, I think it ended well.
I am looking for one evil player who is willing to work with other evil players to overthrow a Lawful good nation. Your starting point is in prison, you are set to be executed 3days from now and are breaking out. There has been only one session so you have not missed much.
We play on the (free) Roll20 VTT and we play for about 4hours per session. We use Skype for voice communication so a microphone/headphones or headset is a must. The voice communication can be waived for a session or two if you need to purchase one.
The group composition is a Witch, Ninja, Ranger (archer), and Cleric.
Discussion thread: Link
Creation rules: Link
Note: I will also accept character sheets on Myth Weavers instead of the autofill character sheet I requested.
I am posting this here to respect James Jacobs request that discussions occur somewhere else besides his Q&A thread.
There is plenty of confusion as to the difference of Race vs Racial Traits. The difference between the two is really quite simple:
On APG p331 you will find Race Traits. These traits are clearly marked as Race Traits and not Racial Traits. They are part of the 'half feat' trait system and can be taken when you take the social trait 'Adopted'.
In the description of every race there are Racial Traits. Example: Dwarf Racial Traits on CRB p21. These Racial Traits are not the same thing as Race Traits from the 'half feat' trait system.
Adopted specifically states you may choose a Race Trait. It does not state you may choose a Racial Trait. Thus, you may choose any Race Trait from the 'half feat' trait system but you may not choose a Racial Trait that is part of the race statblock.
Hope this clears things up.
Back in 3.5 reach weapons could hit the 2nd square on a diagonal due to the exception below. In Pathfinder they cannot because that exception was removed.
This is the 3.5 exception:
PHB p137 wrote:
However, Small and Medium creatures wielding reach weapons (such as a longspear) threaten more squares than a typical creature. For instance, a longspear-wielding human threatens all squares 10 feet (2 squares) away, even diagonally. (This is an exception to the rule that 2 squares of diagonal distance is measured as 15 feet.)
Note: This no longer affects whether or not creatures coming in on the diagonal provoke an AoO since SKR ruled that creatures moving in from the 2nd square to the 1st square on the diagonal still provoke an AoO because they cross the 10' threatened 'band'. SKR ruling
I for one houserule the exception back into Pathfinder.
So this is a poll to see how many people houserule the exception back into their games or that want the exception placed back into PF rules. Please post a comment AND favorite the vote of your choice.
Alright gentlemen, this is where we will discuss Way of the Wicked.
I am wrapping up writing the campaign guideline (rules of character creation etc) and I will post it inside a few days.
You should read the players guide section found on pages 24-29. Please do not read any other pages (spoilers).
Start date should be in early december after I conclude GMing Council of Thieves.
I have already invited four people who I think will show up reliably. Concerro aka Wraithstrike, Down Comforter, Jman72, and Khantin. If you do not think you can show up reliably let me know earlier rather than later please so we can find a replacement. Also, if anyone has a friend they think should be included in this let me know and I will consider it.
While I know it is about 1month until game time we need to decide on a tentative meeting day/time. I am unavailable Saturdays through Mondays. Tuesdays through Fridays are available pretty much any time.
CRB p214 Burst wrote:
A burst spell affects whatever it catches in its area, including creatures that you can’t see. It can’t affect creatures with total cover from its point of origin (in other words, its effects don’t extend around corners). The default shape for a burst effect is a sphere, but some burst spells are specifically described as cone-shaped. A burst’s area defines how far from the point of origin the spell’s effect extends.
CRB p214 Spread wrote:
A spread spell extends out like a burst but can turn corners. You select the point of origin, and the spell spreads out a given distance in all directions. Figure the area the spell effect fills by taking into account any turns the spell effect takes.
CRB p368 Web spell wrote:
Alright, now the question is this:
How many anchoring points are required and where can they be located?
Example 1: A pair of stone pillars are 15' apart (smaller than the diameter of the web).
Example 2: A pair of pillars are 40' apart (the same distance as the diameter of the web).
I am requesting that the Recruitment forum be split up into PbP Recruitment and VTT Recruitment forums.
I am also requesting that a VTT Discussion forum be created.
While I realize VTT currently falls under PbP it is a growing means of playing Pathfinder and could use its own focus to help it grow further. When Paizo's VTT rolls out this will only increase the need.
Right now, I have to filter through a variety of PbP threads in order to find the VTT threads. It would be nice if I did not have to do so.
Hopefully, enough other people also feel this way that you will consider it advantageous to add the forums. If you like this idea, please favorite it and add your own post.
I have read the item purchase rules but they are still confusing.
Near as I can figure:
2) You may use this treasure to purchase an item found during the session.
3) You may also use this treasure to purchase items on the 'always available' list. (Where is this list?)
