|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Some things aren't worth looking up.
One of the many examples of why some rules aren't necessary, or, a possible experiment of how some people need absolute closure in a game of the imagination...
It's also a good piece of evidence of why natural successes and failures are silly. To tie a failure to a flat 5%, oh, the humanity!
It's about control. Within the confines of your own home it is acceptable to be evil, to read minds, to fly at level 1, or make several broken combinations that the developers don't have the time/resources to respond to.
They have largely restricted access to A) be more public friendly (alignment/character balance), B) control the number of connectors (probability of combinations between options) to allow for easier predictability for writers of material and limit resources/time spent towards rules fixing, and C) clean things up for a smooth user experience (time constraints)
Question: Are there online PBP options for PFS, or a store locator for playing? (I have not been involved with PFS for years)
I believe the understanding is that any intelligent creature would keep tabs on their potions, whether that is a list on their person, or an actual labelling system on the potion itself.
Having labels would be the norm, with those choosing not to have identifiers on their potions whatsoever being the exception. And thus, whether you search the person, or by the nature of their labelling it is on the potion itself. You could roleplay language differentials and such, but ultimately the GM should just decide early the general playout for potions.
Will he make it a mini-game of frustration and guessing that makes little real-world sense, or do away with all labelling except for rare cases (the labels are so old they have faded from readability for example).
I find the most important thing is simply an understanding of the consistency, as it never comes up until it is actually important (like rations) and then it becomes a very humorous discussion.
Charming people (even the king) will NOT let you take over the kingdom.
One of the many issues with choosing what to read, and what not to read, when it comes to material. Many people, for some reason, believe that it does.
I like your idea of feat-ifying it though, down to the components of casting, but not the 'feeling' of it being cast (it's tangible identifier of the target). It would have to be a special ability of a focused class for me to buy into that kind of absolutely focused craft modification, but like the dominating focused classes of 3.5, or avoiding magical detection classes.
There's always that one thing outside the reach of feats, races, etc... when it comes to "being the best" at something, and classically, it was found at level 12+ in some prestige class. I think that's where it should stay, buried deep in a class/archetype. Removing all possible remnants of casting is too powerful, I think, if not for dedicating your life to the craft itself.
Keep in mind that your opinion is subjective. I don't know how many GM's you have personally and directly polled on this very specific issue, but heck, I'm interested to know how deep that rabbit hole goes.
What I can say objectively is that I have read bout a dozen posts on the issue, and A) Only one contradicted the norm (that Animal Fury works with Lockjaw), that B) the only one that disagreed was recent, and had very little Google priority and thus was very late to the party to include an alternative interpretation, was never contradicted prior to it and had very little traffic and C) the other almost a dozen posts had everyone in it have no indication that they disagreed with the sentiment.
Therefore, objectively, I can conclude that for quite some time, and after, the norm and 100% agreement in online chatter was that this combination worked and all experience with GM's around those posters was to the effect that it ran this way.
As for interpretation, there is none, it is RAW. If you remove Animal Fury due to Lockjaw, you would also have to remove all maintenance actions (as they are one in the same based on the evidence/quotations provided). And thus, stating one cannot use Animal Fury due to Lockjaw consequently removes all maintenance actions themselves. This is not possible, and therefore the GM must decide. Do they allow Animal Fury to work as written (RAW) or do they intervene and subvert the rules as written. It is their decision, and I am impartial to the matter.
However, as stated, any GM can run a game whichever way they choose. RAW, RAI or winging-it.
Remember that when using animal fury, and using the bite attack, it is "part of the action to maintain... a grapple". Therefore, when using the bite attack, you are grappling. The two are inseparable.
There are several things that can take place as "part of a grapple", "during a grapple", "to maintain a grapple", etc... It's only that Animal Fury calls out that you're making an attack. The ability to deal damage while maintaining that is naturally included in a grapple itself is the same, it just doesn't say 'bite' and doesn't make you do an attack roll. If using a natural weapon (claw/bite), how else would you deal damage without creating a swinging motion, or unlock/lock again? You couldn't.
