SciVo's page

More important, I think, is the clever use of the singular "Race" in the title of a guide to multiple races. You'd have to work pretty hard to ignore the obvious conclusion that it's an advanced guide to the game element called "race", not to a guide to an advanced race (since it contains multiple) or to advanced races (since the title is singular). So, the rest of us can all safely ignore anyone who makes such a strenuous effort to be offended.

ALSO, we're going to change the title of this book. Stay tuned for a formal announcement later this week. Perhaps quite soon indeed.

Cool, thanks. I think that even something as simple as "Playable Race Omnibus" would be clear, concise, and accurate, while bypassing most of the objections here. More pizazz would be nice if possible, though! Edit: but totally unnecessary, now that I think about it, since it's an intriguing product and I would snatch it off the shelf just for knowing what it was (and not being offended).

Thanks! As always, I really appreciate the swift, complete and concise replies from you guys.

Hi, I noticed that "Add PDF" is above "Add Print Edition" instead of the other way around. I also noticed that it's the same with Classic Monsters Revisited, which (according to its discussion thread) is at such low stock that it was actually out-of-stock for a bit. Is that reversal of the normal order a signal that stock is getting low, and it's time to buy this volume if you want it in print?

I hate to necrobump, but if you have a Headband of Vast Intellect +2, and its skill is Linguistics, does the wearer or the builder determine what bonus languages it provides? Is there an order, since the number of HD the wearer has determines how many ranks he gains, and thus the number of languages known from the Linguistics skill.

How would this work with Tengu and other races or abilities that allow you to learn 2 languages per rank in Linguistics?

It would be really annoying to try and figure out how some pre-determined language ladder interacts with your race and previous choices, and the item description doesn't require it, so don't do it that way. It also doesn't say anything about allowing you to change previous language choices, so don't do that either. Just say that the wearer picks as many new languages as they'd normally get from having however many more skill points in Linguistics than they had before, and call it done. Sound good?

Edit: but to be clear, I stand by my interpretation. The language is what it is, not what it used to be, or is similar to, or could be if you apply a side-effect from an unedited forum ruling of a different maneuver.

Sorry. Not "different maneuver," I mean different "special attack," to use the precise terminology on p.197 of the CRB.

As you've no doubt seen, I edit my posts to be more polite, since I know that my first (and sometimes second (and maybe even third)) instincts aren't always the best. ;) So I totally agree with you about keeping it classy, or at least trying as hard as you can, even if you don't always succeed to your own standards. Better is better than worse.

Edit: but to be clear, I stand by my interpretation. The language is what it is, not what it used to be, or is similar to, or could be if you apply a side-effect from an unedited forum ruling of a different maneuver.

I apologize. My bad, I quoted you as the most recent post for that interpretive position, while responding to Pirate's attitude, which has begun to seriously irritate me. My emotional reaction was not directed at you at all.

However, I do have a factual disagreement with you. JB's guidance was on vital strike with respect to charge. That is not insignificant in unedited fora.

The only ways in which I disagree with you is that I don't think that Flurry of Blows is needed to support the RAW, and I don't think that Full Attack is the only other attack action that sunder can be used for.

And since I just kind of skimmed over the thread, I want to emphasize that *unofficial* sources like the d20pfsrd.com are the RAI, not the RAW: helpful but not authoritative. Otherwise someone could cite their own voice from another site and call it corroboration.

To me, it is implausible that ´attack action´ was ACCIDENTALLY added to Sunder. You just wouldn´t accidentally put that in there when Cut + Paste from SRD is otherwise the general modus operandi in the Core Rules. The only glitch there is the minor grammar error of ´a´ attack vs. ´the´ attack, but that is something that of course liable to be just a grammar error.

So let me get this straight: when the language supports your conclusion, it's implausible that it's accidental, and otherwise it's liable to be just a grammar error? Interesting.

I'm changing my mind and going with the *published* RAW, ignoring the side implications of an unedited (and therefore possibly having unintended side effects from inelegant phrasing) message board post addressing charge, not sunder. Bottom line, "an" is not the same as "the".