4) You may use Prestige Points to purchase items up to a maximum GP value which is dependant upon your Fame score. (where is the list of available items for purchase with Prestige Points?)
Please point out any errors. Thanks
Alright let me preface this by first saying this is an attempt to get a FAQ going.
Let me also preface this by saying this sort of discussion came up before HERE but it got into many other aspects I would rather not explore in this particular thread.
So let us begin:
CRB p186 wrote:
You can touch one friend as a standard action or up to six friends as a full-round action.
CRB p216 wrote:
Some touch spells allow you to touch multiple targets as part of the spell. You can’t hold the charge of such a spell; you must touch all targets of the spell in the same round that you finish casting the spell.
How it should run:
How it actually runs:
Note: It is a free action on the turn you cast a spell to touch one target. That is not at issue.
partial list of spells that cannot be used by RAW:
Animate Undead? (Touched corpses may or may not fall under ally statement)
Hide from Animals
Hide from Undead
Pass without Trace
Protection From Spells
Any spell with the name Communal in it.
Note: I specifically left Chill Touch off the list because I do NOT want to go down that path. I ask for everyone to please stay clear of Chill Touch because it will significantly derail the conversation.
So: Why is there an entire category of spells that are not possible to use?
Discuss and FAQ.
I am learning the PFS rules and need a quote. Can anyone provide the location AND quote the line that states (or indicates) that you may not add additional abilities to existing magic items? Yes, I am aware there is no crafting, but that doesn't stop a person from paying for it using the standard non-PFS rules, I am looking for something that indicates that you cannot do this in PFS.
I have been pointed to the 4.1 Guide to Pathfinder Society Organized Play pages 7 and 17 but cannot find anything that states you cannot add additional abilities to existing magic items.
P.S. I am not trying to game the system etc. Simply to learn the PFS rules as I am entering PFS soon and need to plan out a character.
Thanks in advance.
Preface: This is an attempt to get a FAQ going on two issues.
CRB p141 wrote:
Reach Weapons: Glaives, guisarmes, lances, longspears, ranseurs, and whips are reach weapons. A reach weapon is a melee weapon that allows its wielder to strike at targets that aren’t adjacent to him. Most reach weapons double the wielder’s natural reach, meaning that a typical Small or Medium wielder of such a weapon can attack a creature 10 feet away, but not a creature in an adjacent square. A typical Large character wielding a reach weapon of the appropriate size can attack a creature 15 or 20 feet away, but not adjacent creatures or creatures up to 10 feet away.
Please note the bolded section above.
First issue- Whips:
Second issue-Tiny creatures:
Small/Medium creature has a natural reach of 5'. With a reach weapon that increases to 10'.
If you disagree, feel free to state so. Otherwise please FAQ.
Alright this question is primarily 'can someone spam Daylight or Deeper Darkness to overwhelm the other?' While I have my own opinions this is not intended as trolling or whatnot. More of a curiousity of how people run things.
Both counter or dispel its opposite. Unfortunately, this application of dispelling requires touching the source the spell. For this exercise please assume that dispel and counter are not possible.
It is stated that they temporarily negate each other and that ambient light levels remains.
It is also stated that Deeper Darkness cannot be stacked.
So to restate the question in multiple choice form:
Scenario: Deeper Darkness has been cast upon two different stones. Daylight has been cast upon a third stone. The three stones are all located in the same 5 foot space and none of them are covered up.
A) Deeper Darkness prevails.
Im curious what people answer with.
Alright: Let me preface this by stating that this is NOT my attempt to break the system. This is simply a 'holy crap I hadn't thought of this before' moment that Im curious to hear other people's opinions on.
Player has Improved Familiar and the improved familiar has regeneration (there are two improved familiars with regeneration).
Player uses Imbue with Spell Ability to grant familiar the spell Shield Other. Alternately, familiar with UMD uses a wand of Shield Other.
Familiar then casts Shield Other on the melee PC of choice.
Familiar sucks up potentially hundreds of points of damage (being unconcious most of this time) but never dies.
Question: Can anyone point out ANYTHING that would make this scenario incorrect?
Note: There are a couple of ways for this scenario to be set up (either via a cleric with a familiar or via the familiar making use of UMD and just casting shield other that way) so please do not debate that element.
Note 2: The familiar's HD (for the purposes of Imbue with Spell Ability) is considered the same as the Master's HD:
CRB p82 wrote:
Hit Dice: For the purpose of effects related to number of Hit Dice, use the master’s character level or the familiar’s normal HD total, whichever is higher.
P.S. My way to houserule this combo into oblivion is to state that regenerate would not function for shield other damage.
This is related to the poll when you usually retire at. However, I am also curious how far people actually want to play to and if they do not, why not?
