Quandary's page

What is the sound of thousands of Monks realizing there might be a reason they would want to Enchant both sides of their Quarterstaff?

SO, with the 'new' paradigm that Monk Flurry REALLY DOES work like 2WF (like it always has said) and the 'any combo of attacks' REALLY IS subjugated to what you can accomplish via 2WF (exactly as it has always been phrased), how to deal?

People seem to worry about using a pole-arm and UAS since they have different reach areas.
Seems like Lunge could help those areas overlap. Not to mention the lovely 5-step could help you maneuver to get both weapons on the same target. Or just attack different targets at different range with the appropriate weapon.

SKR recently posted that he is fine with 'one UAS weapon' (e.g. one fist only, e.g. can only deliver half your flurry attacks) items that can be enhanced for cheaper than Amulets (which affect all UAS, e.g. can apply to ALL your flurry attacks), although since there are various side benefits (can't be disarmed, doesn't need to be drawn, etc) it would need to be more expensive than normal weapon enhancments. That would seem to satisfy people on the other end of things.

I'm not sure of that increased costing (he suggested 1.5x weapon cost as a round number): at minimum it doesn't have to be 1.5x, 1.25x could work, or a fixed non-scaling cost (like special materials for weapons).

Further, I'm not sure of the rationale for the benefits he mentions: non-disarm-ability and no need to be drawn are normal features of UAS for anybody... Since ANYBODY could use these 'single UAS weapon enhancement', I don't see the case for a price differential since it's on top of a CRAPPY WEAPON for anybody but Monks, and for Monks the exact degree to which UAS is NOT crappy is what their Class is based on/balanced around.

Finally, it seems like a 'single UAS weapon enhancement' DOES have a further drawback compared to an Amulet of Mighty Fists: a single body part can be disabled (hypothetical su ability: if your opponent fails a fort save, the UAS or natural weapon they attacked you with is rendered unusable for 1d4 rounds) or prevented from moving (even if it can't be 'disarmed' usually) while if any remaining part of your body can move, you can deliver UAS attacks with it with the Amulet (and Flurry with all attacks).

Really, the game just currently doesn't distinguish between any possible UAS vector, when it COULD be doing so: why don't UAS-linked Feats specify the type of UAS they use, and thus if you want Enhancement bonus/effects you either use the Amulet (which affects everything) or you need the 'right' weapon that works with that Feat/style/etc. If it takes a while for the game to catch up to that new paradigm, I think it will be OK in the mean time.

Finally: I think the simplest fix to Flurry is removing the 'any combo of attacks' bit... It doesn't seem needed, it's just fluff that GMs can add in even to other classes/scenarios, because if mechanically it doesn't matter, GMs will do that sort of thing. If anything, why not add that wording to the Amulet of Mighty Fists itself?

will there be other than violent ways to interact with these?
i.e. getting friendly with them, trading, buying their services?
i think it would be interesting if some of them may normally be kill on sight or hostile to normal PC races, but that could change by player actions, whether interacting with an intermediary NPC outside the encampment... or even using stealth to avoid their regular thugs milling about, and speak to an important somebody (within their encampment, where you could expect to be killed if discovered)

re-posted from other thread:

Benefit: Whenever you use two hands to throw a one-handed or two-handed weapon, you gain a bonus on damage rolls equal to 1-1/2 times your Strength bonus....

Normal: You add your Strength bonus on thrown weapon damage, regardless of available hands. Throwing a two-handed weapon is a full-round action.

So is this stealth Errata or what?

The Core Rules don`t say anything that changes the `use 2 hands = apply 1.5 STR mod unless using Light Weapon rule`.

The Thrown Weapons section in Equipment says ¨The wielder applies his Strength modifier to damage dealt by thrown weapons (except for splash weapons).¨ but that is just re-iterating the normal STR mod to DMG rule, and not SPECIFICALLY negating the rule for using 2 hands (in the Combat section), which says:
¨Wielding a Weapon Two-Handed: When you deal damage with a weapon that you are wielding two-handed, you add 1-1/2 times your Strength bonus (Strength penalties are not multiplied). You don't get this higher Strength bonus, however, when using a light weapon with two hands.¨
...NO mention of not applying to thrown weapons. If the Thrown Weapon section said `you ONLY apply STR bonus` there would be a case for excluding the 2-Handed bonus, but IT DOESN`T. There`s no reasonable case for reading the Core rules as excluding 2 Handed bonus DMG from applying to Thrown weapons.

---------------------------------------------------

Incidentally, if this IS supposed to be Stealth Errata, it`s unfortunate that they still haven`t clarified the unclear language about action types for throwing, and what actual weapons that applies to.

The 2 Handed Thrower Feat says:
¨Using two hands to throw any weapon requires only a standard action for you. If you also have the Quick Draw feat, you can throw two-handed weapons at your full normal rate of attacks...
Normal: ...Throwing a two-handed weapon is a full-round action.¨

The Thrown Weapons section in the Core Equipment Chapter says:
¨...It is possible to throw a weapon that isn't designed to be thrown (that is, a melee weapon that doesn't have a numeric entry in the Range column on Table: Weapons), and a character who does so takes a –4 penalty on the attack roll. Throwing a light or one-handed weapon is a standard action, while throwing a two-handed weapon is a full-round action. Regardless of the type of weapon, such an attack scores a threat only on a natural roll of 20 and deals double damage on a critical hit. Such a weapon has a range increment of 10 feet.¨

In context, we can see that the specific action types to throw light/one/two-handed weapons is in the context of weapons NOT MEANT TO BE THROWN, since this info follows the shift of subject to weapons `not designed to be thrown`, and is located amidst the -4 attack penalty, and modification of Crit stats (to match Improvised Weapons, although you still do normal base damage in this case).
Weapons that ARE meant to be thrown, and thus have a listed Range stat, thus SHOULDN`T BE SUBJECT to the action limitation... I.e. a Club, which has a listed Range, can be thrown (2 Handed, with appropriate damage bonus) via Iterative Attacks (or Vital Strike`d Attack Action) and not simply as a single thrown attack as a Full-Round Action (as `Improvised Throwing Weapons` must be). You don`t need the 2-Handed Thrower Feat to do that, although you may run out of Clubs to throw unless you have Quickdraw.

But the new text in 2 Handed Thrower AGAIN makes the same error, by main-lining these action restrictions without clarifying that they only apply to `Improvised Throwing Weapons`. The Throwing Weapons section in Equipment really should be at least Errata`d to have a line-break just before the line that says ¨It is possible to throw a weapon that isn't designed to be thrown...¨, and ideally should have a TITLED SUB-SECTION that MAKES CLEAR the subject is now shifting to `Improvised Thrown Weapons`.

What exactly does Moment of Clarity prevent you from doing when you use it?
Moment of Clarity (Ex): The barbarian does not gain any benefits or take any of the penalties from rage for 1 round. Activating this power is a swift action. This includes the penalty to Armor Class and the restriction on what actions can be performed. This round still counts against her total number of rounds of rage per day. This power can only be used once per rage.