If you don't like that, then get an explicit ruling on sunder itself or get over it and run it as written. Any attack action is valid for sunder -- whether full or spring or just "attack" or whatever -- and you can't do it on an attack of opportunity, since that isn't an action.

In that case, I would pick Gozreh. Shimye-Magalla draws more from Desna than Gozreh, but Desna's extra spells play off of her less-relevant dream aspect. As long as my character only learned Gozreh's trident (renamed of course) and/or whispering waves, that would fit pretty well. Thanks!

That's from PCR pp.144-145. If you look at PCR p.141:

The character can also choose to use a double weapon two-handed, attacking with only one end of it. A creature wielding a double weapon in one hand can't use it as a double weapon -- only one end of the weapon can be used in any given round.

And then at p. 202:

If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon. You suffer a -6 penalty with your regular attack or attacks with your primary hand and a -10 penalty to the attack with your off hand

emphasis added and etc.

So. You can use one end of a double weapon as a normal two-handed weapon, +6/+1 with 1+1/2 str bonus. Or, you can use one end as a one-handed weapon, +6/+1 with a normal str bonus and the other hand available for something else. Or, you can use it like having a second weapon in the off hand, and (assuming Two-Weapon Fighting) get +4/-1 with one end and +4 with the other.

I want to make a Mwangi (Bonuwat (Ijo)) ranger for the PFS, who then multiclasses to an oracle of Waves. (I've been working on the character for awhile, and finally getting more specific.) Of course he'll worship Shimye-Magalla, who is a blend of Desna and the female water aspect of Gozreh (Sargava: The Lost Colony p.27 or Inner Sea World Guide p.17). So, can he have access to Gozreh's trident, whispering wind and whispering waves as a worshipper of Gozreh (Gods & Magic p.19), and to dream and traveling dream as a worshipper of Desna (Gods & Magic p. 13)? I can't find any reason why not both, but I just want to make sure.

I would go with "typo" since the official PRD is even more "recent" than the cards, in the sense that they could update it at any moment.

Thanks for all the opinions thus far, keep 'em coming. :D

The reviews of the Kingmaker AP sound really impressive to me. I just want to get some experience as a GM first, so that I can do it justice. The Falcon's Hallow modules are on my wishlist, and some Pathfinder Society scenarios -- such as Tide of Morning -- sound perfect for a new GM.

At 3rd level, a horizon walker learns total dominance over one terrain he has already selected for terrain mastery. When dealing with creatures native to that terrain, the horizon walker treats his favored terrain bonus for that terrain as a favored enemy bonus (as the ranger class feature) against those creatures. This bonus overlaps (does not stack with) bonuses gained when fighting a favored enemy.

Environment any

Environment: The regions and climates in which the creature is typically encountered are listed here; these often present wider ranges than the icons at the top of the stat block indicate. In this case, the icon listed at the top of the stat block indicates the creature’s preferred terrain.

These are not all the same things. A native environment must necessarily be specific; you can't be native to everywhere (by the plain meaning of the word "native"). The "environment" stat line is just where you're likely to encounter them, not even what they prefer, let alone where they're from (unless it's specific).

The text is there, and it has always been that way since 3.5. Nothing has changed between 3.5 and pathfinder to take it away.

Wha-huh? Which text was where and what now? I have no idea what you're trying to say.

mdt wrote:

Note you stack the levels, not the dice, as I read it.

Um... that's not what it says -- it functions just like adding class levels to a character without racial hit dice. You don't actually stack anything, other than the effects (which is what the text specifically states you do).

Right. I would say that levels in different classes only stack for the purpose of determining SA dice if at least one of them says that they do. Otherwise, it's just their independently-determined SA dice that stack, if you're going by the RAW.

Quandary wrote:

damage bonus, bonus damage... ok, this is really why we play this game, right? ;-)

We're not playing the game. We're discussing rules. The game terms are meaningful and the processes of generalizing and then distinguishing differences is a core part of learning.

Besides, it's extra damage. :)

Exactly.

If a rogue can catch an opponent when he is unable to defend himself effectively from her attack, she can strike a vital spot for extra damage.

