Okay, so I've noticed that there's still a bit of debate on how Phantom Steed works. Here are my issues in a nutshell.
How much distance can one travel with a Phantom Steed in one hour? The steed has a speed and duration based on the level of the caster, but exactly how far can the steed travel? Factors like, is it alive, can it run continuously, does it breath/eat/rest? What can the steed see? (Low-light? Darkvision?) Does the steed benefit from Haste (I think this was answered but I'm not sure), enlarge person or any other spell? Can the steed be used in combat but not attack on it's own? (i.e. Mounted combat) (Again, i think this got answered but I'm not 100% sure)
This also effects the performance of Phantom Chariot.
When folks have raw rules questions, they need to be posted in the rules forums, because that way you and other folks can press the FAQ buttons to bring the questions to the designer's attentions.
Not only do the designers not look at this thread we're in right now, but my answers, which often draw from a much different (and more permissive) interpretation of the rules have caused unfortunate confusion and consternation among folks online, so I've stopped answering complex rules questions—not because I don't know the answers, but because I don't want to say something that's slightly off from what a designer might say and cause confusion.
Fair enough. That's quite reasonable. Moving the question there.
In general, there are a number of questions related to how the steed itself works. Namely, how far can the steed travel in 1 hour? The speed is based on the level of the caster, but there are questions as to if the Steed is a living creature or can it be unnaturally pushed beyond mortal boundaries. Given that it can easily go twice as fast as a normal horse and eventually starts to air walk, it seems supernatural. So how fast can it really go? Are they going full speed or normal 'travel' speed? Can they run/sprint with it and for how long?
Note that this spell also effects how Phantom Chariot works as well.
Great questions for the rules forum and a FAQ click or three.
Was there intended to be a couple links with that post?
My questions came from reading on the Rules Forum and not finding any solid answers for just more questions. I found threads such as this and this. People came up with some strong speculation but nothing in the rules was very definitive. As such, I figured it was worth coming here to get some real answers.
A few questions about the spell "Phantom Steed".
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/spells/phantomSteed.html
In general, there are a number of questions related to how the steed itself works. Namely, how far can the steed travel in 1 hour? The speed is based on the level of the caster, but there are questions as to if the Steed is a living creature or can it be unnaturally pushed beyond mortal boundaries. Given that it can easily go twice as fast as a normal horse and eventually starts to air walk, it seems supernatural. So how fast can it really go? Are they going full speed or normal 'travel' speed? Can they run/sprint with it and for how long?
Note that this spell also effects how Phantom Chariot works as well.
I'm sorry, why not? And who does it have to 'fly' with beyond the GM?
Well that's exactly who it didn't work well with. I needed something more than just "Because it's a reasonable assumption" when it comes making a case about something to the DM. Thus the text didn't work for me. Some DM's have vastly different opinions as to what something sounds reasonable about. Case in point, some DM's rule that gems and jewelry are sold at 50% because the rules about what's sold as "trade goods" doesn't list gems and jewelry, only metals and a few other textiles. Others claim gems and jewelry are obviously intended to be sold as a trade good. Hence, a clear answer other than "because it seems right" will have to do.
In other words, it works like cwslyclgh mentioned. You regain the use of your AoO actions at the start of your next action, or in other words, at the start of your next turn unless I'm missing something. (I could still be wrong, I'm not 100% positive)
When do AoO's "Refresh"? In other words, when exactly can a player/monster make a new one if it's already used up it's allotment of AoO's for the current round? Is it at the start of the initiative order, or is it at the start/end of their next turn?
On your action in a round.
Just to verify, that's effectively the start of your next turn, correct? Is that referenced anywhere effectively in the rules? Can the next printing/srd push say that explicitly?
When do AoO's "Refresh"? In other words, when exactly can a player/monster make a new one if it's already used up it's allotment of AoO's for the current round? Is it at the start of the initiative order, or is it at the start/end of their next turn?