Is the ability to use Rage Powers a benefit of Rage? Or does it mean simply the direct mechanical effects of Rage itself? Since you are still spending a Rage Round, it seems like you count as Raging for that Round for purposes besides ´the benefits and penalties from rage´, so can you still use Rage Powers? If you can´t use Rage Powers, this isn´t a Rage Power I would really ever take unless required since you can pursue Fatigue immunity strategies with the same Rage Power, allowing you to ´Rage Cycle´ for the same effect (casting spells, then re-entering Rage). If you CAN use Rage Powers, then it´s pretty good. Thoughts? Hitting the FAQ button is always helpful, of course.

What is the intent with Spell Combat and ´secondary´ attacks, whether off-hand weapons like Armor Spikes (or from multiple arms ala Multi-Weapon Fighting) or other Natural Weapons you have available?

The ability says: This functions much like two-weapon fighting, but the off-hand weapon is a spell that is being cast. To use this ability, the magus must have one hand free (even if the spell being cast does not have somatic components), while wielding a light or one-handed melee weapon in the other hand. As a full-round action, he can make all of his attacks with his melee weapon at a –2 penalty and can also cast any spell from the magus spell list with a casting time of 1 standard action (any attack roll made as part of this spell also takes this penalty).

Extra attacks, like from 2WF/MWF/Natural Attacks don´t actually require use of the Full Attack Action (as I mistakenly thought at one point), they just require making multiple attacks (which NORMALLY requires the Full Attack Action, but can also trigger on Charges via Pounce, for example)... For example, 2WF states: ¨If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon.¨ Now, Spell Combat states ´the off-hand weapon is (the) spell that is being cast´, which precludes normal 2WF´ing (apparently, since that only grants one off-hand attack), but Multi-Weapon Fighting allows for multiple off-hand attacks. Natural Weapons would seem to be similar to MWF in this case.

BUT, Spell Combat specifically says you make all of your attacks ´with (your) melee weapon´, i.e. the main-hand weapon... So Spell Combat ISN´T a Full Attack, or ´making all your attacks´ IN GENERAL, but just for the main-hand. This is how I am reading the rules, i.e. multi-arm Maguses and those with Natural Attacks will miss out on those extra attacks when using Spell Combat, but I think it would be helpful to clarify that via FAQ. Since the spell is counting as an off-hand weapon, and taking attack penalties appropriate for 2WF, it seems like 2 Weapon Rend should apply (though you need to take 2WF Feat if you don´t take 2 Weapon Rend via Ranger Combat Style), but that is also something related that could be made clear in a FAQ.

The Shielded Fighter Archetype really needs a line just giving it a blanket ability to ignore 2WF pre-reqs for Shield Feats, e.g. Shield Bash, Shield Master, Bashing Finish all have 2WF as a pre-req, yet the schtick of the Shielded Fighter is that they can fight ´sword and board´ without using 2WF (they just don´t gain extra attacks without using 2wF). Probably something saying they count as having 2WF for pre-reqs of Feats which mention Shield in the title or descripton, or something like that...

Re: overbearing onslaught: it isn´t clear HOW, or with what actions you can Overrun multi targets... using the same action as normal over-run? what about other abilities that specify one over-run target, i.e. charge thru? I´ve seen it suggested that these work great together, and they do IF they work together... I just I´m just not sure about the supporting wording for that.

The Feat Elemental Fist uses the name Elemental Strike to refer to itself in it´s own description. It also doesn´t specifiy what attacks it applies to... ie. Unarmed Strikes only?
That also applies to other Feats like Punishing Strike, Touch of Serenity, and other Stunning Fist replacements, they need to specifiy UAS if that is the intent, i.e. no Greatswords.

Elven Accuracy (Combat)
Benefit: If you miss due to concealment when making a ranged attack with a longbow or shortbow (including composite bows), you can reroll your miss chance roll one time to see if you actually hit.
Does the ´one time´ caveat, rather than simply allowing a re-roll, mean that this DOESN´T stack with any other concealment re-rolls that a character might have available?

Following Step (Combat)
Benefit: When using the Step Up feat to follow an adjacent foe, you may move up to 10 feet.
The RAW of this ability would seem to be that when an adjacent opponent 5´ steps away, you can move 10´ feet. Either this is a very niche ability, allowing you some minor further maneuvering that isn´t relevant to threatening that opponent, or the RAI is that you can ALSO use this 10´ Step Up when the opponent moves 10´ away (which isn´t normally a 5´ step). ???

Greater/Improved Blind Fight
It seems like there is a loop-hole of GBF treating FulL Concealment as PartialConcealment feeding back into IBF´s ability to ignore Partial Concealment (or even into the GBF´s reiteration of the same rule). I believe RAI is that you are forced to roll this Partial Concealment, albeit with the best of 2 rolls. Either that should be directly stated, or stated that GBF supersedes IBF, which seems the intent given that GBF is repeating the same stuff about completely ignoring Partial Concealment.

Go Unnoticed
Benefit: During the first round of combat, flat-footed opponents are considered not to have noticed you yet for the purposes of Stealth skill checks, allowing you to make a Stealth check that round to hide from them.
What does this DO? Is this ability letting you Stealth without concealment? If not, and you still need concealment to stealth, what is it doing exactly? Since if you CAN find Concealment to Stealth with, what do you need this ability for?

Dervish Dance and other ´Free Hand´ dependent abilities
¨You cannot use this feat if you are carrying a weapon or shield in your off hand.¨ is somewhat different wording than ´have a free hand´. Does ´have a free hand´ allow Bucklers, but Dervish Dance DOESN¨T allow Bucklers? Or are Bucklers OK with Dervish Dance also?

In Harm's Way (Combat)
: While using the aid another action to improve an adjacent ally's AC, you can intercept a successful attack against that ally as an immediate action, taking full damage from that attack and any associated effects (bleed, poison, etc.). A creature cannot benefit from this feat more than once per attack.
1st: What does the last line MEAN? If you intercepted the attack, it´s intercepted, why would anybody WANT it to be intercepted more than once? Is the intent here to mean ´cannot benefit more than once per ATTACKER, or per ACTION (i.e. Full Attack Action)? That is assuming somebody has multiple immediate actions available to do so in the first place.
2nd: When you intercept an attack, does that mean it automatically hits your own AC and beats any Concealment you have, or does the attack need to beat those to have any effect on you?

Ki Throw (Combat)
Benefit: On a successful unarmed trip attack against a target your size or smaller, you may throw the target prone...
´unarmed trip attack´ isn´t defined elsewhere in the rules. IS unarmed strike secretly a trip weapon? Per the Trip FAQ, would that mean that weapon-specific bonus to UAS would apply to Trip when UAS is used to deliver it?

Swift Aid (Combat)
Benefit: As a swift action, you can attempt the aid another action, granting your ally either a +1 bonus on his next attack roll or a +1 bonus to his AC.
How should this intereact with other effects changing the bonus of Aid Another? Should it equal half the modified normal Aid Other? Shoud arithmetical modification (+x) apply on top of the +1? Should direct replacements (+X instead of normal) apply fully to this Swift Aid?

I just realized that Boasting Taunt (APG Barbarian Power) comes very close to the `controversial` aspect of Antagonize. So why did Boasting Taunt never get 20 different threads dedicated to whether it`s broken / errata / etc? Is Boasting Taunt just how Antagonize should BE?