If you start to interpret abilities like this you'd have to re-haul quite a few feats and abilities in the game. In any case, I see what you're saying, but Lockjaw is referring to (RAW and RAI) things that are NOT grapple actions. Activating animal fury simply adds a sub-text to the grapple maintenance statement, as does 'Grab', and feats, or rage powers (hive poison, bleed, etc...). They simply add to the action itself (which is what Lockjaw is referring to), this addition is not separate of the grappling action, it is part of the grappling action itself. That's why it is "a part of" the action. To say you cannot use Animal Fury as part of Lockjaw, also means that you cannot maintain a grapple because of Lockjaw. After all, maintaining a grapple isn't a grapple right? If it is part of a grapple (as you and I know it is) then so is Animal Fury, as it is by pure RAW, "part of" the maintenance action.
If it alleviates the subjectivity of the matter, just consider that something like a Gnasher is actually grappling with two-hands AND a bite. This is why we have penalties if not having hands free to do grapples, there's interplay between all limbs involved. So, if all hands are free, you're actually grappling them with three limbs, and to 'bite' is fine, just like stabbing them with one hand would be (which is required, and hinted at) when adding the damage, without rolling if successfully maintaining.
Apologies for thread necro, and raining on Gobo Hordes parade but I think there's an inconsistency in his build. Assuming 9th level with rapid grappler and animal fury, when you have to move in before attacking you would only get in 1 bite, not 5.
You are right in the sense that the move action is gone, and the standard action, leaving only the swift. If you didn't have something that converts a swift to a move, then this is where the turn ends. However, there is a magical shirt (1/day) to convert a swift to a move and in this case you could move into greater grappler territory. That being said, damage doesn't end after the grab, and at the least, you would get your Animal Fury bite and the standard 'maintain' damage. So you would only get 3 'attacks' if you couldn't convert the swift action, and had to move up to the opponent.
According to the grapple rules, the initial grapple attempt only does that, it begins the grapple, nothing more. It doesn't let you inflict damage until your next grapple check on your next turn. Also, rapid grappler specifically calls out using the Greater Grapple mechanic that is making a grapple check as a move action to MAINTAIN the grapple. Since on the initial free grapple from the bite, you are only initiating the grapple, you wouldn't get to trigger rapid grappler.
The initial grapple check isn't a grapple check, it is a Standard action attack. The grab ability lets you tag a free grapple attempt onto it, but I understand what you are saying. Grappling doesn't work the way you think it does, and more importantly, 'Grab' is a special ability that (imo) heavily modifies the grapple chart. Grabbing is grappling with a twist that you tag on constrict damage immediately, or after this round (looking to the future) you simply add dice damage as if you were maintaining a grapple. Now, once you have successfully grabbed you are now also in a standard grapple, which activates Animal Fury (free attack) and allows you to also, even though you ARE grappling, maintain it (as per the RAW rules of the grapple com bat maneuver), so you can activate dice damage with no roll.
The standard action to grapple at no point speaks to ceasing any other possible actions until the future comes upon you. It simply states that it costs a standard, and you get a grapple. I am not sure why some posters insert hidden words into the grapple action, leading to this distant future when new things will be allowed to take place, but right now, alas, everything is over... Greater and Rapid say that you can keep making grapple attempts as maintaining actions (which are completely normal, as the standard action grapple stats that if you've already succeeded, and the grapple is 100% successful, you can still 'maintain' it, you just don't roll), and to do so, lets you eat up other forms of your turn (move and swift) and you can simply continue to maintain. During a grapple, you can maintain, it is within a grapple. You can also continue to add grapple actions whether they are needed for a successful maintain or not. For some reason people believe that once a successful grapple happens, magically everything else disappears and the opponent is surrounded by a bubble of invincibility to all other actions taking place involving grappling. This is not true, otherwise you could not damage them by maintaining a grapple. Success or failure of grappling does not negate attempts to grapple or maintain. They are merely consecutive, and if you succeed to maintain on any one of them, you do not make the actual grapple checks to maintain on future ones, but may freely continue to maintain as long as you have actions/abilities that allow you to do so. This is why via the use of greater/rapid, you can initiate a pin in the first round. By SUCCESSFULLY grappling, then immediately with your already successfully grappled opponent, you may continue to grapple with them to turn it into a pin. If your beliefs (and many of those against the Gnasher concept) were true, you could never go beyond a simple grapple success in a round, which according to the feats themselves, show that you can clearly continue to apply actions to a fully grappled opponent beyond the standard action grapple.