Usually, a bonus has a type that indicates how the spell grants the bonus. The important aspects of bonus types is that two bonuses of the same type don't generally stack. With the exception of dodge bonuses, most circumstance bonuses, and racial bonuses, only the better bonus of a given type works (see Combining Magical Effects).

These two statements have nothing to do with each other. Anything that gives "extra" damage adds more, by the plain meaning of the word, and due to not being the same as "bonus" damage.

Well I don't want to get too specific, since I'm still figuring it out myself. Now I'm going to be bold and go against what I just said. Seems to me that Charisma would be most important; followed by Dex and Int (at least 13 for feat reqs, or better yet 14 for bonuses); then Str and Con; with Wis least, since a great Will save progression anyway. You could do something like Str 12, Dex 14, Con 12, Int 14, Wis 8+2, Cha 15+2, for example (with -1 Cha for +2 Str, Con, or Wis, as desired, up to twice).

As Choant said, a Life oracle would have lots of healing. All oracles get every cure spell as bonus spells known, but the Safe Curing revelation -- no AoO on casting healing spells -- looks to be worth a lot. As calagnar said, the human favored class option (p. 23 of the APG) has a lot going for it. Personally, I'm more attracted to the revelations that can turn into an elemental (Flame and Waves) for coolness reasons, but it's true that I'm making a human.

As healing-focused, you'll probably want to go 1h+shield. You can cast with a light shield because you can move your 1h weapon to your shield hand as a free action, cast, and move the weapon back as a free action, which isn't worth bookkeeping, so just don't hold anything else in your shield hand. And oracles don't need a DF. Morningstar looks like a good choice: cheap and light for its damage dice, with two damage types (and they'd have to resist both for it to matter).

I'd have to recommend against the Clouded Vision and Deaf curses. They're very cool ideas, but the range and communication hindrances (respectively) look to be more than they're worth. Tongues could be okay with a steady group willing to burn a skill point on your stress language. Haunted, it looks to me like the Quick Draw feat could help with not having to drop things as much -- due to being able to put them down or away as a move action, then draw as a free one -- and then wrist sheathes for wands, and so on, it would be a pain but that's the point.

I've considered the Lame curse carefully. As long as you don't wear heavy armor or carry a heavy load, a level of Barbarian could go a long way. A level of a cleric with the Travel domain (such as Desna) would work regardless, though without the benefit of martial weapons proficiency. Later, there's always the boots of striding and springing. And, a gnome or halfling can get a Medium mount (theoretically fitting in dungeons). None of those quite match my own character vision, but a healing-focused character might look at how the gnome alternate racial traits on pp.14-15 of the APG could mesh with the Tongues curse, and how the Halfling Outrider trait on p.21 would fit a Small dungeoneer.

Yeah, you pretty much answered your own question. It's obvious which way you're leaning. To help you, here's what you can look forward at the next level:

Fighter 5: You can choose a group of weapons to have a +1 to attack, damage, and CMB. Also: +1 CMD vs. disarm & sunder attempts against yours of that group.

Paladin 5: You can get your own Superhorse like Argo from Xena. Or a semi-magical weapon, but it's kind of confusing. And you can have your own Argo!

Eww, the spell list is horrible for air though.

I made up an alternate list just for kicks and giggles. How does this sound?

Replace the Wind Sight revelation with Scout the Wind, which keeps audio and replaces vision with scent; swap out Wings of Air for Air Form, turning into an air elemental instead of just being able to fly; and voilà, something I'd play.

Brutal Ben wrote:

I do ask though that your team revisit this option later on. Great works of art always deserve another run at some point future (just ask Disney.)

Yeah—like I've said, the "no reprints" rule doesn't apply to everything... and "reinvention" is also possible. So long as it's done in a way that is as appealing as a completely new product, and doesn't train people to always wait for the reinvention.

Oh, hey! I have an idea!

* Make a new line of collections of articles for people who aren't necessarily interested in running a particular AP -- but only for stuff over two years old, and only in PDF (so that printing costs aren't an issue). So, we could have "Rise of the Runelords: The Articles," "Curse of the Crimson Throne: The Articles," "Second Darkness: The Articles," and "Legacy of Fire: The Articles." However, "Council of Thieves: The Articles" wouldn't be an option yet, because it's too soon.