While raging, the barbarian can incite a creature to attack her by making an Intimidate check to demoralize. If the check succeeds, the target is also shaken as long as the barbarian is visible and raging or until it makes a melee attack against the barbarian. The barbarian receives a +2 circumstance bonus on this check for every alcoholic drink she has consumed during this rage. This is a language-dependent mind-affecting effect, and it relies on audible components. The barbarian must be at least 6th level to select this power.

You can make Diplomacy and Intimidate checks to make creatures respond to you with hostility. No matter which skill you use, antagonizing a creature takes a standard action that does not provoke attacks of opportunity, and has a DC equal to the target’s Hit Dice + the target’s Wisdom modifier. You cannot make this check against a creature that does not understand you or has an Intelligence score of 3 or lower. Before you make these checks, you may make a Sense Motive check (DC 20) as a swift action to gain an insight bonus on these Diplomacy or Intimidate checks equal to your Charisma bonus until the end of your next turn. The benefits you gain for this check depend on the skill you use. This is a mind-affecting effect.

Intimidate: The creature flies into a rage. On its next turn, the target must attempt to make a melee attack against you. The effect ends if the creature is prevented from reaching you or attempting to do so would harm it (for example, if you are on the other side of a chasm or a wall of fire). If it cannot reach you on its turn, you may make the check again as an immediate action to extend the effect for 1 round (but cannot extend it thereafter). The effect ends as soon as the creature makes a melee attack against you. Once you have targeted a creature with this ability, you cannot target it again for 1 day.

So Antagonize is more powerful vs. Casters... it specifies melee attacks (Boasting Taunt just says you incite them to attack you, without specifying means), along with allowing the swift action to add your CHA bonus (again?) to the roll, but much of the response to Antagonize seemed to find it over-powered even without those limitations. Boasting Taunt doesn`t have the 1/day limitation, nor the line that says the effect ends if moving to attack you would be harmful (e.g. if you have other allies who could be expected to take AoOs, the target would take the long way around them, or if they surround all your `approches`, the effect would just end). Boasting Taunt also has going for it that it applies to ANY demoralize roll, not just a specific standard action vs. one target, along with automatically gaining bonus rounds of effect from a high Intimidate roll (though Antagonize lets you use a Swift action to extend the effect 1 round if the target is delayed by terrain from reaching you).

The main issue I see with Boasting Taunt is simply that it DOESN`T specify exactly what `incites to attack` means, much less how long the effect lasts. I think it`s implied that all the effects `ride` on top of the standard Demoralize action`s duration (1 round + 1/ 5 you beat the DC by + unique bonuses), though that isn`t clear (and it also conflicts with the normal Demoralize, since the Shaken effect should persist regardless of if they attack you). It`d also be nice to know exactly how they must dedicate themselves to attacking you... Can an archer just shoot their final Iterative at you and that counts? Should they focus all offensive action against you, but `incidentally` targetting others (e.g. a Fireball) is fine?

Normally, using CMBs without `Improved X` Feats provoke an AoO, whose damage is applied as a penalty vs. the provoking maneuver. What I`m not sure of is whether CMBs are supposed to be so affected by the damage of ANY Attack of Opportunity interrupting them, or if only the `normal AoO for un-Improved CMBs` applies that DMG>CMD.

For example, if a Barbarian has Come and Get Me, which makes melee attacks (including CMBs) provoke, does that mean any dmg should penalize the provoking maneuver? This isn`t relevant to AoO`s for moving before attacking or anything, but CaGM AoO`s are directly provoked by the attack itself.

This also goes for any other ability which `forces` attacks to provoke, specifically the Pugilist ability says Grapples always provoke AoO`s (and that ability is specifically countering Improved Grapple`s and Grab`s `evasion` of the AoO from CMB check).

The dmg>attack penalty aspect seems very similar to Casting being disrupted, and if the CMB is itself provoking (as opposed to movement before an attack, etc), it seems reasonable for the provoking maneuver to be affected... ??? (in fact it seems plausible that Readied Attack also should, though clearly not RAW)

...Even if something like Come and Get Me doesn`t `trigger` the SPECIFIC `un-improved CMB AoO` (w/ DMG>CMD wording) but rather triggers a `vanilla` AoO without that aspect, it would be nice to have verification that the Pugilist ability DOES apply AoO dmg as attack penalty, since Pugilist IS specifically undoing Imp. Grapple/Grab`s avoidance of that specific AoO.

...She can make an attack of opportunity against creatures trying to grapple her even if they possess the Improved Grapple feat or the grab special attack. If she hits with this attack of opportunity, she gains a +2 circumstance bonus to her CMD against the grapple attempt. She cannot make these attacks of opportunity once a grapple has succeeded.

Besides the issue of this (and other Arcane Discoveries) being closed to Sorcerors, there`s another issue that makes me question RAI and balance:

Should this ability really let Wizards use their CL, INT, and Feats to set the DC for Wands that AREN`T Wizard spells, but are activated via UMD?

The current wording is pretty clearly not putting any impediments in the way of doing this, but especially as this is available at a 11th level Arcane Discovery, it seemed a bit TOO useful/powerful/imbalancing/difference-erasing IMHO... Thoughts?

Sorry for not calling them Inquisitions, it just felt wierd to type `Inquisitor Inquisitions` :-)

Anyhow, the list of associated dieties is pretty much only the standard list, which is reasonable enough,
but I can`t help but want to know what might be appropriate for other Dieties...
Ideally, some Blog Post detailing a bunch of minor dieties would be AWESOME,
but in the mean-time, I thought people could share their thoughts in this thread.

A personal favorite of mine is Sivanah, goddess of illusion and secrets...
For reference, her Domains/Subdomains are:
Knowledge, Madness, Magic, Rune, Trickery / Deception, Insanity, Memory, Protean, Thought, Wards

For Inquisitions, I thought the following would be a good match:
Conversion, Fate, Heresy?, Oblivion?, Truth, Zeal (esp. vs. Zon-Kuthon)

Thoughts on this, or your favorite obscure diety?

I`ve noticed this a little bit ago, that sometimes when I edit a post,
the updated version isn`t applied, i.e. I still see the pre-edit post in the thread.
If I re-click `Edit`, the `edited` version may well appear, and either directly re-posting or after adding a few more changes, sometimes may well appear in the thread accurately after hitting `Post`.

In a recent thread, I edited a post.
(that post doesn`t show the edit I applied to it)

Further down the thread, you can see somebody responded to my post (after the hour time-out),
and in their post, the quote of my post DOES accurately reflect my edit. So basically, these Edits ARE being accepted by the system, but the system is sitting on it`s butt and not actually throwing out the old version that displays in the thread.
(even though subsequent Edits / Quotes CAN accurately access the most recent Edit)

You probably know better me what`s going on, and how it could be fixed...

Keep up the great work...

I´m confused about some specific wording here...
It seems like at minimum it should be better worded to remove confusion.