Please mark your favorite and then comment why.
Edit: I realize PFS mandates level 12 and PF APs end around 13-15. I am looking for broader answers than that though. Please include all 3.X/PF experience.
There has been a minor debate about when people normally retire at. So I am creating this poll (and a related poll found here).
Favorite a specific post to mark which level is the level you usually retire at.
Edit: I realize PFS mandates level 12 and PF APs end around 13-15. I am looking for broader answers than that though. Please include all 3.X/PF experience.
1) By the rules anyone may restore a destroyed magic item to functionality by casting Make Whole upon it (assuming they have sufficient caster level).
2) If make whole is unavailable a person with the appropriate craft feat can restore a destroyed magic item to functionality by paying half of the crafting cost (1/4 of the market price).
So: the rules on ammunition state that magical ammunition is destroyed if it hits (or 50% on a miss). Now, I know the intent is to take that ammunition out of the game forever but, by 1 and 2 it might be possible to restore destroyed magical ammunition to functionality. Can anyone else see a rule or phrase that would prevent this?
Note: this is not my attempt to bypass the system. This is primarily just a curiousity.
The party composition: Cleric, Paladin, Rogue, Wizard (all level 9)
Awhile back my players decided to research Devils and spent a few days in a library. They also used magic to help research things. As a result they were aware of the following: Pit fiends had DR good and silver, regeneration good, used fire attacks, had poison (missed out on the disease).
My plan: I retooled Zol a bit (turned him into a Barbarian/Martial Monk) and planned on hitting them the moment that the final door door was opened. However, the rogue doubled back and caught him waiting for them in one of the previous rooms. Nearly killed the rogue but they got the monk. Oh well.
After they opened the final door and saw the cage they prepped for nearly a minute just outside of room and the cage's reach (this was why I was going to have Zol hit them so they couldn't prep).
The cage went down in two rounds due to adamantine weapons on the rogue and paladin. Most of the damage on the cage was to the rogue (who suffered about half his hps in damage from a couple of good solid hits +grab and then constrict damage).
I had retooled Liebdaga to have 15HD with max hp, no staggered condition, and no -5attack (the negative levels affecting HD and ability scores was enough). Note: I would not have done all of that had I not known the capabilites of my group (the paladin can get her AC up to 36).
Liebdaga nearly killed the rogue with an improved vital strike bite attack in the first round of combat but the paladin took the damage upon herself. The paladin did ridiculous amounts of damage (3d6greatsword, 2d6bane, 2d6holy + approx 32 bonus damage on three attacks). Liebdaga shredded the paladin in response and nearly killed her except for the paladin's Hero's Defiance spell. The Cleric also performed emergency healing to keep the paladin alive. Wizard cast a spell that failed to penetrate SR.
Round 2: Paladin did alot more damage, Rogue got into the act again and both combined came close to finishing Liebdaga. Liebdaga rolled well enough to kill the paladin but the the paladin burned her use of the Dream Journal of the Pallid Seer (What Lies in Dust p59) and forced it to reroll one attack. This saved the paladin.
Round 3: Paladin and Rogue finished Liebdaga. Liebdaga was buried so deeply into the negatives that the spirit had no chance to bring him back.
Summary: Against a buffed up (enlarge, bear's endurance, bull's strength, haste, +5charisma, barkskin+4, Divine bond set to Holy, evil outsider bane) Paladin Liebdaga doesnt stand a chance as written. With a rogue that can do two-weapon sneak attack consistently (and who brings a dagger for every scenario) Liebdaga really doesnt stand a chance. If I had not buffed him up he wouldve died in round one with only a bit of damage on the paladin (redirected from the rogue).
Has anyone else noticed that the Inevitable Arbiter (Bestiary2 p162) is virtually indestructible? All of the other improved familiars have DR and/or Fast Healing while the Arbiter has Regeneration 2/Chaotic AND construct immunities.
While this is great and all for a monster, for a familiar it is virtually indestructible (chaotic is rather rare).
P.S. Yes, I am aware that the difference between an indestructible familiar and a normal one is 200gp/level +8days (1week +8hours). That is more of a time nuisance than a critical loss in some campaigns.
Edit: apparently there is a second familiar with regeneration that I missed, the Kyton Augur. However it's regen is Good/Silver which is still more common than Chaotic.
While I have been Playing and GMing D&D/PF for years I have never ran a PbP or realtime message based campaign (such as skype) and now it looks like I've been roped into doing one.
I could use a step by step guide on what is needed to run one.
Current questions I have:
1) Dice generator: I can find many but is there a method that can distribute the rolls to specific parties automatically.