* Not-so-coincidentally, my suggestion happens to only cover the OGL stuff. You could also upgrade them all in collections as "Rise of the Runelords: The Adventures (PFRPG)," etc., likewise limited to PDF to reduce the up-front costs, and with the content already all paid for.

I have no way of measuring, but I assume that there would be some price point where a discount for a collection of an old AP would be better than the sales drop-off for later volumes in the AP. Of course, as you mentioned in that thread, you have to be wary of the expectations that you set. So, I get that it's complicated. Good luck!

Since I haven't said it yet: Thank you! I've seen you talk about this before, and I'm very glad of your philosophy of never obsoleting an adventure. I'm coming into this a bit late -- played a lot of AD&D in college, then kind of skipped over 3/3.5 -- and now coming back into the hobby, but without the cash (or time) to burn on completionism.

I really like your system and your world, and look forward to playing older adventures with newer friends. Cheers! :)

Quote:

Totally irrelevant quibble, but unlike something like trip, sunder also requires an attack action, so no go on the AOO in the RAW.

Sunder can be used in place of a melee attack, like trip and disarm... that's also why Monks can Flurry those three. While the wording '... as part of an attack action in place of a melee attack...' could do with some clearing up, I'm pretty sure you can AoO with Sunder... otherwise, following the 'attack action only' logic, you couldn't Sunder as part of a full-attack action either... which seems weird.

On the other hand, I'm sure there's already scads of threads on that and it is a little off topic... ;)

Thank you! You just helped me disprove both your own interpretation and the other one that we both disagree with. I had an intuition that "an" attack action and "the" attack action weren't the same thing. It seemed clear to me that "an" attack action would include things like full attack, spring attack, and so on, but I couldn't find corroborating evidence in the RAW (which is important for the Pathfinder Society). Now I have evidence in the Flurry of Blows, which treats the use of sunder in the same breath as disarm and trip, even though it's a full attack action. Thank you!

Ellington wrote:

drbuzzard wrote:

Personally, I thought this comment was fairly funny- 'no other ranged weapons, except for a whole of of different ones'. The exceptions are larger in number(or roughly comparable) than the 'no other' that you cite.

The sling is a pretty damn bad weapon that can't be reloaded more than once per round. Thrown weapons have a very short range to be used, so they're not really comparable to bows. I listed them as exceptions because they do scale, however.

Again, a sling is a simple weapon, and meant to be mediocre. Personally I have to wonder why they didn't make rapid reload work for them though. They actually go to some specific lengths to chop out slings from the lots of shots game.

Thrown weapons are short range, yes, but they also work in melee instead of provoking AOOs, which isn't a horrible trade off. Next time someone sunders your bow on that AOO, you might consider this.

Totally irrelevant quibble, but unlike something like trip, sunder also requires an attack action, so no go on the AOO in the RAW.

Bruunwald wrote:

Though, anybody who has ever actually spent time with what amounts to a "reach" weapon in real life can tell you that the blunt end is not all that unwieldy to use against closer foes. In particular, anybody coming up behind or to your dominant side could get a really nasty clubbing in the chest, face or belly.

I mean, I'm hardly a monk or a samurai, or whatever, and I'm not bragging. I'm just a fat dude who's spent a bit more time with weapons training than the average geek. By no means a superhero. But even for me, the blunt end is hardly so unwieldy as 3.x/Pathfinder has made it out to be. Relatively speaking. Of course, it is a more limited means of attack.

Just sayin'. Flame away.

You are absolutely correct! - However, by the rules you are effectively using an improvised unenchanted weapon.

As mentioned above, the viable solutions are backup weapons of various sorts, with their own enchantments or movement or one of the rare reach weapons with special rules allowing adjacent attacks.

I believe I saw such a weapon referenced the other day, a chain wuth iron balls in either end. It had both Reach and Double-weapon tags.

The meteor hammer in the Adventurer's Armory. It actually has the "reach", "trip" and "see text" tags. Basically, you can choose each round whether to use it as a double weapon or as a reach weapon, and it's even more complicated than that.