Greater Spell Access (Su)

At 19th level, the magus gains access to an expanded spell list. He learns and places 14 spells from the wizard’s spell list into his spellbook as magus spells of their wizard level. He gains two of each of the following wizard spells not on the magus spell list:

0-level, 1st-level, 2nd-level, 3rd-level, 4th-level, 5th-level, and 6th-level.

He can ignore the somatic component of these spells, casting them without the normal chance of spell failure.

I´m only confused about the last line...

Does this mean all these spells effectively become Stilled, as if they didn´t have a somatic component?
So even if you are paralyzed, or in a situation such that you can´t use ANY somatic spells, you can cast these?
I can also see that perhaps it was just trying to emphasize that they arn´t subject to ASF% from Armor.
(i.e. a redundant reminder since they are treated ´as magus spells of their wizard level´)
Not to mention that there could easily be some other effect BESIDES Armor that gives somatic spells an ASF%,
which the Magus Armor Casting ability would do nothing for, but this may possibly apply to.

I think it´s fine to re-emphasize that aspect, but it should be worded a bit clearer
if it´s NOT intended that you ignore the somatic component for ALL purposes.
If it´s desired to emphasize they can be cast in Armor like normal Magus spells, it´s better to state that directly,
rather than talking about ignoring somatic components (which the Magus Armor Casting ability doesn´t do)
and alluding to ´normal´ chance of spell failure.

I just thought I´d get people´s opinion on this... Seems completely legal to me, just surprising:

Is there anything stopping you from Readying an Action (Attack Action, Cleave, Spellcasting, etc) for ´As soon as X enemy is in range´ (that´s more or less how I often word Readied Actions normally), and then using your Move Action to move past them? The Readied Action would trigger as an interrupt once you are in range, and the rest of the movement would complete afterward... Right?

That´s AWFULLY similar to Spring Attack or Fly-By Attack, though it of course doesn´t include Spring Attack´s protection vs. AoOs (though Mobility would apply of course). It DOES allow ANY Standard Action which is more flexible than Spring Attack, so mostly this steps on the toes of Fly-By Attack which itself doesn´t avoid AoOs at all.

(Whine: with the Spring Attack Errata, you can´t ´combine´ Spring Attack and Fly-By Attack to evade AoO´s while taking ´any´ Standard Action ala Fly-By Attack, at the cost of taking both Feats of course)

Just from playtest experience,
I thought I should say the ability of the Ninja to mix Poisons with Smoke Bombs is very powerful, considering many Poisons require multiple Saves to Cure if you Fail the first one. Targetting an AoO based on hitting the Touch AC of open ground makes this alot more effective than Poison-coated weapons, and AFAIK the Smoke Bombs Class Ability works like Alchemist Bombs, i.e. the drawing of the bomb is included in the Standard Action, which is a signifigant advantage vs. everybody else`s action economy. Certainly the Rogue has nothing on this, not to mention many other characters.

I`m not per se opposed to them having an effective tactic, I just don`t see so much justification for them having such a disparity in this area vs. other characters` ability to do such things, since this is basically just an application of the Alchemy skill.

I guess I would be happy with cutting this from the Ninja, and letting players multi-class with Alchemist if they want to do this kind of thing. Just thought I`d share my playtest feedback.

THis came up in a PbP we´re playing on the boards here.
A Ninja threw a Smoke Bomb, which has a radius of 15´ but acts like a Smoke Stick, which acts like Fog Cloud.

The question came up whether or not this was a Sphere effect or a Cylinder. (it mattered in the game because it affected whether a Large size creature on the edge of the AoE had Line of Sight to a Caster in order to ID their spell)

Some opinions wanted to defer to the source spells to further specify the shape of the AoE, essentially transposing the 15´ radius from the Smoke Bomb text itself onto the 20´ radius + 20´ height given by Fog Cloud, and assuming this was a cylinder. My take was that the AoE was solely defined by Smoke Bomb itself, and only the smoke´s effects were defined by Fog Cloud.

In any case, the question is, if an effect gives as it´s AoE:
* 15´radius (alone), is that a sphere or a cylinder?
* 20´radius + 20´height (as Fog Cloud), is that a sphere or a cylinder?

From a search of the PRD:
I found NO spells which contained the word ´cylinder´ which didn´t have that in their Target line - ALL had the format ´cylinder (x radius, x high)´ (as in Flame Strike, Sleet Storm). Spells containing the word ´sphere´ (like Invis Sphere or Prism. Sphere) used EITHER ´X radius sphere´ OR simply ´X radius (emanation)´ WITHOUT mentioning sphere in the Target line... Since we KNOW those are spherical spells (as they explicitly use that term in their name, even if not in the Area line), it´s clear that ´sphere´ isn´t being consistently described in spell stat-blocks... This could be fixed via Errata. But going from what we have, to me ´X radius´ (alone) would seem to ´default´ to a sphere - which is geometrically correct of course.

Fog Cloud ITSELF is especially questionable, since it´s giving both radius and height, which is superfluous for a spherical AoE, yet either a sphere or cylinder would seem equally plausible IMHO. (i.e. either it has an superfluous height listed when not needed, or doesn´t mention that it´s a Cylinder Area like EVERY other spell that contains the word Cylinder)

Also, the description for Cylinder area says ´you select the spell's point of origin. This point is the center of a horizontal circle, and the spell shoots down from the circle´ which makes sense for Flame Strike and Sleet Storm, but not so much for a Smoke Bomb. In fact, the ´down from (the center)´ read literally would mean nobody would be affected if it triggered at ground level.

Is it a DEX Stat Check? It seems like it to me.
There´s certainly special abilities which add to it (Feats, traits, Class Abilities),
but I don´t see why special abilities coudn´t add to STR Ability Checks, either.

This is pertinent as to whether certain bonuses (like Good Hope) apply to Init checks or not.
IMHO, it seems appropriate and non-problematic, but I´m not sure what the RAW is.

Apparently it seems like alot of people think the Gunslinger isn´t quite together. OK.
I thought a flavor-appropriate additional feature they could have would be Bombs.
Not as many / not as powerful as Alchemist´s perhaps, since they do have FUll BAB/HD (though Deeds could possibly enhance their bombs), but enough to do something. To go along with this, these would be free just like Alchemists´, with Gun POWDER also being free. Of course, Alchemy is a class skill for them.

Besides chucking bombs like an ALchemist, which they would generally be weaker at (besides the Full BAB, so maybe longer ranges), I think it´d be cool to allow them to use multiple bombs to create very effective ´demolitions charges´. Could that use Engineering or Alchemy skill checks somehow? (perhaps the larger bomb you want, a higher DC must be passed, or the bombs have lesser effect?) That seems in line with pseudo-wild west flavor IMHO.

Thoughts? Obviously, adding extraneous 2ndary class features doesn´t itself fix a core dynamic that isn´t up to snuff, but this MAKES SENSE to me for them to have in the first place, and I think it gives them a slightly more broader/interesting role in a party (besides the guy with expensive weapons who kind of rocks until he needs to re-load/unjam his weapons).

Quandary wrote:

...Just look at [Samurai] weapon proficiencies, including Katana/Bastard Sword proficiency for free is like another Free Feat [compared to Cavaliers].