You can use a normal grapple, greater grapple and rapid grapple in succession as long as you have the actions irregardless of successes or failures. And, as per the rules of grapple "a successful check allows you to continue grappling the foe, and also allows you to perform one of the following actions". Therefore, in any maintenance action, damage may be applied, period.
If starting from away, first you spend a move action to get in range, then a standard action to bite, that initital bite allows you to initiate the grapple. That's it, round one is done, one bite, begin grappling.
Already addressed above. Completely false.
Now, once you BEGIN your turn already latched on like a mad dog, everything flows perfectly. You standard to maintain, prefaced by an animal fury bite, then deal bite to maintain. Then move action to maintain via Greater Grapple, prefaced by an animal fury bite. Since you have used greater grapple to maintain as a move action NOW you get the swift action third grapple, prefaced by an animal fury bite.
This concept of "begin", "start" or "open" in reference to grappling is a subjective analysis of the grappling concept, that isn't written anywhere in grappling descriptions and is completely a fabrication of some players. At no point does it reference temporality other than stating that you can only maintain after the initial roll to successfully begin the grapple (which grab does), and therefore, you may maintain as much and as many times as you like (as clearly described in the feats) for as many actions/feats allow you to do so.
Let me know if you have any quotable evidence, from within paizo material or an official source that. Evidence must be produced that clearly outlines the temporality as fixed upon the standard action grapple to negate these interpretations as A) Grapple as a standard doe not stop them, and B) clearly outlines that all maintenances can be done even when a grapple is successful, and with that maintenance comes free damage. The feats merely keep you successful/unsuccessfully grappling, and with those maintenances, comes free damage. Literally nothing is written that stops this, and any interpretation otherwise is subjective and fabricate (at best, RAI).
The only issues I have with the Gnasher build are the following:
2) Animal Fury; same issue I have with the grab concept above. The Gnasher just so happens to have the same damage source as its grapple source, and nothing in the texts states you can't Use you bite with animal fury and maintain the hold, but there's obviously subjective difficulty in accepting this, and there are some statements in some abilities that would lead us to believe that it might not be possible. That given a Gnasher's mouth, a grapple cannot be maintained and gain the use of animal fury. However, a bite doesn't need to be a release, drop to the ground, re-initiate and re-bite (although you can absolutely do this given the feats and releaing being a free action (more about that some other time). In any case, Animal Fury is a point of contention. However, we're already dealing with an exhorbent number of attacks due to grab anyway.
*All-in-all. I think grab is supposed to re-word grapple, but it doesn't. I think grapple and grab are supposed to reference future grapple attempts, not insinuate future rounds. I believe grapple and grab are the same, and the feats allow additional grapple attempts. People subjectively see Standard Action grapple and assume nothing can do a standard action grapple until there's, well... another standard action. Which logically, takes a round. However, the standard action grapple moment is simply extended into move and swift with the feats. That, as long as you have successfully grappled, you can continue, and that's what the feats do.
Finally, I also think the Animal Fury works with Gnasher, I just think the goblin repositions with two open hands and continues to 'gnash' the opponent, much like a grapple maintenance, but with the penalty of an attack roll because you aren't squeezing, you're re-biting. In any case, that is all completely subjective, and would like to hear everyone else's thoughts on the matter.
All are good suggestions, only an addition to Rumpin.
You of course don't want every encounter to nix it, but you should mix full/partial/none useful encounters.