Sadly the above text isn't concrete enough for me to work with. The interpretation you spoke of seems logical but it doesn't fly with everyone.
The problem with AoO's resetting at the start of the initiative counter, is that the first person in initiative, can never avoid provoking AoO's. Where as others after the first who does provoke, get the chance to take advantage of the situation for one round.
Where as, if AoO's reset only at the start of your next turn, then it's fair for everyone in the initiative order.
But, I need a ruling to state explicitly what way it works.
Okay, quick question. When is the "Start of a Round" start officially? The issue is partly related to AoO. When do you regain the ability to make a new AoO after making one for the past round. Is it at the start of initiative order, or is it at the start of your next turn?
In D&D 3.5, there was a buried rule that stated that if your character was lower level than the party average, you got a bonus to your experience gain compared to the rest of the party when experience was awarded. In other words, if a party gained 500xp for an encounter, your character might gain 550xp instead. The idea was that over time, you would 'catch up' to the rest of the party over time, with this bonus xp.
Does such a rule exist in Pathfinder? I can't find it but I don't currently own the gamemaster book, where it might be contained. Over all though, i got the impression that such a rule doesn't exist.
Does anyone know what I'm talking about and/or have any clue if this rule does exist or was clearly omitted in Pathfinder?
In order to avoid the +5 DC penalty by buying a scroll... you'd need to buy a scroll for EVERY DAY of the item creation process. So... if you're making an item that takes 10 days to craft, you'd need to buy 10 scrolls of that spell, and you'd need to make all the appropriate checks to cast the spell from the scroll if it's not a spell you could normally cast for your ability score and caster level. Miss just one of those castings or days and you're back to the +5 DC penalty automatically.
Lead up questions.
Can someone else cast the spell for you?
Say you have a Druid in the party who knows Barkskin, and wants to help craft an "Amulet of Natural Armor" with the Wizard. Can the Druid be the one casting the spell, and thus negate the penalty for the wizard who is creating the item?
Does the druid need to have the "Craft Wondrous Items" feat?
Does the druid need to be there for the entire magic item creation time or just needs to show up once a day, for 10 minutes to assist, and then can go back to adventuring, if multiple days of crafting are involved?
When it come to magic item creation rules, there's a line that states the following,
SRD wrote:
Note that all items have prerequisites in their descriptions. These prerequisites must be met for the item to be created. Most of the time, they take the form of spells that must be known by the item's creator (although access through another magic item or spellcaster is allowed). The DC to create a magic item increases by 5 for each prerequisite the caster does not meet.
The question comes down to the DC increase due to missing prerequisites. To make most items, the player needs the appropreate feat, gold equal to half the items value, must be a specific level, and have the spell needed to make the item memorized.
Of these prerequisites, Only the gold and feat are absolutely required. All other prerequisites can be overcome via adding 5 to the DC.
In terms of the spell requirement, can the player avoid the +5 DC penalty if they buy a scroll of the required spell and used that during creation? Does the spell have to be on their spell list if it does bypass the DC penalty, if they can use the scroll?
Okay so I have a couple questions that are vaguely related to each other.
Question 1: If a player attacks with his off hand, but only his off hand. Say, he's got two short swords, and decides to only attack with his 'left' hand instead of his 'right'. How would it work? Does he get to treat it like a full regular attack (Full-Round action attack, multiple attacks if BAB allows, full strength bonus)?
Question 2: Reloading a hand crossbow. Do you need a free hand to reload it? Can you wield a dagger in your off hand, fire with the hand crossbow in the main, and reload normally.
Bonus Question: Player with a Hand Crossbow & Dagger get an attack of opportunity from a vanilla monster X. Can the player attack with the dagger? Does the handyness matter? What happens if they want to attack with the hand crossbow the next turn? Does he get a penalty to attack if the hand crossbow is in the 'off hand'?
This is one of those "The rules aren't clear to me and I couldn't find anything specific that ruled one way or another" question for me.
