Russ Taylor's page

I would and did (two of the this set).

You can count on me to keep my subscription open, and I eagerly await that day when the next new volume arrives at my door.

The list I'm thinking of is apparently under ranger. That's the list of legitimate outsider subtypes in the base rules. That list gets extended slightly by new types of outsiders in later book. Extraplanar isn't on that list.

Checking the other "weird" types (chaotic, evil, good, law, air, earth, fire, water), all of them mention they usually apply to outsiders. Extraplanar does not. Extraplanar's a global modifier for any creature, as opposed to a subset of outsiders.

Basically, you're talking a bane that'd work almost 100% of the time on outsiders, since very few adventures take place outside the Prime. Again, this obviously fails the smell test.

It's not legitimate. Think of how many outsiders it covers and how much of the time, and it fails the smell test.

Otherwise, it's pretty simple: the subtype needs to either appear in the official list in the Core Rulebook, or it needs to be a self-evident new type of outsider (asura, div, and so on).

I don't see at as substantially different from a normal magic weapon, because you can't get extra attacks with it. In a stat block I'm doing, I priced it as one weapon.

Concerro is correct. One is intended for Animal companions, the other familiars. These are not the samething. You could appeal to your DM for a house rule to use the feat as you intend...its not an unreasonable request, but as written they are not intended to be used together or even by the same classes.

Boon companion works for familiars too, but it doesn't do anything for your caster level, BAB, saves, etc. where prerequisite are concerned. It just helps your effective level for familiar / animal companion abilities, to a maximum of your character level.

No. It does nothing for your caster level, even for that feat prerequisite. A orange ioun stone would help you, though.

I'd rule the damage would be increased by double slice. It lets you use Dex for damage instead of Str, and double slice changes how your Str works with an off-hand weapon. Paizo's faq-meisters might see it differently.

Now if you had a feat or ability that increased your Str multiplier when two-handing (like Overhand Chop did), you'd be caught by the clause under agile, and would not have your multiplier increased.

As for why the writer didn't write "replaces Str in all ways except...", because that wording's rather cumbersome for what's being done. It's only replacing one thing Str does, and modifying it slightly.

The bit about "still reduced for off-hand weapons" is just coverage for people claiming that off-hand weapons wouldn't normally be reduced in effectiveness. It doesn't keep the creature from taking advantage of some other means of preventing that reduction.

Does the hippogriff animal companion get d10s for hit die, or d8 per the animal companion description.

And, if it gets d10, does it get the better BAB progression or follow the animal companion chart?

Pretty sure they follow the animal companion chart and have d8s for hit dice, just like any other animal companion. You get only what's in the little bit of text for your animal, otherwise it's just like all the others.

UM has construct rules, binding rules, spell duels, spell design guide lines.

UC has firearms, piecemeal armor, siege weapons, vehicles, duels, gladiatorial combat. You can check them out in the PRD. I can't link to it right now, but Google for it :-)

Ah man, you left out spellblights (magical ailments, more or less) from Ultimate Magic, and Called Shots from Ultimate Combat!

Ah, monsters, my favorites :)

I always hating seeing things I've turned in on those lists :) I do see the need for nifty shackles in a magical world, but we've already got 2 or 3 examples of them, and they aren't exactly seen that often.

Welcome to the competition! I happily pass on the torch of "last competing RPG Superstar alternate" to you, and wish you best of luck in the rest of the contest. You too could be working on two books on a Tuesday night :)

(Hmm. That's a lot of 2s!)

Ack! I've been outed :)

Two broken ogre clubs, one broken goblin hand. And my black dragon came snapped off the base. I've got fears this plastic is too brittle for miniature use, in one case of miniatures I've already had more broken figures than I had in about 40 cases of D&D minis. But they are pretty.

Sheesh, I have to clear all that stuff with my HUSBAND. And considering we are apparently going to be in Glacier NP until the 7th ... *sob*

Someone convince my husband he wants to go to PaizoCON for his bday and our anniversary, hmmm?

Does it help that I'll be there? :)

Fingers crossed that more's coming!

THAC0 was the same number in the 1e combat chart, and was used for module shorthand at least by '83, I think. All 2e did was formalize it.