No. It isn't. The Bastard Sword is martial weapon. Using it one-handed is exotic. Which is a half-ass feat anyway.

I`m bringing this up as it`s own thread because I`d like to have clarification on the above issue, and it`s really something broader than just the Samurai itself.

In the case of the Samurai, when I see Katana Proficiency listed, I am ASSUMING that is Exotic Proficiency, since they already have all Martial Weapons and that covers it`s use as a 2-Handed weapon (ala Bastard Sword, which it effectively is AFAIK). It`s been mentioned elsewhere that the vast majority of Samurai used Katana 2-Handed... In light of that, I don`t think Samurai need a free Exotic Proficiency in Katana (1-Handed) - Anybody who wants to do that, can take the Exotic Feat themselves... Everybody else uses them as Martial Weapons... Though with Heirloom Weapon Trait, you can easily gain Exotic Proficiency (1Handed) in that single Katana.

In the case of Rogues, they DON`T get all Martial Weapon Proficiencies, but I feel it`s a similar case... Do they really need Exotic Proficiency in Katanas (1-Handed)? Could they just be given MARTIAL Proficiency in Katanas (2-Handed)? Same thing goes for Heirloom Weapon Trait granting Exotic Proficiency.

Actually, I`m not even fully clear on the `Asian` weaponry as a whole, such as Naginata and Wakizashi which `for the purposes of the playtest` are treated as Glaives and Shortswords... which are Martial Weapons, so I don`t see why they need to be called out as different proficiences (beyond all Martial Weapons, which Samurai already get). I was under the impression that Paizos intent was for these weapons to work identically to `normal` weapons in the final version, or is there indeed an intention to give them special Exotic stats at some point? Or is the intent here that they will have identical STATS as BastardSword/Glaive/ShortSword, BUT be separate Exotic Proficiencies so that Ninjas can`t use Bastard Swords proficiently? (Ninjas have Short Sword proficiency AND Wakizashi, but not Naginate or Glaive).

I wanted to FAQ a thread, but none of the posts have the button.
^This thread if it matters. Never seen this before, don´t know if you took the system off line temporarily (intentionally) or what...?

While in rage, a barbarian gains a +4 morale bonus to her Strength and Constitution, as well as a +2 morale bonus on Will saves .

The barbarian gains a +2 morale bonus on saving throws made to resist spells, supernatural abilities, and spell-like abilities. This bonus increases by +1 for every 4 levels the barbarian has attained...

Those don´t stack by RAW. So at low levels, Superstitious has absolutely no effect agaisnt spells/sla´s/su effects which target Will Saves? At higher levels, Supernatural out-paces the rate at which Rage bonus scales, but I thought I´d post this to make sure they´re not supposed to stack, before posting this to Core Rules Errata... Thoughts? It could just well be one of the many Rage Powers take-able at low level that really don´t have much benefit until later levels...

Does ANY type of Concealment count as the pre-req to make a Stealth check?
I.e. does a Blur spell or Wind Stance allow one to attack in combat then move (making the Stealth check)?

What exactly happens if you Full Attack, 5´step and make a Stealth Check? The opponent isn´t aware of your new location (+Total Concealment if they guess right)? I thought of this when thinking of a Magus-Shadowdancer1 build, but then realized that HiPS is almost superfluous if one has other reliable ways to gain a miss-chance (and it works like this).

I just don´t like the idea that ALL Maguses will get this at medium/high level. The iconic Magus certainly doesn`t seem a Heavy Armor type.

I`m OK with the possibility existing, but it seems like it should be an Arcana or something.

A ´compromise´ alternative would be that ALL Maguses gain Medium Armor Proficiency and ASF immunity at 13th level (where they now gain Heavy Proficiency/ ASF immunity). There would also exist an Arcana which `accelerated´ the schedule so that you gained Medium Proficiency/Immunity at 7th level (where it is now gained automatically), and when you reach 13th level you also gain Heavy Proficiency/Immunity. This would mean HIGH level Magus would all have Medium Proficiency/Immunity, and the option would exist (via ONE Arcana) to allow Heavy Proficiency/Immunity.

I feel like these Arcana all need to have wording such that the Magus needs to be able to cast the Spell Level the modified spell would be IF it`s spell were modified like normal. Otherwise, it just seems like the Magus is being pushed too far into Full Caster territory. I mean, sure the newest latest greatest Bouncing/Persistent Metamagic isn´t included (CURRENTLY) but I still fill that limitation is needed. It would still be essentially free upgrading of low level slots to higher level slots (and not subject to needing a Metamagic Rod in hand).

(Pool Spell has this limitation, I don´t see why these Arcana shouldn´t)

Something in me feels that while this ability is fine at face value,
that it just shouldn´t work for non-arcane Wands / off Wizard-list spells.
(at first I thought off-Magus list, but they are presented as para-Wizards, and I was OK with that)
If they want to use UMD to activate a Divine Wand, fine, but their INT bonus shouldn´t really kick in there, given UMD is a CHA skill in the first place (even if maxing ranks in it via Headbands is more effective than just having 18 CHA). Especially given that Wand Wielder would be letting them use these Wands in combo with their SpelL Combat schtick and related abilities.

I`ve seen sentiment this is underpowered for the cost.
I don´t think it`s SO bad, but why not give it more duration, but with decaying power, e.g. INT to Shield Bonus, -3 per round until gone? At the least, why not throw in the effect of Shield spell vs. Magic Missile or let it apply to incorporeal/force effects?

I just don´t see the need for this. They can use UMD. This ability just means nobody takes the Magus list seriously at high levels, because any Magus worth their snot would take Wizard spells if they are advantageous.

Also, the ¨He adds this spell to his spellbook and list of magus spells known¨ is sort of wierd wording. I`m GUESSING that means the spell now counts as a magus spell for other class abilities, but why not just state that directly and not use the seemingly repetitive ´spellbook and magus spells known´ phrasing...?

I feel like it needs to be buffed up. As written, it doesn´t even apply to CMD vs. said Maneuver. I can see why granting Improved X might be a bit too much, but why not just say it bypasses the AoO AS IF having Improved X, without granting the +2 bonus or qualifing for higher Feats? The AoO from Maneuvers is a pain in the ass, and still having to eat it hardly would seem to qualify as ´Maneuver Mastery´.

If the Magus has 1 level of Witch, their Familiar is a Witch Familiar who can learn spells from other Witch Familiars. Of course, if they only have 1 Witch level, they couldn´t cast these Witch spells beyond 1st spell level.

But the Knowledge Pool and off-list spell scribing to Spellbook made me think, why not allow Witch1/MagusX to prepare Witch spells their Familiar knows in Magus slots, possibly at a Spell Level Adjustment Penalty? The advantage of this over the crazyness of Knowledge Pool is that it´s still subject to the normal limits that exist for Witch Familiars learning Spells, e.g. meeting other Witches and paying them/trading (which a Witch1/Magus X wouldn´t be well positioned to do).

Thoughts?

A magus with this magus arcana

can spend 1 or more points from his arcane pool as a
swift action to imbue his weapon with a special power.