I understand that the design choice was to prevent player power creep. However, I don't think that creating a thousand and one humanoid and outsider types was the way to go about preventing that. The problem I have with the current system is that it assumes that a +2 bonus to damage is just as useful, just as relevant, and just as powerful against goblinoids as it is against constructs. But that isn't the case.

What I propose is to do away with minor attack and damage bonuses that have little impact on game play and, quite frankly, aren't that interesting. Instead, each favored enemy gives you something relevant to fighting creatures of the chosen type. For instance, favored enemy ooze could remove its immunity to critical hits or grant acid resistance, while favored enemy fey could grant you bonuses on saving throws against mind-affecting effects.

These abilities would have to start small and begin to scale each time you reselected a new favored enemy, becoming exponentially better over time. The best way (that I can see) to do it, is to create 5 tiers of abilities per creature type. Going back to my ooze example, as the ranger gets an additional favored enemy he gets the option to increase the tier of one that he already has (or even the one he just selected). As he continues to increase favored enemy ooze his gear becomes immune to acid or maybe he gets freedom of movement for 1 round when creatures try to engulf him. It doesn't matter really, as long is the granted abilities are designed with that specific creature type in mind. These bonuses would obviously make him better at killing oozes, but he could still get some use out of it when he encounters something that relies on acid attacks or tries to engulf him. His experience with oozes has also left him better prepared to handle similar attacks.

This would make selecting a favored enemy a more interesting and meaningful choice, as well as removing the need entirely for humanoid (worthless), humanoid (horrible choice), humanoid (waste of a favored enemy), humanoid (nothing to see here), and humanoid (don't bother to select me).

That sounds like a really great idea, but one that could only work in a home game. I'm actually working on a character for PFS play, that I hope to start as a ranger and then multiclass to a waves oracle. If I try to put myself in the GM's shoes, your otherwise-reasonable proposition would just be too complicated for a bunch of strangers sitting down for a few hours together. However, if I were GMing my own campaign, then I would absolutely work with a player to hammer out something like that.

I'd prefer 'reptilian' or 'avian' types, rather than overly specific 'lizardfolk', 'kobold' or 'tengu,' to widen the range for later use (so that someone who had FE 'tengu' would instead have FE 'avian humanoid' and be equally brutal against those darned dire corbies, or the birdmen of Cheliax, or any kenku or raptorans or aarakocra or al karak elam or avariel or psittae that flutter into the setting)

FWIW, lizardfolk and kobolds are humanoid (reptilian) in PFRPG. However, IMO, that just reinforces the point about how sensible it would be for tengu to be something else. I'd been thinking monstrous humanoid, but humanoid (avian) works for me too, and perhaps makes more sense with them not being as bestial as some of the others; I mean, the Bestiary even has rules for making Tengu characters, and that has to count for something.

Also, at least with dwarves, duergar are also included in the subtype, so they aren't a "single creature" subtype. (But then I'd probably still throw derro back into their subtype as well (or into gnome, maybe).

Humans are a single creature subtype, but they are so numerous, it's a useful favored enemy. Especially because the favored enemy bonus applies to Perception and Bluff... so is useful even in haggling with NPCs and the like.

Favored Enemy Boggard isn't likely to get you very far, which I think gets to the OP's point. And of course you don't have to take it, but... even Favored Enemy Gnoll will likely come to be repeatedly useful in the right area/campaign.

I suppose a GM could create a humanoid "other" subtype and throw all the misc humanoids into one.

From their backstory, to me, derro seem more likely to be fey. And, that was pretty much my point, about how hard it was to imagine "humanoid (boggard)" ever being a sensible choice for a FE.

Are wrote:

hogarth wrote:

Or better yet, just use the pre-existing "humanoid (aquatic)" or perhaps "humanoid (boggard, aquatic)".

The (aquatic) subtype has specific rules associated with it though. If the creature isn't supposed to have those features, you can't use it as its subtype.

I'd almost just be inclined to rewrite the boggard into a monstrous humanoid (it is a very bestial humanoid after all). This upgrades its HD I think but doesn't change a lot else.