Yep. THACO was even listed for all the monsters in the DMG Appendix (as To Hit Armor Class 0).

Just be honest and keep good records. It's legal to deduct without the 1099. The IRS isn't likely raise a red flag on you for deducting against a small amount of freelance income.

Once nice thing about freelancing for Paizo, I feel safe deducting all their print products, as I never know which ones I'll need.

Congratulations on breaking in to freelancing, by the way.

I write off some of my gaming purchases, the ones most related to writing. Not generally writing off maps or miniatures. I also write off convention expenses if they're ones I attend to network, as opposed to for just fun.

I also think Bama would have beaten any of those teams. I also think LSU could have as well, especially considering they already did beat Oregon. None of those other teams have Bama's defense, which was the best in the country.

Could? Sure. Would? Well, they couldn't beat Alabama twice, so it's risky (as I pointed out) to draw too much off one victory when good teams play.

Oregon in September wasn't Oregon in January (Oregon in January was incredible), LSU in January wasn't LSU in September (LSU in January was tepid). I didn't like the title game being a rematch, and I wouldn't have wanted an LSU Oregon rematch, but it wouldn't be a foregone conclusion.

I think for any of the above teams, the offense/offense and defense/defense comparisons are comparable (great offense/ok defense vs. great defense / ok offense), that's what makes it a more interesting game. LSU played one really good offense all season, and that team in one of its worst performances all season still put more points up than any other team LSU played. I'd like to see how that level of play would stack up vs. Alabama's better D.

I'm sure someone will throw out the "Defense wins championships" canard, but a quick look at the NFL shows what a dominant offense can do. Either one can win the brass ring.

Tell that to all the teams LSU beat by double digits this season.

Tolerable offense, good defense. That'll win you a lot of games, often by good margins. They had a good run game and a lousy pass game, and that adds up to a tolerable offense rather a good one. Their one-dimensionality on offense got them humiliated in the end.

I suppose I can accept "decent" as equivalent to "tolerable", as long as it's not considered "good". B- or C+, not an A, in my opinion. I'd love to have seen Alabama play some A grade offenses.

I suspect Alabama would have beaten Stanford, Oklahoma State, Wisconsin, Oregon, or USC, had the season fallen out differently (and USC been eligible). I know it would have been a more interesting game. I'm aware it was LSU heading towards any of those rather than Alabama, but LSU clearly wasn't the best team in the SEC in January.

But that's just it, with the exception of quarterback, LSU does have a decent offense.

Eh. If you don't have a good QB, you don't have a good offense :) "If only they hadn't made us pass!"

Congrats to Bama on a well played game.

Not sure what the hell Les Miles and the Tigers were doing on offense, but at least the LSU defense tried to win the game.

Snoozefest. Would have been nice to have a +1 format so we could see what a team with an offense might have done. Alabama certainly did play good defense, but I wouldn't say it was done against a challenging offense.

Also, a good argument against all the turkeys who obsess over single games that it's not that simple when two good teams play. Apparently in similar repeats, it's about 75% in favor of the split vs. the same team winning twice.

I really can't stand the software service model WotC's pushing, I'm not likely to ever adopt it long term because it grates on me to pay for a program over and over again. I'd rather get nicked per book than for a full-priced program once a year.

Pushing itself along with its jawbone probably won't get it anywhere, but it could try.

That image totally made my day :)

Thanks for posting that; it must have taken some digging up.

Walk to reference shelf. Pick up DMG. Turn to index :) Not so hard.

Yes, it was a tremendously goofy system where you could get more attacks for tying initiative than for winning it. One of the reasons it's ahead of even the weapons vs. AC chart for things in 1E people ignored, though probably behind grappling / overbearing / pummeling.

Oh, the speed factor rules were there in 1E all right (and in the index in the DMG). It was used to break initiative ties, among other things. A portion of those rules:

When weapon speed factor is the determinant of which opponent strikes first in a melee round, there is a chance that one opponent will be entitled to multiple attacks. Compare the score of the lower-factored weapon with that of the higher. If the difference is at least twice the factor of the lower, or 5 or more factors in any case, the opponent with the lower factor weapon is entitled to 2 attacks before the opponent with the higher weapon factor is entitled to any attack whatsoever. If the difference is 10 or greater, the opponent with the lower-factored weapon is entitled to 2 attacks before the opponent is allowed to attack, and 1 further attack at the same time the opponent with the higher-speed-factored weapon finally is allowed to attack. Note that such speed factor considerations are not applicable when either closing or charging to melee, but after an initial round of combat, or in cases where closing/charging was not necessary, the speed factor considerations are applicable.