I just wish one of the Pathfinder developers would chime in and say what's the official stance. Only because it seems like the intent was for gems and jewelery to be sold like cash, but the reality is, rules as written, it's half price unless stated otherwise but, the rules for creating treasure seems flawed or at least missleading.
To bring back an old threat that's relevant to me. I want to know if there's been any official word from Paizo about selling Gems & art objects in Pathfinder?
The treasure construction rules clearly state that you build treasure using a mixture of gold, gems and art objects, but doesn't clearly state that said the gold value for said gems is intended to be be cashed in for 100% of the value.
I ask this because all the Adventure Paths are littered with gems and art objects and I would like an official ruling if the intent was for these items in the AP to be translated into cash, or were they intended to be sold at half value.
This is important because it changes how you build treasure rewards when using gems and artwork. If a treasure reward is going to equal 1000gp, with 50% coin and 50% gems, then the DM would reward 500gp and a 1000gp gem, that's sold for 500gp.
Or, as I suspect but is not explicit, do gems and art objects fall into the "Trade Goods" category and are intended to be sold for 100% value.
I'm pretty sure spell slots are maintained. You must spend a level 9 prepared spell to replace it with your bound wish spell. So that aspect is just fine. Right now, it's just the interaction with bound spell and specialization that is odd.
I figure this is not intended to work but does by the written rules. Over all, I think requiring the slots cost to be equal wouldn't be a huge burden and would work for everyone.
Here's something I couldn't find anything specific on the forums so I figure I would ask to see if someone knew one way or another about this little question.
In, Advanced Races Guide, an Elven Archtype for Wizards is the Spellbinder. That class can replace one spell it has memorized with one it has bonded. Specialist wizards have the limitation that if they attempt to memorize a spell that is in one of their forbidden schools, then the caster must spend two spell slots instead of the normal one.
So you can see where I'm getting at. Could my Elf Spellbinder Wizard bind a forbidden school spell, then swap it out (as a full-round action) with a spell he has memorized but is not from his forbidden school. Say an Enchanter Specialist with Necromancy forbidden, wanted to cast Ray of Enfeeblement without penalty. So they pick it as a bound spell, memorize Magic Missile, and then swapped it.
So in other words, it allows the bound spell (And only the bound spell) to get around the forbidden school slot cost.
Does anyone know if their other PDF's will be offered as lite as well, or new ones from here on? I'm wanting to run Carrion Crown but the normal PDF's don't work to well on my kindle fire. The lite one work wonderfully
Right now, Lite options are only available for the hardcover books.
I would like to put a vote in for lite versions for all the modules. I ask this because I too use a Kindle d to try and view the PDF's and the intense graphics of the modules is too much for the Kindle and even for my old PC.
A quick clarification question here. According to the Eidolon "Link" feature, magic equipment 'slots' are shared between an Eidolon and a Summoner. This does also apply to magic items, correct? The question is, if you craft an Eidolon with Limbs (Arms), give them Weapon Proficiency (Say, Bastard Sword) and then put a +1 Magic Bastard Sword into the Eidolon's primary weapon hand, the summoner can no longer use a Magic weapon in his primary weapon hand although in theory it could wield one in his off hand.
The Summoner could wield a non-magical weapon in his primary weapon hand though? And what if someone then enchanted the weapon for the summoner with say the "Magic Weapon" spell?
If the Eidolon has Limbs (Legs) and then adds the Claw evolution, does it's natural attacks count as weapons? What if they are enchanted with Magic Fang?
I think I'm over complicating the situation but it seems like to me it's just an odd situation. Over all, RAW, it goes that as long as it's not a magic item in the Eidolon's hand, then the Summoner can wield any magic weapon it wants and vice versa.
Has anyone created an updated guide to fighters to include all the current books? I seem to recall the one guide I can find is core (And maybe APG) only. Is Two Weapon Fighting the new optimal strategy for Fighters these days?