Yes, it's a great trick, but there should be times when it flat out doesn't work. That's part of being smart with a build, is not relying on a 'one trick pony'. If you do, you will never enjoy the game.
Don't feel like you need to play into a one-trick, be real, and if it is a one-trick he'll eventually realize being really uber awesome at one thing simply doesn't work.
Then again, he may not be a one-trick. In either case, follow the full/partial/none if you can for all groups/encounters. It mixes things up, makes them continue to evolve, and focuses towards rounded characters/styles.
Yet another Q.
An Eldritch Godlings Dispel Resistance ability. The SR applies to your own magic being effected by dispel and anti-magic effects.
Scenario: I cast a spell at an opponent that has SR, I make an SR check to defeat their SR. Ontop of this, does my spell also roll it's own SR against their SR?
Pretty much, is a creatures spell resistance considered an anti-magic effect?
Just thought of another Q.
For an Eldritch Godling, it doesn't have a Scion Talent list, but has access through their Minor Ascendancy. Is this considered "available" to the Eldritch Godling, or does your class have to have specific access to a Scion list (Ex. Mighty Godling)?
2 Questions for clarification
What I get from this is the spell takes a full-round to cast, but is cast ON that round, not extended into the next round and cast at the beginning of your next round.
SC states: When casting a spell with a casting time of 1 full round, the effect of the spell still does not occur until the beginning of your next round (though you are finished casting and the spell can no longer be interrupted, the magic takes time to coalesce)
When using Swift Casting with a metamagic feat, does it make the casting a standard action with the spell taking place that round? Or, does it make the casting time a standard action, and the spell is cast at the beginning of your turn the next round?
Then what is an effect? It's not a keyword used in spell descriptions, feats, etc...
If I were to look through rulebooks and texts for 'effects', I would find nothing. I have to believe it isn't flavour and meaningless.
I was just wondering if your response was made up or from an errata. Do you have a link to a thorough discussion on the topic to which this conclusion was reached?
I work with a group on an online PBP site and we work through issues like this for others who want to play, so forgive me if I'm looking for substance to any statements made.
Ogre Blood: Half-ogres count as both humans and ogres for any effect related to race.
O.k., so it's the exact same as Elf Blood, which I know there's been controversy over. I've used search-fu and have come up dry on any errata or official rulings.
If there is no official ruling, can someone quickly summarize what the fan consensus is on the following question:
As a Half-Ogre, when levelling up as say, a fighter, can I choose the human's favored class option when levelling as a Half-Ogre fighter?
Favored classes opening sentence is: "The following favored class options are available to all characters of this race..."
Thanks for any help.
Paul DiAndrea wrote:
I love how rules lawyers try to turn a 1st level spell like CHARM into some horrid game breaker. Give them enough time and they'll try and convince you that WIZARD MARK is just an understated version of SYMBOL OF DEATH.
+1, I lol'd at this.
No matter what logic you use, many will still prefer to misread or RAW their way into something ridiculous.
It's exactly why things like Charm Person get re-stated or have paragraphs of text to fully describe a more simple spell because of misinterpretation. I remember in 2E how Invisibility had to be more clearly expressed in expanded editions and the Complete Wizard. The concept of Illusions (Phantasmal Force) required pages and pages of examples and limitations just to ensure the player couldn't pull the wool over the DM's eyes.
Nothing new here. Same kind of behaviour.
A good rule of thumb is to assume that if you've found a tricky way around casting requirements the usual answer is no. You just haven't found why it's no yet.
If for some reason you still can't find it's a no, you just have to ask a developer so that they can provide an official answer or update that clarifies that it's no.
People are always looking though. The Magister/Magus double-dip or the infamous Precocious Apprentice are some good examples.
We should all take bets on how many days it will be before another discussion pops up trying to surpass the spell level access of a wizard or bypass PrC/class pre req's before developers clearly intend.
Dibs on 3 days.
I would like to see:
1. A product that increases support for 3PP races. Racial feats, spells, class bonuses, etc... The ARG boosted core, I'd like to see something boost 3PP (almost all of them). Think Boggle, Half-Ogre, etc...