There's also a section on using speed factors to determine if you interrupted spell casting successfully. Not gonna type in all that :)

I don't get why folks called 1E complicated. Don't get it at all.

I'm betting against an announcement of 5e. I don't see the telltale signs yet.

Gotta ask, what's a tell-tale sign for you? A burning bush? :)

Emptying the product pipeline. A year-long series of articles oriented around what a new edition might look like. Hiring Monte Cook.

Did they need to send you invitations to deliver the message? :P

Gygax wasn't interested in 100% fidelity to myths it's impossible to keep faithful to. He was interested in new sources for interesting monsters. So we have a metallic gorgon, because that's more interesting than having none at all. We have multiple pegasi, chimeras, and hydras. We have rust monsters and bullettes too, they came from a line of toys. There's no mistake involved in the gorgon being in the game.

It's just not possible to be "true to" ancient myths. They're highly contradictory. You pick some sources and go wild. Being pedantic on the subject of ancient myths? Absolutely pointless.

In any case, a 400 year old source is mythical enough for me :) I'd also call Spring-Heeled Jack mythical, and he's younger. I'm not sure what on earth you'd call Topsell's bestiary other than mythical, it's certainly not very factual, even where real creatures are concerned. Nor were the medieval bestiaries that inspired it. Split hair and call it a fanciful bestiary?

So yeah, I'll stay pretty superior on this topic it sounds like :) There's a mythical source for the gorgon, and if it doesn't meet some people's age criteria for "myth", I'd call that more a deficiency in understanding what's mythical than in the source existing. All myths got made up by someone at some point, often based on a misunderstanding.

My name is Russ, and I'm a smug, superior son of a something!

You are correct. I was merely going with the D&D/Pathfinder meme; medusa and gorgons are different creatures in the game.

I respect your nerdrage on the subject; I feel the same.

It's certainly proper nerdrage, as it's based on being wrong.

That says "Catoblepas" we already had one of those! But youre right, more monsters are more fun.

The better link was down.

The text actually says "CATOBLEPAS MONSTER, 1658. The Gorgon, or Catoblepas." In Topsell's book, it was labeled as the gorgon. Please read the whole text, rather than just one word :)

Here, [url]http://www.strangescience.net/enlar/en_topgor.jpg]this picture's[/url] a bit more clear that it's where the gorgon-in-D&D comes from.

(Yes, I know Gorgons are bull-like creatures in the Bestiary, but that doesn't resemble any mythic Gorgon I'm familiar with.)

Topsell's Historie of Foure-footed Beastes.

Here's a picture.

The game's more interesting with gorgons and medusas, rather than just one.

Having read a reasonable amount of fiction from around the period Lovecraft was writing, he comes off as pretty racist by the fiction standards of the day. It doesn't show up in all his stories, but when it does show up, it can be pretty appalling. Like the one about all the degenerate races living in the neighborhood, where it fell so far it got swallowed up. Holy cow.

I've never really run it like this, but are ioun stones vulnerable to AOE things like fireballs and such? It doesn't say in the description that they aren't so I guess I can assume they would explode having only 10 hitpoints and 5 hardness.

They're attended objects while they orbit your head.

Chipping in with my list..

akhlut
archon, harbinger and legion
bandersnatch
behemoths (thunder was a conversion)
brain ooze
carnivorous crystal
demilich (adapted from the Tome of Horrors)
fey creature template
giant, cave, desert, and jungle
golem, bone and fossil
graven guardian
gremlin, fauth
guecubu
herd animal, antelope and elk (elk was a conversion)
jubjub bird
kirin (a mostly new take on it)
leshy (fungus leshy was a conversion)
megafauna
myceloid
norn
owl, giant and great horned (a new take on giant owls)
sphinx (adapted from the 3.5 OGL versions)
vulture (and giant)
Yithian
zuvembie

We're given a lot of guidance on what to write, so due credit to the team putting together the outline, and then the developers improve on the turnover. In some cases that's really dramatic, like the myceloid. The descriptive text in the book blows away what I turned in. :)

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that an awakened demilich (under the section of the same name on page 67) should not have the torpor special quality, right?