´with a special power´? Of course, we´re all special, but please re-word that. ;-)

Other than that, I don´t see a problem with this Arcana, I´ve seen complaints it´s expensive... But that´s only if you need to dispel high level spells. I see this more as something that you can put 3 points or so into when you have 1 round before a fight, and make one attack that much more effective (besides the Touch effects you may have going), given many opponents will have MANY buffs going, and even removing a lower level spell is always helpful.

Apparently Critical Strike Arcana works with Close Range Arcana-modified spells, which doesn´t work with Spell Strike. This isn´t so much a mechanical argument, but I would prefer the imagery/flavor if instead of Critical Strike granting an EXTRA, free Touch Attack (I viciously ream your guarded spots with all my force!!! And shazam!, throw in an extra Tickle, too!) it was worded to work like an Elemental Burst effect weapon with the extra Touch Spell triggering on the EXACT SAME ATTACK (excluding Close Range Arcaná-modified spells, just like Spell Strike which combines Spell Effect with Melee Attack).

That incidentally would seem to be a mechanic that makes 2 HANDED WEAPONS more useful for Maguses, because they don´t need the free hand to cast/deliver the Touch spell. So going for Bastard Sword so they can choose to 2-Hand on occasion, while still having the chance to get spell effects thru the weapon, would seem another option. /my2cents

A magus with this magus arcana can reroll any concentration check he has just made with a +4 bonus. He must use this ability after the roll is made, but before it is determined if the roll is a success. The magus must take the second roll, even if it is worse. The magus can use this ability once per day.

I`ve already seen other comments on this questioning whether Concetrate Arcana even needs to exist any more, given the removal of required Concentration for Spell Combat, lesser penalties/more bonuses to Concentration, not to mention Combat Casting Feat is freely available to Maguses. (if assuaging Feat demand is the issue, why not make Combat Casting an option for Magus´ Bonus Feat list?)

Besides possibly removing it, I just think how it functions is silly:
Anybody using it essentially knows the exact DC in 99% of cases (barring guessing opponents´ special abilities, e.g. Disruptive), in any case much more so than something like opponent AC. So saying you must choose to re-roll after the roll, but before you know the result is just silly.

I suggest making it something you must decide to use before making the first roll (in which case it reasonably should allow the BEST of 2 rolls, to balance that you may ´waste´ it sometimes)
...OR an ability which AUTOMATICALLY kicks in when failing a roll - though in that case, removing the re-roll and just saying you gain a +4 bonus 1/day when your Concentration roll would otherwise fail seems more streamlined, and given Magus´ already have nice Concentration checks, still not a bad deal.

This is something that goes beyond just the Magus: What qualifies as a melee attack here?
(I saw a thread where somebody asked if a Trip attempt would count as an attack triggering 2 Weapon Rend)

Is it just normal melee damaging attacks? What about Melee Maneuvers? They are beating Touch AC as well... Likewise, what about Touch Attacks? Why shouldn´t these work, flavor wise?

---------------------------------

Instead of the free melee touch attack normally allowed to deliver the spell, a magus can make one free melee attack with his weapon as part of casting this spell.

So if you Quicken a spell, you can get a free melee attack as a Swift Action. I don´t like the sound of that... Quickened Orisons and Pearls of Power (besides Spell Pool) seem like a popular way to get extra attacks that not only stack with Haste effects, but also apply to Attack Actions or Cleaves.

A free Touch Attack, which does nothing but deliver the Spell Effect is reasonable, because the movement can just be an extension of Somatic components, but a Melee Attack presumably signifies more of a physical ´dedication´ to throw one´s strength into the swing, etc.

I`d prefer to see this ability work as: delivering Spell Combat spell via normal attacks (no extra attack, as Full Round), OR as a Standard Action (also precluding Vital Strike, essentially a Standard Action version of Spell Combat only allowing Touch spells).

This functions much like two-weapon fighting, but the offhand

weapon is a spell that is being cast.

That line seems problematically vague. What mechanics of 2WF apply here?

1/2 INT to Spell DC`s like 1/2 STR to damage? `Light Weapon´ Spells only?
Does 2 Weapon Rend trigger if the spell is an attack roll spell that hits?

Personally, I think there should be more specific penalties/effects on the Spell Combat ´off-hand` spell vs. a normally Cast spell. Assuming the Magus will ALWAYS be casting using Spell Combat is silly, there´s no reason they can´t be very effective while using Standard Actions to Cast. That goes for assumptions the Magus will NEED to Cast Defensively even if using Spell Combat. 1 Handed Weapons with Reach/Range DO exist, so using a Bladed Whip, Repeating Lt. XBow, etc, is an EASY method for Magus´ to not worry about provoking while using Spell Combat.

I LOVE the fact that Spell Combat itself no longer REQUIRES a Concentration Check for this reason - Because the system now allows player choices to determine whether or not Concentration checks are needed, judgements about how hard they should be don´t have to be based on the idea it is something REQUIRED, but instead that it´s something that is OPTIONAL.

Effects I would like to see for ´off hand´ Spell Combat spells:
* MINIMUM, there needs to be a -2 to attack rolls from any spells which require them (touch, ranged touch). Per the RAW this doesn´t seem to be the case, but clearly SHOULD be if this ability is to MENTION the words ´2WF´ in relation to it.
* I think there should be a penalty to Saving Throws, Concentration, and SR/ Caster Level dependant effects (e.g. Fireballs and Dispel resistance).

The non-attack penalties can be eliminated by Casting Defensively and taking the approprite penalty to attacks, but the current system just seems wonky when there are NO penalties to the ´off-hand´ spell but the Magus just keeps piling on bonuses to Concentration anyways, besides the ability to trade-off attack bonus for more Concentration bonuses. Sure, there are multiple-disrupting effect situations (and Readied Attacks) where uber Concentration is useful, but one quickly gets to the point where normal Casting Defensively is auto-pass, certainly with the Combat Casting Feat.

WHY NOT force the Magus to take a minor penalty to their attacks so their Spells have FULL FORCE DC´s, Caster Level, etc? The current system of ´attack bonus trading for Casting Defensively´ just isn´t going to be used at all once Maguses get to the point where don´t worry about the Casting Defensive DC. Making the attack bonus trade-off matter for more effects seems like a way to make this dynamic/mechanic generally relevant, and not just for the first few levels. Doing this let`s THE MAGUS PLAYER have complete control over deciding whether they want max attack output or max magic output... When they reach auto-pass stage with Concentration, they can stop worrying about that and get un-penalized attacks with possibly weaker spells, or have somewhat weaker attacks with full power spells.

I´ve noticed this issue discussed, and am not sure what the intent is myself.
When using Word Burning, is the final ´cost value´ (?) of a Spell Slot limited to LESS than the cost value for the next highest Spell Level? Or is there no limit whatsoever?

At first I thought there wouldn´t be much advantage in super-Augmenting a low level spell (besides Concentration checks), since it still has the lower DC and spell level (vs. effects like Globe of Invulnerability).

But then I thought, what about Quicken? Being able to fit a huge amount of effects into one low level spell compatable with a Lesser Rod of Quicken, for example, lets one get off a ton of effects for just a Swift Action... Which may be more than the intent here. Sure, one single spell is Dispellable in one go, but many effects can be Instantaneous (besides not having a Save dependent on Spell Level) and relying on Dispel as a balancer doesn´t seem prudent to me.