Battlefield control is one of those concepts that doesn't seem very easy and isn't. So far, I'm struggling with my own wizard to make it work at our table. It doesn't help that our DM has very good luck rolling saving throws which make many of the Save or Suck spells much less effective then I hoped.
A few blast spells don't hurt when the control fails. Over all, it seems to me that a mix of control and blast might be a better formula then total control, given how a few good saves by the bad guys render many control spells a wasted round.
I actually like the Lyrakien as well but the big problem I have at the table is that effectively, my wizard is going to have his own personal Tinkerbell. I will never, ever, EVER be taken seriously again at the table if I went with her.
It's sad too because the theme of the creature fits my characters rather one off character background (He was a sailor on ships that sailed elves taken by grief to the celestial land of the dead).
Thinking about it some more, I'd better mention this, since it would eliminate the benefits of using it to avoid grappling...
It's still a great way to get out of a grapple but not the best way, of course.
Over all, given how grappling monsters tend to have some rather nasty effects against creatures which they are grappling, the ability to Shift out of grapple is still rather beneficial. Wizards aren't well known for being the best at trying to Break Free from grapples.
Keep up the great work, I'm glad to see someone finally updating the guide.
One quick comment related to what some others have said here about the "Shift" power that comes with Teleportation/Conjuration Specialist Wizard. There's nothing in the powers description that changes the spells description in relation to the "No actions until your next turn" line. So as such, that feature of the spell remains. Still, it's a great ability, a heck of a lot more useful then Acid Dart over the lifetime of the campaign. Or at least, in the campaign I'm in currently, i find this to be true but my wizard is only level 5.
In any event, it's not a plot hole at all, since who made the pool or how Sorshen could fly (potion of fly being the least expensive solution) doesn't really matter to the adventure's actual plot.
This is exactly what I was getting at in my response. Perhaps 'plot hole' isn't the correct term but everyone gets the general idea of the issue at hand. A GM might have to defend the fiction against the inquiries from the players. The module doesn't offer any defense, so the GM needs to construct one and the best might be, "This isn't important to the story."
So in other words, plot holes should be plastered over by any means possible. Gaining access to flight and some necromancy based items aren't that important to try and rationalize mechanically. The Runelords are whatever you need them to be, exactly at the moment you want them. Specially given that the players aren't going to be directly interacting with them at all this story, it's just more of an aside to what's going on.
If the players do ask, it should be well accepted to say, "How or what happened related to the Runelords, isn't important to this story exactly. All that matter is that, what's here is here, right now in the present."
Yeah, at our table, how alchemist bombs work wasn't obvious for the first couple sessions. Being touch attacks is very nice, plus the discovery "Precise Bombs" makes it so much easier to use them in combat. Ours is currently the big hitter in the party.
Ahh, then that does complicate things and presents a bigger logic failure. I might just go with "magic item" for an explanation. Winged boots, Broom of Flying, Flying Carpet. Something like that. There's the Necromancy issue as well and you could just have custom magic items again involved.
Yeah, I had the same sort of logic flaw in another module recently where the players did notice it and said, to me, "So how did they do that exactly?!"
So yes, it is a concern but it might be best to just hand wave it as a "Magic artifact that's long lost!"
It is a plot hole, but it might not really be worth concerning yourself over that greatly. At best, you can hope for a "Refrigerator Moment", and at worst, you let the players sit there baffled for a few moments and then point out that they have some more pressing concerns to deal with.
But you do have the point that it's an unresolved plot hole in the module, if one thinks about it extensively but perhaps the author expected that 'it's magic, it'll take care of itself' to happen. Perhaps a magic item, (Cloak of the Bat) or some other means not expressed.
But yeah, it's a plot hole, common in modules given how many moving parts are involved in such games. I don't know much about the Runelords but by the sounds of it, each was a specialist wizard. I think if you use Pathfinder instead of D&D 3.5 rule set, the wizard specialization rules are changed so that the opposed schools aren't forbidden, they just incur a penalty. So having Transmutation as an opposed school doesn't mean the NPC can't cast Fly, it just means they take a penalty to do so.