Both very good points, about the specific rules for (aquatic) and (monstrous humanoid) critters. I hadn't really thought about it, and now I'll have to.

Beckett wrote:

Thats how it worked in 3.5, unless the case said otherwise, allowed you to pick from a specific list, (like ranger style, or monk). But organized play has always been very restrictove so probably not for PFS.

I'm pretty sure that in 3.5 the default was not to allow replacement, unless the ability text said you could choose something else. In PF, it's definitely the case that you lose out if you take a bonus feat early. As a GM, I'd certainly consider allowing a character to take a new feat instead, but only if they were a newish player who might not have been thinking levels ahead, or if they started multiclassing to help the party. I wouldn't allow it for experienced players who are just doing it to benefit from a feat earlier than they ordinarily would.

In PFS, though, you're out of luck.

Ouch. At least now I don't feel so silly for asking what seemed to me like a stupid question! I just really wanted to be sure... and now I know. Thanks!

This one seems obvious, but I just want to make sure, since I'm building a PFS character. Let's say that you start out with Dodge, and as a waves oracle with the Fluid Nature revelation, later gain Dodge as a bonus. That means you can choose any feat (that you meet the requirements for) as a replacement, right? Again, it seems obvious, but I can't find it in the RAW.

SciVo wrote:

Argh! I so wish that he had said that "Vital Strike is a modification to the attack action." I liked my interpretation, even though I hate that it hinges on whether the article is definite or indefinite; but that's the English language for ya. Precision matters.

For the record, I like your interpretation from a house rule perspective. I've ranted on my problems with the vital strike (and now sunder) treatment elsewhere, so I won't repeat it here.

Well, I don't want to get you going about Vital Strike, then. ;) So, I'll just say that it doesn't make any sense for Sunder to only apply to an attack as the standard action, since you have to make a normal attack roll anyway, with all the same penalties as any other off-hand or extra attack would have.

SciVo wrote:

I disagree. If it says the attack action, then it can only be referring to Attack as a standard action. However, an attack action could be Attack, Full-Attack, Spring Attack, and any other action that is an attack, unless specified otherwise. They're just saying that you can't use Sunder on an AoO.

They really need to stop using the phrase "attack action." It messes things up. Vital Strike calls out the attack action specifically, though. The official stance is that an attack action is a standard action. If something calls out the attack action, you use a standard action. I've ranted elsewhere about disliking this, but that's the RAW as clarified.

Jason Bulmahn wrote:

As of the current rules, you cannot use Vital Strike as part of a charge. Vital Strike is an attack action, which is a type of standard action.

Here's that thread.

Argh! I so wish that he had said that "Vital Strike is a modification to the attack action." I liked my interpretation, even though I hate that it hinges on whether the article is definite or indefinite; but that's the English language for ya. Precision matters.

Sunder, Trip, Disarm, and other CMB attacks can be used (though Spring Attack Grapple, not so useful). You can even make multiple attempts at these a round if you have multiple attacks.

No grappling on a Spring Attack, since Grapple requires a standard action. Also, no Bull Rush, since it requires a standard action or a Charge, which is full-round action of its own. I'm a bit iffy on Overrun, since "during your move" is kind of vague; I could be convinced either way.

JeremyK wrote:

The part that leaves me unsure about sunder is the wording: "as part of an attack action." My understanding is that an attack action is using a standard action per the wording on pg 182 of the core rules. If one is using a spring attack, they are using a full-round action to do a spring attack action, not an attack action. Am I off base here?

Hmm... you're right. My brain inserted an "or." I'm not sure how. Sunder, RAW, only once per round, and takes a standard action. Good catch.

I disagree. If it says the attack action, then it can only be referring to Attack as a standard action. However, an attack action could be Attack, Full Attack, Spring Attack, and any other action that is an attack, unless specified otherwise. They're just saying that you can't use Sunder on an AoO.

I would personally rule that those two specific revelations could be chosen more than once, albeit only for a different maneuver or weapon each time. It wouldn't break anything at all, unlike taking (for example) Cinder Dance as many times as you want. Also, the language for those two revelations is a lot like the Weapon Focus feat -- "select one type of combat maneuver" or "select one weapon with which you are proficient," vs. "choose one type of weapon" -- so it seems pretty clearly allowable to me.