-------------------------------------------------

Should the minimum Spell Level of Effect Words have a Boost Value like costs do? Should there be a mechanism to increase minimum Spell Level per additional Effect(s)?

It seems like some of the key concepts (Word Name types, cost) don`t even have explicit titles.
These seem necessary for a final product, in order to be able to discuss the class` functioning in a reasonable way.
I can see many different flavorful options (´syllables´, ´consonants´, etymology´) which play up the ´word´ and ´language´ aspect of Words of Power. Thoughts?

Mounted Combat actually got quite a bit of love in the APG.
But there´s still not that many options for Animal Companions specifically,
especially for classes without the full Druid access to Companions (e.g. Rangers, Cavaliers, etc)

What I´d like to know is when this subject might get a deeper treatment?

Is it within Ultimate Combat, given Companions are primarily seen as a Combat component (vs. Familiars)?
Would it be within a ´Ultimate Nature´ product? (even though the Paladin, Cavalier, and Mounted Barbarian variant aren´t particularly Nature-themed, or even with any spellcasting/supernatural abilities at all regardless of source)

The Companion classes with a restricted list (and/or level equivalence penalty) clearly seem to have the POSSIBILIY of further companions SOMEHOW, but we haven´t seen any new options yet. Whether it would be a Feat to gain full Druid access (which doesn´t seem overpowered considering one can dip 1 level in Druid to gain that access which stacks with your existing Companion class levels), or just a larger list for these specific classes, I´m sure alot people would like to see something like this.

Even for Druids and those with Full Companion Access, more Companions could certainly be interesting.... Larger (than Large Size) Companions (which was brought up during the Playtest) could probably be done either with simple level pre-reqs or special Feats to ¨unlock¨, and a similar approach could be taken for non-animal Companions, like Fae, Magical Beasts, Aberrations, etc. These don´t even all need to follow the mold of ´Mounts´ or ´Attack Beasts´, but could be more like a Satyr which likes to follow the Druid around, or a minor Archon which does the same with a Paladin (etc).

Besides some more Feats (which don´t necessarily have to focus as much on Mounted Combat, but other aspects of fighting WITH a companion), I could easily see more spells focused on Companions, since many of the Companion classes have spell casting.

I´ve mentioned this before, but I thought it deserved it´s own thread that´s more visible.
This is relevant to the Magus, because I think Eldritch Knight deserves some love in the APG as well,
and it seems reasonable for them to ALSO receive access to some of the unique Magus spells.

Of course, since ElK´s can have ANY type of arcane spell casting (Wiz/Sorc/Witch/Bard) there would need to be some sort of one-off text which allows them to cast the Magus spells, while verifying the Spell Level they cast them at. I don´t see a problem with ElK´s casting Magus spells at the same spell level Magus´ get them at, but Paizo could feel differently. If they cast them at a diferent spell level, any magus spell could also list its spell level for ElK´s (regardless of ElK casting type).

Some sort of Feats with both BAB and Caster Level Pre-Req´s, possibly with requirement to be a Magus or ElK, seems reasonable to give both classes some Feat love. Given ElK has no Class Features most of their progression, and no action synergy like Bards/Magus´ have, it seems like the ElK really needs to get more out of these Feats than a Magus. I could see Feats that enhance/extend Magus abilities, but if you don´t have that Magus ability (i.e. because you are ElK) it would give you a weaker version of that ability, e.g. -5 levels below a Magus WITH the ability in power, but still a help for ElK.

Any feedback from Paizo on what sort of material they plan to release for the Core Rulebook´s Full BAB/Full Arcane Casting PrC within Complete Arcana would be appreciated, to help focus people´s feedback and brainstorming on this topic.

Do these Feats really work together?

Whenever you and an ally who also has this feat are flanking the same creature, your flanking bonus on attack rolls increases to +4. In addition, whenever you score a critical hit against the flanked creature, it provokes an attack of opportunity from your ally.

Benefit: Whenever you are adjacent to an ally who also has this feat, you receive a +4 circumstance bonus on attacks of opportunity against creatures that you both threaten. Enemies that provoke attacks of opportunity from your ally also provoke attacks of opportunity from you so long as you threaten them (even if the situation or an ability would normally deny you the attack of opportunity).

Getting AoO`s from your own Crits ON TOP of any other AoO`s the enemy might provoke seems a bit over the top. I could see the ability`s intent to mean that your critical hit (and not the enemy itself) provokes an attack of opportunity against the enemy from your allies (but not from you, since it wasn`t the enemy itself provoking), but the ability isn`t actually written in that way (since `it provokes an attack from your ally` isn`t given a further target as it would be if `it` was your Crit and not the enemy).

This comes up as a great Inquisitor tactic, but really any melee character in a party with multiple melee combatants (including Animal Companions, and even Familiars and Summons can Flank) would get incredible mileage out of this feat.

I just can´t help but think that having Schools Specialization would be really cool, for one because it could introduce more differentiation in Magus abilities, but also because it establishes more continuity with Wizards themselves... Like Inquisitors (and Domain Paladins) get Cleric Domains.

(re-posting from the ´Ki Pool´ thread)
Besides the School Abilities (and Bonus Spells???) that Wizards get, each School (incl. Universal) could have UNIQUE Magus powers associated with each school. I would say that Oracle Revelations could be a model for some of these abilities... Also there could be Arcana that simply have the Pre-Req of having a given School Specializaion. Whether or not they get Bonus Spells is probably something that could go either way...

Assuming a ´Ki Point´ mechanism like Monks, I could see this affecting their ´reserve´ Ki ability (alternate usage they can switch at will, or additional effect?) ... And WHY NOT, giving them unique usages/options for EXPENDING their Ki Points in the first place. (i.e. like Cleric Domains give Bonus Spell Choices expanding the spell repertoire in different directions).

...Also (this isn´t necessarily Specialization specific)
What about ´lingering´ effects when they DO cast a spell, i.e. a bonus to X effect for 1(?) round, whose effect depends on the school of magic they just cast? (would adding a quickend spell give two effects? or would quickened spells not count for this? or just give you the choice of either 1 or the other school?)
School Specialization could also modify/enhance the effects of these lingering effects when you cast a spell within your specialty... Perhaps´opposed schools´´ spells would not trigger the lingering effect because your knowledge of that school isn´t as deep...?

Some of these questions I´ve asked before, but perhaps they´ve slipped under the radar...

I´m asking them again now because I´m planning on updating the Commentary on d20pfsrd´s Maneuver Chapter, and plan on creating a table clearly showing each Maneuver´s Action Type(s) to initiate and whether or not they benefit from Weapon Specific attack bonuses... Since the intent here is to help people best understand the game rules, I just wanted to double-check these issues so I could avoid providing commentary which would conflict with a soon to be issued Errata.