Not to be critical but, could we better assume that this is simply an oversight by the writers and not something worth stressing too strongly?
I understand that people are trying to rationalize the oversight in some mechanics fashion but perhaps we just need to chalk it up to "They got around it" and be done with it? If the writers didn't address it, then it might have never been considered an issue to address.
Re-writing a few elements of the plot might not be a horrible idea considering that many of the storylines of these AP's have been spoiled to even the most casual reader of these forums. So here's a version I came up with that attempts to salvage as much of the modules as possible but makes the end reveal slightly different. Note, I've only briefly read over the modules and haven't run this nor reviewed the whole series extensively. Here's what you could do though.
Revised Plotline:
The key point of the story is that Ileosa is possessed by a fragment of the spirit of Kazavon which gives her a great deal of power. In the original story, she's using this gift to eventually work her way up into gaining almost god like powers. The main twist you can place on this is that her goal is actually try and free herself from Kazavon's control, by any means possible. If that might include killing thousands to save millions should Kazavon get free, then so be it.
With this twist, you make vague suggestions that everything the queen does, seems to have the aura of benevolence to it but with a lack of any real experience that would help forge better choices. She's a very young woman who was just was thrusted into an extremely hostile political world before she was ready for it. For you see, the king died of natural causes, not poisoning but more then a few factions in the city were ready to make sure she took the blame for it. Combined with struggling against the possession, she's having a growing more difficult situation to deal with. Her actions are drastic and draconian but her intentions are noble.
So change the events slightly to make sure that several of the situations are based on the manipulations of 3rd parties trying to wrestle control away from her. In the end, she starts to perform evil, only to try and regain control over what she feels is the city and the last fragments of her mind, slipping from her. This leads to the PC's having to figure out what they can do to save her, which sadly isn't much beyond killing her.
The traditional tragic figure is much better laid out then this but you can make it work.
Taking half of the difference actually equals up to exactly the same value, so that's what I can use for now.
But in general, I'm glad this is correct. Now I just need to land in a windfall of a few thousand gold and I can maybe.. possibiliy... in a remote chance.. upgrade some of my party's gear.
The rules for upgrading magic weapons and armor aren't that bad, you go with the cost of the difference between the two current item state to the state you want to upgrade it to. The only question is, is this the cost for a 3rd party to upgrade the item? Can a player upgrade an item if they have the specific magic item feat for cheaper?
Quick example:
Bob the Fighter has a +1 Frost Longsword. Bob wants to upgrade the weapon to a +2 Frost Longsword. The cost of a +1 Frost Longsword is 8k gold. The +2 Frost Longsword is 18k gold. Cost difference equals 10k gold.
But along with Bob is Steve the Wizard. Steve knows the "Create Magic Weapons and Armor" feat. If Steve was making the item from scratch, he would get 50% off that value. So if Steve were to upgrade the magic item himself, would cost be 5k gold instead of the full 10k?
It seems logical but I don't see any clear examples where this plays out and I wanted to check in here first.
I was going to chime in with my own lengthy description of 4e but I have to admit, DigitalMage sums it up pretty nicely actually.
Over all, I enjoy playing 4E but I also enjoy playing PF. You can have people that enjoy both but the games do play very differently, and it's not an issue of "more combat vs more roleplay". When I play PF, I feel a bit more like the game is on a knifes edge, and players can and need to exploit their strengths to succeed. Where as in 4e, I feel the game is less lethal, (which some find boring) but there's some feel that the game tends to enforce team play a bit better.
Still, both are fun but perhaps a good one-shot and some pre-generated characters would be the best trial one could give it for their group.
Your concept of minion sounds just like 4e, which is not the concept I go with.