2. The same for 3PP classes, there's not enough classes where 3PP races get to take something else on a level up, not even the Godlings. How fun is it to grab a fun 3PP race and make it a godling... but I'd like the support.
3. How about an Undead book/supplement. We don't have templates, but what are the chances of creating some undead-like playability here? I think it's an un-mined field in PF.
4. A group and I were talking about 4E skill challenges, and how it's a revolutionairy concept. PF has already cleaned up the skills. Is there a chance you can develop a supplement that is just about using, organizing and perfecting a skill challenge in PF? (or similar concept)
More to come...
Oh how far we stray...
The man is a Druid for crying out loud. They're supposed to sticking up for nature.
How can you allow them to burn alive the creature they've developed a bond with, their companion. They should become, or be warned that they're close to becoming an ex-druid for not revering nature. A druid should be treating a being of nature as they would any sentient being, with reverence and respect.
Why else would they outline the path to being an ex-druid as such? Without following the guidelines, you boil the class down to just words without meaning. The game is so much more than that.
I look back at the days where Druids were TN only. Even then nature was 'respected', while civilisations were looked down on. That animal companion was worth more than any of the humans or other civilized 'allies' you had in your party, always cutting down nature to make way for their own will.
Psionics have been balanced ever since 3.5 released Expanded Psionics.
There is no difference in power between a Psion and a caster (Wiz/Sorc). Psionics just have a smaller list of powers (vs. spells) and have a higher percentage of damage based vs. utility. There's a reason Psion's are tier 2, not tier 1.
If you are having a 'nova' problem, it's an issue with the GM's. Like others have said Wiz/Sorc have the same ability to 'nova'. It's not an issue.
What is an issue is everyone fearing them and never reading the rules, allowing players to play them without knowing the rules, or not keeping players accountable for failing to do so. If you know very little and players are fudging rules then anything can become powerful. It has nothing to do with psionics.
Psionics got a bad name from 2E. Anybody who played in those times knows the groans and facepalms it created, even when you knew the rules fully.
Take Boat wrote:
We're not saying monks are horrible or Barbarians aren't combat kings. It's about versatility and the tier system is accurate. It should be mentioned that power goes hand-in-hand with the tier concept however. You either have spells, or you don't and that is the biggest difference of all.
They're racial traits. They're unmarked because they are natural. For example, there is not activation requirement, spell component or anything to have a racial modifier to abilities. Same for skill boosts/bonuses. Even things like the ability to naturally see better due to your biological nature (Darkvision/Low-Light vision) have no classification.
When found removed from race and identified, say if a spell gave it to you, I can see it being Ex. Ex is for things that are innate in a creature that is non-magical as Antimagic doesn't effect it.
For something like Darkvision, I don't see an issue if in a clinch to categorize it as Ex. It's been my experience that Su and Sp are identified for their type in the racial trait if it should be considered those types.
Astrikkar Arkylon wrote:
May I ask how he got to 37 Int? I only query because natural progression, maximum stats, full level point increase and magical items have a maximum score of 31. I assume there's a wish or two involved and some other tricks I'm aware of, but just curious in either case.
Well, to be honest it sounds like you're out of your league. It also sounds like someone is a powergamer and has already received a reputation as someone who isn't worth running games for. He may actually see this as a badge of honor, which is unfortunate.
What I would do is shut down the game and actually play. Someone suggested PFS which is a great way to get involved. You can play under several GM's and ask questions, maybe go over the module with them afterwards and pick their brains on CR, decisions, dice rolls, etc...
If the other player makes characters for others and apparently requires very high CR's, then leave him to make his own party of PC's and GM himself. It's not worth the hassle.
I know, I respect everyone's interpretation. I just view the ability differently on my perception of the rules.
I respect SKR, but I disagree with him. It may never be FAQ'd/Errata'd and I'm o.k. with it.
Also, I know how you feel about the elf thing, it's always been a little unclear over the editions with changes.