So... the Questions are:
(´official´ Paizo answers desired here: for non-Paizoans, hitting the FAQ button would be the most helpful)

1) Is Sunder indeed an Attack Action and not just in place of any melee attack...? (just being safe here)

2) Bull-Rush´s current wording is such that WHEN CHARGING you perform the maneuver IN PLACE OF THE MELEE ATTACK, i.e. benefitting from weapon-specific attack bonuses. Is this the intended function (RAI) or can we expect this to be changed in the next Errata? (i.e. so Bull-Rush normally NEVER benefits from weapon-specific attack bonuses unless a special ability so allows, e.g. Barbarian Knockback)

3) From James´ earlier commentary, it´s pretty clear that the RAI is for weapon Trips to only be possible with Trip Quality weapons. What´s not clear to me is how the non-weapon Trips are initiated... Are they considered to be delivered via Unarmed Strike (thus benefitting from UAS-specific attack bonuses)? If not, would the Trip attack still be eligible for attack bonuses generally applicable to any Natural Attack (e.g. Magic Fang)? ...In which case Weapon Focus: ¨non-weapon) Trip¨ would be as valid as Weapon Focus: Grapple?

Thanks so much for helping clear up some of these issues...
And I hope to have that Maneuver Chart and Commentary done and up on d20pfsrd real soon!

OK, the rules for Polymorph are pretty clear, no templated forms:
"Polymorph spells cannot be used to assume the form of a creature with a template or an advanced version of a creature."

as discussed here and here.

But then the Diabolist PrC has an Imp whose standard (at 4th level) Special Qualities include using Beast Shape III in the form of a Young Giant Spider.

So which is it? Is Young Template a unique exception to the No-Template Polymorph rule, since it's an inherent natural state of all living creatures?
(Young does seems reasonably balanced, as opposed to Giant, for example)
Or do Diabolists or Imps just get to break the rules because they're EEEVIL?

I googled wizards for a FAQ on this, but couldn't find anything.
Mithril Armor says:
"Most mithral armors are one category lighter than normal for purposes of movement and other limitations."

Bard's Armor Proficiency says:
"A bard can cast bard spells while wearing light armor and use a shield without incurring the normal arcane spell failure chance. Like any other arcane spellcaster, a bard wearing medium or heavy armor incurs a chance of arcane spell failure if the spell in question has a somatic component."

Would Mithril Medium Armor count as Light Armor for the purposes of being able to cast Somatic spells without ASF%?
This seems like something that should be "known" or answered via a FAQ somewhere already, but I couldn't find an answer.

I saw this subject come up in another thread:

Yes, but it's the mount that's charging, not the wielder. The restriction to a single melee attack (although allowing the wielder a regular move action as well) makes sense, but that's not a restriction on charge. For example, in PF RPG, a mid-level mounted lancer could use Vital Strike, something he couldn't do at the end of his own charge.

Combat while Mounted: With a DC 5 Ride check, you can guide your mount with your knees so as to use both hands to attack or defend yourself. This is a free action.

When you attack a creature smaller than your mount that is on foot, you get the +1 bonus on melee attacks for being on higher ground. If your mount moves more than 5 feet, you can only make a single melee attack. Essentially, you have to wait until the mount gets to your enemy before attacking, so you can't make a full attack. Even at your mount's full speed, you don't take any penalty on melee attacks while mounted.

So per RAW, Mounted Charge does indeed only limit you to a 'single melee attack' (which an attack action is), without restriction as to action typing (i.e. 'as a standard action, make a single melee attack' like all other non-attack action attacks use).

Just checking on this one, because this was never mentioned by Jason or anybody else at Paizo when Vital Strike questions were answered previously.

The spell states "If the target is bound, grappled, or otherwise restrained, he may make an Escape Artist check to escape as an immediate action. He gains a competence bonus on this check equal to twice your caster level (maximum +20)."

"Officially", does that mean you can ONLY make an escape artist skill check and NOT a CMB check to escape? It seems like the two approaches (skill/CMB) are intended to be interchangeable and used depending on the would-be-escaper's strengths (skills+DEX/BAB+STR). I know I would house-rule that it applies to/allows CMB checks to escape grapple as well, but it'd be nice to know the "Official" ruling here.

This was brought up in another thread, and I thought it was a good question:

I do kinda get confused by the new rules sometimes; the whole "fly spell vs. fly skill" thing just recently gave me some befuddlement...

when a levitating mindflayer mindblasts a flying attacker into a stunned condition, does the flyer bob around unconsciously like an untethered helium balloon, or does he plummet to the ground since he can't make a fly check to hover?

My take on it is the rules say this:

You generally need only make a Fly check when you are attempting a complex maneuver. Without making a check, a flying creature can remain flying at the end of its turn so long as it moves a distance greater than half its speed. It can also turn up to 45 degrees by sacrificing 5 feet of movement, can rise at half speed at an angle of 45 degrees, and can descend at any angle at normal speed.

So if you go unconscious, I would say you continue drifting at half-speed in the direction you were going previously... or possibly even circling in a 'holding pattern' (<45* = no check). That could obviously cause problems itself, but isn't insta-pancake if you are at high altitude. The main thing is dispelling fly still leaves you floating down at 60'/round, just becoming unconscious should not be WORSE than that scenario.

But the rules themselves are pretty much silent on this situation where you CAN'T make a Fly check, and can't even decide ANY course of action, i.e. to do what's necessary to avoid a Fly check (since hovering in place itself requires a Fly check). Some sort of incapacitation is pretty common in the game, so it would be nice if it was actually covered by the rules in some way.

couldn't resist that one.... anyway, here's some thoughts on the Witch:

Blight:
"Blighting an area or creature takes 1 round, during which time the witch and her familiar must be in contact with the target."
So for un-willing animal or plant creatures, the Witch must first establish a grapple and the creature not escape before 1 round is over? If this is intended, it should be spelled out directly.
Also: why limited to only animals and plants? it's not the strongest effect, and can only have 1 active at a time, so why not open it to more types?

Vision:
This ability is just VERY vague. Can you choose the subject you want to see? Can you choose the date? Or is it completely random, anything in the next year that conforms the witch's alignment? It at least needs to specify you see YOURSELF in the future if that is the intent, otherwise it could just be a 'morality tale' of a flock of geese. Assuming it IS a Vision of THEIR OWN future, how exactly are different events chosen, presuming there is more than one "Neutral Good" or "Chaotic Evil" event in the upcoming year? I like the flavor for this, and I don't even care if it is THE most 'useful' ability, but it needs tightening up to indicate exactly what it does.

Forced Reincarnation:
So is the creature dead for 1 full round? Can they take their action in the intervening round? Would there be penalties for being "in complete agony"?

Life Giver: (nitpick)
"Once per day the witch can, as a full round action, touch one part of a dead creature and bring it back to life. This functions as resurrection, but it does not require a material component."
The "one part of a" bit is un-necessary and confusing - are you bringing the PART of a creature back to life? Nothing else uses this language, you just say "you touch a creature" and that's it.

Bat Familiar Spell List: "2nd—silent imaage" (typo)

Question about Familiar Bonus Spells:
If you progress Witch Casting, thru Eldritch Knight for example, do you get the Familiar Bonus Spells? (I'm guessing No) If you don't, are they still on your 'spell list', such that you could learn them from another source or those gained automatically each level? (I'm guessing Yes)