Count_Rugen was basicly asking how much experience a PF version of a Minion would be. I decided to clarify what a "minion" looks like and then at the end, explain that when all those conditions are true, the "Mook" is worth 1/4th the normal Exp of a monster. So if he makes his mook identical to a minion, it could be worth 1/4th the normal Exp. Allowing him to add 4 mooks per regular monster.
So yeah, it looks like 4e Minion because I was defining a 4e Minion because that's what it looks like Count_Rugen wanted.
Now, if you don't want a Minion, you could just go with a 'lower CR' monster and re-skin it to whatever you want. Or check out the rules for making your own monsters and use those as guidelines.
Honestly, the "Minion" concept was a great experiment, that didn't work out as well as you would expect. Once players got wise to them, they stopped being monsters and almost became something else to the players. Something not worth most of their time.
What I did use once that actually seemed a little more useful was the "Halfster" Or "One-Half Monster". Take a normal monster (nothing too fancy), cut the HP's in half. Cut the damage in Half. Now put two of them on the board. There you go, the "Halfster". They die amazingly fast but players seem to take the threat a little more seriously. Plus they help flank, they can aid other monsters in attacking or are just great for blocking the way for charges. Those were fun, I should try them again.
I like the idea of the "minion" designation, but 1hp is far too trivial in my opinion as the game scales in level. At low level, sure 1hp is just fine, but at higher level it is just not an obstacle at all.
I'm actually curious. How is 1HP fine at level 1 but somehow different at level 20? It's all the same concept. If the player hits, they kill the target. If they Miss, the target stays alive.
Oh, that's rule 7 that I forgot.
7) Creature doesn't die if the player misses, no matter what the attack was. (In PF terms, I would say, if it succeeds it's Save vs spell, it takes 0 damage, period.)
---
The point of minions is not to survive, or take only a 'small amount of damage' and die. The intent is to kill player actions. You're taking away actions the players could be using against other targets. You're helping delay the combat some. You're putting obsiticles for charging and shifting. Minions are not damage monsters, they are like hindering terrain that the players can destroy.
Thanks folks. The general plan is for it to be a zombie swarm (or steady stream of single zombies) of 1 hp mooks attacking a lone PC.
The 4e Mechanic for "Minions" (which is what the 1HP mooks are called) is the following.
1) Take your standard monster
2) Reduce his HP's to 1 HP
3) He keeps his standard attack bonus but only gets 1 attack
4) Make him do 1/2 the average damage the monster would with it's main attack, round down. Static number, no rolling.
5) Multiple the number of them by 4
6) Each one is worth 1/4th the normal XP of the standard monster (killing all 4 nets you the original Exp value)
That's about it.
They are intended to be good cannon-fodder for those who dish out area based attacks and allow a DM to pad an encounter out with a few more monsters then the standard 1x monster per player, +1 monster if you want a hard encounter.
A whole fight of "minions" usually isn't that much fun.
Minions are great on paper but in practice they have issues.
1) Players who don't do area attacks, ignore them and go for the monsters with real HP's.
2) Players who do area attacks, feel like you just threw them in for them.
3) If 3+ of them hit one player in a round, the damage adds up FAST.
4) They can slow down a combat a lot.
It would be interesting to see if someone how it would work out in Pathfinder. One of the issues in PF over 4e is that in 4e, you have several classes that can routinely attack 2-4 monsters in one attack, every round. So losing 2-3 Minions in one turn isn't unheard of. That seems slightly more rare in PF, of course I could be wrong. A fighter with Cleave would find Minions amusing to face.
If it helps, think of it without the brace weapon and charge aspect.
I ready an action to attack any enemy in reach.
An enemy walks up to me and enters my reach.
My readied action is triggered, and I get to attack him.
The enemy then leaves a threatened square, provoking an attack of opportunity.
Brace is the same thing, you're just severely limiting yourself in exchange for more damage.
I understand the sequence of events that work from a mechanical sense, it's just I would have figured that once you've taken your readied action, the monster would get to complete the 'charge' action, and then the AoO would be lost since you would not get to double dip on one monster action. Now if someone was standing next to you with a reach weapon, sure, I can see it work for them. But for the guy who's performing the Brace, I would figure it wouldn't make complete sense for them.