2) What Map program to use. Again, there are a myraid of threads on map programs but I cannot seem to separate the wheat from the chaff. My needs for the moment are: simple to use with the ability to move miniatures and effects around on the map. I can get into a more complicated map maker sometime in the future after I work out the other bugs.
3) Map distribution. Preferably interactive although if there are grid co-ordinate systems that will work fine too.
4) Am I missing anything?
Normally I hate asking for help but, I am on a time crunch of a couple weeks as my players are anxious to get going.
P.S. If in the wrong forum I apologize. Normally I pay about zero attention to the PbP forums.
I will start with the following statement: This is not intended to provoke an anti-WBL flame war. Please avoid doing so. Thank you.
This is an idea I have been toying around with.
To fix this I identified several elements that when they interact cause problems.
Element 1: Selling equipment for half price.
Element 2: Crafting
Element 3: Wealth By Level.
My (rather simplistic) solution:
First: let me preface this that I am mainly trying to resolve an inconsistency. I am playing devil's advocate here.
Blink CRB p250 wrote:
Ethereal Jaunt CRB p279 wrote:
Ethereal Plane CRB p440 wrote:
Blink states incorporeal.Ethereal Jaunt states insubstantial.
Etherealness references to Ethereal Jaunt.
Ethereal Plane states insubstantial and then references the 3 spells above.
A list of things that affect incorporeal creatures: Force spells, Ghost Touch weapons (full damage), magic weapons (50% damage), all remaining spells (half damage or 50% miss chance).
A list of things that are specified to affect ethereal creatures: Force spells and abjuration effects. An unknown list of material creatures or objects that work on the ethereal plane.
Blink and Ethereal Jaunt both have this wording wrote:
Certain material creatures or objects have attacks or effects that work on the Ethereal Plane.
So the question: Are ethereal creatures incorporeal or not? If incorporeal all effects that effect incorporeal creatures would seem to apply. This could be interpreted as being covered by the quote about Certain material creatures or objects.
Please provide proof that does not reference 3.5 materials. In 3.5 ethereal was very different than incorporeal.
P.S. I am of the mind that ethereal is still different from incorporeal and it is the spell blink that is inaccurate.
Has anyone else noticed that Light of Iomedae (spell in Inner Sea Magic) has a casting time of 1minute? This is a combat spell that is supposed to illuminate undead similar to faerie fire.
I haven't been able to find any previous threads on this spell. But, this (1minute casting time) has to be an error right?
I just wanted to say thanks to SKR for being the pointman on rulings. I know many of them are considered unpopular but what many do not realize is that he is not alone in those rulings.
Being a pointman for unpopular rulings has to be a hard job so, thanks Sean for doing the dirty work.
P.S. I love that Paizo is active on the boards compared to other game companies I've seen over the years. Please keep this up.
Has anyone else read the Reincarnated Druid and immediately thought that if you equipped the druid with a firearm it could be the Man with No Name character played by Clint Eastwood?
How would you build a Man with No Name gun user using Reincarnated Druid?
Alternately, how would you apply the Man with No Name concept to the Gunslinger?
P.S. For those unfamiliar with the 'Man with No Name' he was the character played by Clint Eastwood in the Dollars Trilogy (Fistfull of Dollars, A Few Dollars More, and The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly. Additionally, Eastwood's movie, High Plains Drifter is a similar character.
While not a rules question per se this revolves around who is official when answering rules questions.
Other than a few people I am unsure of who on the boards works for paizo or can speak for paizo when answering rules questions. In the case of James Jacobs and a few others I can see clearly when they have developer or something similar in their title. But I have also seen a few people who either work at Paizo or are trusted or something. Is there a listing of the employees or the hierarchy of official responses?
This is a general question regarding the accuracy of the PRD vs books.
Occassionally, I see an interpretation of something in the PRD that I cannot find in either the books (current updated version) or in any FAQ. I was wondering what the stance on this is and if the PRD should be considered another 'FAQ'.
An example: the PRD section on How Combat Works has the following to say about movement AOOs and combat reflexes:
Combat Reflexes and Additional Attacks of Opportunity: If you have the Combat Reflexes feat, you can add your Dexterity modifier to the number of attacks of opportunity you can make in a round. This feat does not let you make more than one attack for a given opportunity, but if the same opponent provokes two attacks of opportunity from you, you could make two separate attacks of opportunity (since each one represents a different opportunity). Moving out of more than one square threatened by the same opponent in the same round doesn't count as more than one opportunity for that opponent. All these attacks are at your full normal attack bonus.
However, I can find nothing to support this in either the FAQ or in the Core Rulebook. Am I missing something? Thanks in advance.
Edit: To clarify Im not trying to challenge the PRD or the information I quoted. I am just trying to confirm its status.