That was an oversight on my (the author's) part. I'd certainly push for taking the torpor ability away from an awakened demilich :)

I thought that all the Dinosaurs and Megafauna were done by James Jacobs;)

I'm pretty sure he's a big part of deciding which ones make it in the book, but the stat blocks are another matter. I took care of the megafauna for Bestiary 3, with improvements done by the development staff of course.

Since the demilich is OGL, I'd consider adding this for its spells:

Perfect Automatic Still Spell (Ex): A demilich can cast all the spells it knows without gestures.
However, that is an epic ability. So maybe having you being able to automatically add it to a spell without raising the spell level 3 + X modifier times per day would be very beneficial.

But yes, enlightenment would be nice. If a template wouldn't have helped much, then at least an example.

Gave you your example, and it's originally my section in the book so I have at least some insight. I'm not the last word on it, but I'm a pretty good one :P

It was my mistake to leave torpor in for awakened demiliches, just an oversight in writing. I'll probably chip that in to the errata thread. I can say it doesn't fit with the flavor of having their full faculties.

I'll give that a template would have taken space, but you wouldn't think one more page would be all that much.

Which monster gets kicked to the curb for the extra page? I know I wouldn't have wanted one of mine lost to a critter that ran over :)

Awakened Demilich
CR 16
XP whatever 16 is
Human demilich necromancer 11
NE tiny undead (augmented humanoid)
Init +3; Senses darkvision 60 ft., true seeing; Perception +19

DEFENSE
AC 28, touch 20, flat-footed 25 (+4 armor, +3 Dex, +4 natural, +5 profane, +2 size)
hp 130 (11d8+66 plus 15 false life)
Fort +13, Ref +13, Will +20
Defensive Abilities channel resistance +5, rejuvenation, unholy grace; DR 20/-; Immune acid, cold, electricity, magic, polymorph undead traits
Weaknesses vorpal suspectibility

OFFENSE
Speed fly 30 ft. (perfect)
Special Attacks devour soul (DC 20)

Spell-Like Abilities see demilich

Spells Prepared (CL 11th, concentration +16)
6th—pick 3
5th—pick 4
4th—pick 5
3rd—pick 5 + extended, still mage armor (already cast), silent false life (already cast)
2nd—pick 7
1st—pick 7
0—pick 4
Prohibited Schools illusion, transmutation
*Necromancer power (Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook, pages 81–82)

STATISTICS
Str 6, Dex 17, Con —, Int 22, Wis 20, Cha 21
Base Atk +8; CMB +9, CMD 27

Feats Craft Wondrous Item, Defensive Combat Training, Eschew Materials (B), Extend Spell, Flyby Attack (B), Improved Lightning Reflexes, Iron Will, Lightning Reflexes, Maximize Spell, Quicken Spell, Scribe Scroll, Still Spell (B), Toughness
Skills it gets 10 skills at 11 ranks each. One should be maxed out Perception (+19).

Languages Abyssal, Aklo, Aquan, Celestial, Common, Draconic, Dwarven, Elven, Giant, Gnome, Goblin, Ignan, Infernal, Orc, Undercommon

ECOLOGY
Environment any
Organization solitary
Treasure NPC gear (boots of levitation, headband of vast intelligence +2 [Perception], ring of protection +2, potion of invisibility, scroll of dominate person, scroll of teleport) (some no longer worn obviously)

My take on the questions, based on this mostly being a modification of the demilich:
* It keeps the 11d6 hit dice of the lich, but they become D8s. Base devour soul DCs on those HD and the lose of Ability Focus (unless you take the feat)
* Skills, saves, and BAB are based on undead HD and type. Lich bonuses are lost.
* Class abilities not based on spellcasting are lost
* Str and Dex are not mental abilities, they come from the demilich stats
* The demilich has all expected penalties for not having arms, but you don't need to do anything to the stat block for them except prepare a lot of Still spells
* It's not a full template because those take a surprising amount of space.
* The lich could be 1 level higher with the same CR, after that, each added level increases the CR by 1.
* Torpor in my opinion should be removed from an awakened demilich, they have their full faculties and need not sit around on their trasure all day. That seems to be the one question not answered by the text, most of the other questions seem to be based on trying to read things into the text that aren't there.