Lynli Kelborn wrote:
Why do I get the feeling that your GM is just anti-good magic? Well, read some of the guides on spellcasters and you'll see some of the limitations to enchantment you have already expressed.
I'm a fan of the school, but combat control is not the enchantments forte. You need to branch out your spells and pick your moments with enchantment.
Also, tell your GM to stop being silly.
@cartmanbeck: There is nothing in PF that says Elves don't sleep. Can you post a link to the statement that says "Elves don't sleep, ever"?
It says in the class that the Synthesist merely 'uses' the physical scores of the Eidelon, it does not 'gain' those scores. The Synthesist himself still has his original scores when qualifying for feats regardless of how long he wears his suit. Ability increases are enhancements to the characters actual scores.
He is just wearing living armor that has physical scores, his actual scores are not being enhanced and he himself does not actually gain them.
I respect SKR but I would actually rule otherwise in my games until a FAQ/Errata were released.
Well, it was mishandled by both parties. If the event wasn't too long ago maybe you can retcon it, or weave him back in somehow. I believe in such a case where an error occurred on both sides such an action is acceptable.
GM's need to feel that the players know their characters, and that a GM will fairly rule. This keeps the sense of trust and coherency needed in a play group. I think.
Others jumping in with a stark defence, please note that errors were made by the GM in this case and he acknowledges there was a botch. He would like advice on what he should do now and in the future.
Bart Vervaet wrote:
If this was a new player I would cut him some slack, but if it was an experienced player I would expect him to know how the spells/feats/abilities his character uses, and I would hqve done the same thing
We're not all gurus and Charm Person is one of the pinnacle misunderstood as 'dominate' spells. Not because of the player, but mostly because other GM's continue to run it as such. AD is also right though, it was handled in error. Sometimes as a GM if we don't know for sure, we have to go back and look things up. If game flow is important and you're comfortable, you can make a GM ruling and proceed.
In this case AD is right that an error was made. With such a command it depends on the characters motives, alignment and relationship with is true 'allies' at the time. However, if your order, if followed out made him believe it would result in death than he would simply not follow the suggestion. For him to give a suggestion to harm another ally would require an opposed Charisma check, and even then he won't slice and dice. More likely he would use non-lethal methods to resolve an issue between two trusted friends and allies.
I think you need to consider his experience, his understanding of the game, etc... We can't baby players and reverse all mistakes. Making mistakes are part of the game and what makes it so interesting.
However, if they were new to casters, new to the game or new to my table I would have given some kind of lee-way depending. If they were more experienced, then no, it is a lesson to read your spells ahead of time, or better, OoC and ask about it first so that you are clear on the understanding of the spells limitations.
This was a costly lesson though, for both parties.
We know... I already pointed that out.
However wraith and I believe that imbuing an item with a spell does use the casters attributes. It makes sense in comparison to similar working abilities. We don't believe it's a stretch by RAI to use the corresponding attributes.
Secondly, though the wielder is not casting the spell, it does not remove the fact that the spell "is cast" regardless. You don't skip pieces of the spell, or select requirements. The spell is cast 'on the creature' because the creature must be the target. This is identified by the spell storing ability in requiring that the spell be a target spell. The ability is just identifying that because you've imbued a targeting spell, the target is indeed the one in which you attacked and dealt damage to.
All you're really saying Ahre is that after YOU have hit with the weapon, dealt damage and then use a free action, the WEAPON is now considered to be casting the spell and the WEAPON must now make a melee/ranged attack as per the requirement of the spell.
I would agree that is also a RAW scenario upon which it is impossible for you to effectively imbue and use a spell that requires a melee/ranged attack roll. Thank you for your input.
It should be noted that I don't disagree that it is possible that the intent of spell storing on a weapon may allow for a melee/ranged attack spell. However, I think clarification would be required to distinctly decide this. Anything else would be speculation and RAI. I just see it as impossible to fulfill by RAW, given chronology and melee/range spells post-hoc casting to require attack rolls to be made after the wielder has attacked (and no sooner).