Still, Reading an Action is intended to be a unique condition and such an attack won't happen that often. So this issue isn't a major one.
Answer #1 doesn't shock me, I think I was getting this confused with something else at one point. Maybe the difference between reach attacks and reach weapons had me all befuddled.
Answer #3 doesn't shock me, because I think touch spells are the exception to the rule in this case. Okay, that's fine.
Answer #2 does shock me, because I got the impression that it wasn't intended that you would get that 'double dip' when you ready like this. It also doesn't exactly fit the flavor of what's happening when you're bracing for a charge but, I see that in a rules context, you can clearly read it that way.
Okay, so 3 quick questions. 2 of which, I might already have the answer, I just need to confirm.
1) Reach Weapons & Flanking.
If your character has a Reach weapon, and you're trying to flank with another target, are you required to be right next to the target (i.e. within 5 feet) or can you flank from 10 feet away, as long as the 'line you draw' between the two squares somewhat conforms to the normal flanking rules? The example shows a Large creature with reach but Reach weapons are treated 'differently'. So I'm not so sure.
2) Charging, Readying a Brace weapon and AoO.
Okay so this one sounds like it's lightly debated but here we go. You're braced with a reach weapon, with a readied action to attack the first creature that charges you. Your Long Spear has reach. They charge. You get your Readied action. But then they complete the charge and thus move out of a threatened square. Do you also get an AoO? I would figure not but the rules aren't 100% clear about this.
3) Casting a Cone Spell, but trying to hold it.
A wizard wants to cast Color Spray. But he wants to hit with an optimal number of targets. The most optimal location is within a move action but is a threatened square. Can they 1) Cast the spell, 2) Hold the spell, 3) Move into optimal position, 3) Release the spell, effecting a cone area.
Is this possible? Or does the spell have to be released on completion of the standard action casting time. I read with "Touch" Spells, you gain a free swift action on the same around the spell is cast to 'touch' a target with a armed attack, and thus my actions above would work with that kind of spell, but what about a Cone or any other spell like that?
There's a very large community around the use of the free tool "Maptools" that will allow you and your friends to share a virtual table top game and still command characters and play online with everyone getting a view of what's going on and can interact with each other easily. Combine it with Skype and you have what most people use to play table top online these days.
Maptools is free to download and use, but it takes a LOT of time and effort to start up. You can start simple and slowly ramp yourself up into macros and elaborate fog of war details. I personally haven't used it but it looks like exactly what I would want to play table top online.
Check it out but mind you, it's got a massive learning curve for you and a mild one for the players. Still, if you stick with it, apparently it's very rewarding to use.
In terms of what's different, I could be wrong about this but, Wizard Specialization is quite different. In 3.5, you couldn't take spells from the opposing class, now they just cost double slots.
What's the point of rolling HP for something that lasts 3 rounds max?
Because that's what the rules state you do. Although we all know it's a silly idea to do so. That being said, almost no table I've heard of, would do such a thing because it's an unnecessary delay and possible point of frustration.
So while the rules technically state one way, it sounds like everyone tends to go another. Still, I'm not 100% sure the roll method is correct, considering that even the Beastiary uses averages.
And using a melee touch spell against an enemy does not provoke either. You are considered "armed" when you are attempting to attack with the touch spell.
That is true on the first round the spell is cast, I found that if you "Hold the Charge", you no longer count as being "Armed" after that first round. Which confuses and complicates the whole process.
Edit: Ah, I miss-read the note on Holding the Charge. So it only provokes when you try to attack unarmed AND deliver the spell? How curious. Okay that confuses things even more!
From what I recall, summoned creatures have racial hit dice. Racial hit dice are rolled, according to what the rules in the Beastiary state (apparently) but, often it's an accepted table policy to take the average instead. Often for simplicity sake.