Call them Maneuver Mastery (Trip), Maneuver Mastery (Sunder), Weapon Mastery (Flail, heavy) and Weapon Mastery (Lucerne hammer) if you have to justify to yourself how they're different revelations, but they are. A rose by any other name, yadda yadda.

I'm not too knowledgeable on how things work in Golarion, but in the world I play in, all three of those you mentioned (as well as the kobolds and lizardfolk) have their own nations. We sort of have a general rule that all humanoids develop cogent societies and work together with each other and have national drives and desires. Monstrous humanoids (in our world) generally don't. They may form tribes or bands, but never long-term established governments.

Okay! A bit idiosyncratic to your campaign but still a good answer, thank you.

Why many of those subtypes are unique is a good question. I assume it's because the designers didn't feel that they fit into any of the existing subtypes.

I'm glad that it's a good question, but I'm looking for explanations why those races didn't fit into one of the other subtypes (such as fey or monstrous).

Humanoids and Outsiders have so many subtypes because those two monster categories are REALLY broad.

With humanoids, you can particularly have enemies of this type from 1st level all the way to 20th, since these guys often have class levels.

Bane weapons and ranger favored enemy abilities would simply be too good if they could take one monster type like Humanoid or Outsider and cover SOOOOO many creatures.

We try to limit the creation of new humanoid subtypes though, but sometimes there are humanoid races that just don't fit in anywhere else.

And even with what might feel like a narrow group... in the right campaign, ANY humanoid subtype can be a great choice. Just look at "humanoid (gnoll)" for Legacy of Fire for example...

I'm astonished and gratified to get an official personal response like that! (Seriously, I'm still blinking with disbelief.) However, I can't help but notice the lack of specificity, with regard to the three that I mentioned. On the other (other) hand, I can sympathize with wanting to leave the most possible room for future developments. Also, I'm impressed that you had such a ready example of exactly what I was talking about, in the gnolls. So, I'll take it. Thanks! :)

Generally speaking, being more generic is less interesting from a roleplaying perspective, and so should be less (or at least no more) rewarding from a mechanical perspective. Therefore, a cleric of two deities should have (if anything) less options, not more. In my opinion, and if it helps, and so on, et cetera.

Starglim gives a good example of how to be scrupulously fair; but your GM doesn't have to be like that, any more than you have to worship two gods.

A Human is humanoid (human), too, just as an Elf is humanoid (elf).

As for why the humanoid races tend to have unique subtypes, I imagine part of the reason is precisely the existence of abilities such as the Ranger's favored enemy and the Bane weapon quality. Since you're likely to encounter far more humanoids than any other creature type, especially early in a campaign, those abilities might be too good if you could choose the blanket "Humanoid" and have the ability work on all the varieties of humanoids.

To clarify, I'm not asking why there are subtypes of humanoid, just why some of them are unique. That's a good point about the subtypes of the core races; however, it raises interesting questions about what makes those three Bestiary races so important, compared to all of the other fey or monstrous humanoids out there.

I was glancing through the Bestiary to learn more about the monstrous humanoids that are the favored enemy of my soon-to-be ranger, when I discovered that some humanoids are unique. The boggard is a humanoid (boggard), the derro is a humanoid (derro), the tengu is a humanoid (tengu), and no doubt there are others. So. Why?

It seems clear to me that the derro is a humanoid (fey), while the boggard and tengu are monstrous humanoids. However, I understand that there can be good game-design reasons for seemingly-odd choices. I don't expect mind reading; just a good hypothesis is enough, or if you disagree with their choice then I'd like to hear that too.

Started to read the book yesterday. It's been excellent so far!

Wanted to point out that Torgra Stigardsdam, on pages 62-63, can't qualify for the Student of War prestige class. She dumped Dexterity (an 8!) and thus can't get Dodge, an entry requirement to the class. Anyway I found it a bit weird that a class that at second level allows a PC to substitute INT for DEX when calculating AC, would require a (relatively) high DEX to enter.