First, he doesn't "simply will it". He must hit, he must deal damage. Afterwards, he expends a free action to activate it. It requires time to be able to activate. It may take very negligible time, but that is irrelevant as it is not automatic. Otherwise activation wouldn't be necessary.
Secondly, the spell is not "cast into the weapon". It is imbued onto the weapon. You are 'storing' the spell in the weapon, not 'casting' it.
"The weapon can immediately cast the spell on that creature", but only after "the weapon strikes a creature and the creature takes damage", and then only after the wielder uses "a free action". Once this free action is used, the spell is cast in its entirety at that time (requiring an attack roll if the spell calls for one). It's RAW, there is chronology. See Spell Storing here.
The real question you should be asking yourself is if your CL and ability scores are used at all... it specifically says it is "cast from the weapon". However I think we can agree that it's the intent of the imbued spell to use your attributes (RAI).
The casting of the spell does follow a chronology. You can rule that a spell being cast after a hit, and after an action is used to activate it, that the weapon hitting allows you to cast a spell that also requires you to make physical/ranged contact with the opponent post-hoc prompter-hoc. It should be noted that such a ruling is RAI rather than RAW.
I would say no, bloodlines, mysteries, and patrons are not considered "on the classes spell list". mostly because you only get those spells from an outside source (your class) and they are 'added to your class spell list', indicating they were not originally on it. so i would say no you cannot nick those spells.
Agreed. I don't know why they think they are... The class lists are located here. If you choose a domain, you pick only a single domain (making your choices for this ability fairly straight forward).
Those are the lists you can choose from, when you choose it you don't change it. Pick them from only that list, and only if it corresponds with your divine/arcane choice.
Also, it only adds it to your spell list, not spells known. You still must learn them through normal means.
There is no rule to govern if you can have a spell on your list twice. However, I don't see how the spell can be added if you already have it. I would RAI rule it's not possible, but I also think it has minor significance.
I also think the ability is balanced. Getting haste a level earlier is not a big deal. Besides, the race itself is lackluster and to get this ability you really give away the only good ability they had in the first place.
So go nuts.
1. I would like to see Goblin options directed towards casters/intellectuals, much like the urban barbarian concept. I love more goblin material, but it's all the same alchemist/fire drab. I'd like to see something take advantage of their greediness, tricksy-ness, even if it has to be limited to an Illusionist. I think the Boggle was in the right direction. Goblins are weak and brash, but not stupid or unwise.
2. If I can have an anti-comment, tieflings have been done to death, can we maybe focus on some of the fun other 3PP races that were developed, maybe even outside of SGG?
3. I think I get the most kick out of race specific spells/feats. I would look forward to this.
Also, it kinda blows when you cast an emergency plane shift in order to bail your party from an ambush on Abyss only to see Johnny left behind to be violated by spiked tentacles of forced intrusion just because his SR decided to say hello at the worst moment possible.
This made me laugh. You always enjoy SR until you're the only one left standing against an impending horde.
Notice that a creature CAN avoid the effects of spells. It looks like it gets a choice to me. Unconscious characters are also considered willing for the purposes of receiving harmless spells too, aren't they?
Creatures with SR always have it up, unless they consciously lower it using a standard action. Even on consecutive rounds the SR will re-initiate unless you continue to use a standard action to suppress it. It's something that is naturally inherent, and you must focus time and effort to suppress.
If a creature is 'dying' or unconscious it remains active. It would only go away when they are dead (too late to really help them.
The word can is not signifying choice, it signifies probability. SR is not an assurance, it is a possibility as there is a caster level check involved. This 'interpretation' is also consistent with the fact that time and effort is required to lower SR. It is also consistent with the fact that it is active and affects things even if you are not aware of them. If you had a choice, neither of these would be required as part of the ability. You can ask for clarity on the issue, but I think we both know what the answer will be.
It should be noted that SR does not prevent Ex or Su abilities, nor does it effect the creatures own spells, abilities or items.
SR can be powerful but it comes with it several difficulties. It's your choice to take it, but the majority of players see it as both hyped and more dangerous than it is worth.