To make an awakened demilich worthy of its CR, be sure to tailor its spells around enhancing its abilities (dimension door, eagle's splendor, greater invisibility, blink, resist energy - fire, and so on), along with a few good area control spells to control the battlefield. It's got attacking pretty well covered with it's innate abilities. I'd have it cast a few trap spells in its lair to give it warning intruders are near, so it can start buffing.

Yar!

This was mentioned and quickly forgotten here, but on pages 193 & 195, also seen in the PRD here, we have a clear rules contradiction:

Making Called Shots wrote:

A called shot is a single attack made as a full-round action

vs

Called Shot Feats - Improved Called Shot wrote:

Normal: You can make one called shot per round as a standard action.

...Which one is right?

~P

The more specific rule overrides an incidental mention in the "Normal" section of a feat.

Not all your list was new.

Delver = Fiend Folio 1e
MAgmin = the same
I'm fairly certain the phasm is the same. So it would mean more like 20? years ?

Magmin are from Module A4, In the Dungeons of the Slave Lords, and didn't make a hardcover appearance until Monster Manual 2.

Delvers weren't in the Fiend Folio either. There was a critter called the denzelian with no attacks, it had little in common with delvers other than being able to tunnel (and not much in common there, it ate rock at 1 foot per week).

Phasms weren't in the Fiend Folio, nor was anything particularly close to them.

]Unless it is a spontaneous caster such as a sorcerer. Then it doesn't need to prepare such spells. It simply casts them.

I should have written "cast" rather than "prepared", but I think the meaning of the post was still pretty clear.

Instead of the demilich's number of hit dice, you use the original lich's hit dice.

Therefore, if the lich was a 20-level cleric before becoming an awakened demilich, it is now a 20 HD demilich.

It gains the Eschew Materials, Flyby Attack, and Still Spell as bonus feats.

It has it's original spellcasting abilities (in this case, as a 20th-level cleric).

And that's it.

You could keep its original general feats and skills too I suppose, though its class skill set and feat prerequisites might change, making some things worse and others better.

It also keeps the better of its original mental stats and the base stats for a demilich. That can make a huge difference right there. I recommend redoing feats/skills as so much has changed in the creature, but that's up to the GM.

The combination of spellcasting and the demilich's powers (including immunities) is why this pseudo-template's worth more than just being a straight up lich. It gets the magical prowess of a full lich, which can offset the demilich weaknesses, and several formidable abilities and defenses. The trade is that many spells need to be prepared with Still Spell, and it loses its paralyzing touch.

I allow "bane whatever the [bleep] that is" in my games.

My GM showed this to us. We're excited to face many of these creatures, or to RP with them the way our GM will play them.

We do have a question. What is the difference between the Fey Animal template in "Land of the Linnorm Kings" and the Fey Creature template in this book? Why two Fey templates that can work on animals? Which one takes precedence?

The two templates have different effects. Also, even though the example for "fey creature" is an animal, it can be applied to any living, corporeal creature. Technically even something that's already fey, but like a half-dragon dragon you'd want a darned good reason...

I'm assuming the Behemoth's are the kaiju that they were going to have in the bestiary? If so, then I'm really looking forward to getting my hands on the book.

They aren't, but happily they can fill some of the same roles in the game. The behemoths are instruments of divine retribution loosely modeled on the biblical beasts Behemoth, Leviathan, and Ziz.

40, male, playing for 31 years (!). Never in the military but grew up on a military base.

Just a reminder: Greater Bestow Curse needs an alternative to the 25% of acting normally. This needs to be errataed.

Reference the original spell, and it becomes clear it's a modification of this:

Each turn, the target has a 50% chance to act normally; otherwise, it takes no action.

No errata required. It's brief, but you have all the information you need to use the ability. It doesn't reiterate the minimum ability score of 1 either.