Of course, poor Torgra might have been unrestorably-DEX-drained after becoming a Student of War, in some disastrous incident that the Chronicles have yet to illuminate, cursed by a foul relic!

Yes, I AM a nerd, going after his Paizo No-Prize!

Also, Akmanya on page 61 has ray of enfeeblement prepared even though it isn't on his class spell list as a cleric of Desna 5; it isn't one of his Travel or Luck domain spells; and his two esoteric magic spells (as a Pathfinder savant 3) are detect secret doors and fireball. Do I get a No-Prize too?!

SilvercatMoonpaw wrote:

Owen K. C. Stephens wrote:

I'll likely seek a name with more alliteration

Scale and Slither.

Are you going to do another race from Bastards & Bloodlines?

In Scale and Slither? I dunno...

If you do use that one, please make it Slither and Scale. I don't know why, it just bugs me the other way around.

Dale McCoy Jr wrote:

Then there's the Paizo Store Blog. I've noticed that PDFs mentioned on Paizo's store blog do better on Paizo than on DriveThruRPG. Like 2:1 better on Paizo. But if it doesn't get mentioned on Paizo's store blog, it does better on DriveThru. Like between 2:1 and 5:1 better on DriveThru. These are just my numbers, but from a few words here and there from other publishers, I'm guessing they have noticed a similar trend as well.

We are experiencing this ourselves, right now. Granted, DriveThruRPG was also running their GM's Day Sale - and I didn't set up the sale anywhere else this year - but the Inkantations PDF is selling over 12:1 better at DriveThru than here at Paizo right now.

I feel like part of the problem is potential customers don't dig deep enough into the store sometimes, or don't even look beyond Paizo products. Tomorrow marks the 2nd anniversary of 4 Winds Fantasy Gaming, and I'm still running into people here on the forums that have never heard of us or our products - and that's with all the wonderful pimpage Paizo has done for us in the store blog and such.

Well, there are eight large-font categories for Pathfinder products, and you're not in them. I'm obsessive enough to read all the way to the end, but that's just me. If they simply moved Pathfinder Compatible Products up to a ninth large-font category, it could make a big difference.

"Core" is what you need to play the game: the Core Rulebook and Bestiary. "Optional" is everything else. "Common" is what the Adventure Paths assume: the Core Rulebook, GameMastery Guide, Advanced Player's Guide, and Bestiary 1 & 2. "Discretionary" is everything else.

In the same vein, a "threat" is what you do to a square when you're holding a weapon that could make an attack of opportunity (if you had one) into it, which is generally a non-whip melee weapon. An attack roll that gives a chance to confirm a critical hit is a "potential" crit.

Anyone who disagrees with me is wrong. <nods wisely>

Okay, here's my re-write. It seems a bit awkward to me, but maybe that's the price to pay for versatility.

Elemental Ventriloquism

That allows a more generic spell where they can use a bowl of water, a fireplace fire, a wisp of dense air, or a cloud of dust...you know you have seen all four forms of fantastical communication.

Ventriloquism is specific to sound, but otherwise that's great. Elemental surrogate? Elemental avatar? No wait, elemental projection! Yes, I think that captures the essence of it.

I'm bad at names because of my campy sense of humor. (My second choice was campfire video-conferencing.) Any suggestions?

I had an inspiration! You know those movie scenes where someone's face appears in someone else's fire, and they have a conversation? Maybe the evil sorceress is castigating her incompetent minion, or perhaps the evil magician is taunting a driven heroine with plans that she'll be too late to stop. It could even be that a kindly shaman is giving encouragement disguised as an urgent request (or vice-versa) to the uncertain heroes. Well, now you can too!

This is my first time writing up a spell in a very, very long time, so (gentle) advice would be appreciated.

Errata: substitute Charisma for Wisdom in the Taunt description.

What if marking provided a carrot instead of a rod?

Why not make it both?

Maybe the penalties to the assisting characters' skill checks would have to add up to the reduction in the DC for the assisted ones? I'm intrigued; however, I also really liked how you described Method 3, and I can see modeling teamwork either way.