ShadowChemosh's page

I am not sure if the Squeezing rules would apply here. I think these rules are for squeezing through a tight opening.

Granted that is more straight forward than the little areas on the OP map example, but still this should work just fine. Plus the rules are already in the book and nicely balanced.

Fighting space is very important in combat and while standing still you don't need a 5ft area add in dodging and swinging swords that are up to 4+ feat in length and you sure need that space.

For a RAW answer squeezing is the closest and easiest method to use during actual play. The other idea is to just ignore those little areas of the map and say they are just fluff, but I personally like having to deal with the environment on top of the creatures in a battle.

I believe the object granting cover has to be between you and your enemy to grant cover.

Ok, we came upon a dilemma during gaming and it involves when you are allowed to enter a square.

Ok, so I remember reading in a rule book, not sure if it's the 3.5 PHB, D&D FAQ, or whatever (I can't find it now) but it stated if a square was partially taken up then it's ok to enter it.

I'll post a picture as an example:

Entering Partial Squares

So can a character enter a square marked in blue?

Or no?
Would there be some sort of penalties associated with this?

Also, according to the rules, standing in such a square actually provides cover to enemies attacking you in melee, since a line drawn from a character that passes through a solid object on ANY corner of a square provides cover. (which is odd, especially considering if the "cover" is "behind" your character)

Thanks for any feedback.

Shield, Light; Wooden or Steel: You strap a shield to your forearm and grip it with your hand. A light shield's weight lets you carry other items in that hand, although you cannot use weapons with it."

Buckler: This small metal shield is worn strapped to your forearm. You can use a bow or crossbow without penalty while carrying it. You can also use your shield arm to wield a weapon (whether you are using an off-hand weapon or using your off hand to help wield a two-handed weapon), but you take a –1 penalty on attack rolls while doing so. This penalty stacks with those that may apply for fighting with your off hand and for fighting with two weapons. In any case, if you use a weapon in your off hand, you lose the buckler's AC bonus until your next turn. You can cast a spell with somatic components using your shield arm, but you lose the buckler's AC bonus until your next turn. You can't make a shield bash with a buckler.

If he's using a light shield and casting a standard action spell, he can still get his AC bonus because as part of his move action he can ready his shield (assuming he has a BAB of +1 or higher) per note 3 on page 183.

Now what is not clear is the exact type of action it is to move your weapon from your main hand to your light shield hand. Many people want it to be free in which case you can move your weapon to your light shield hand cast your spell and move the weapon back. On page 11 of the 3.5 FAQ it is said for this exact situation that its a move action to move your weapon to a different hand. In which case you can cast your spell, but would not have a melee weapon in your main hand until next round at the cost of two move-actions.

Q: My DM says that my cleric has to drop his morningstar to cast spells. Is he right?
A: Yes and no. To cast a spell with a somatic (S) component, you must gesture freely with at least one hand. (PH 140) A cleric (or any caster, for that matter) who holds a weapon in one hand and wears a heavy shield on the other arm doesn’t have a hand free to cast a spell with a somatic component (which includes most spells in the game). To cast such a spell, the character must either drop or sheathe his weapon.

Another simple option is for the cleric to carry a buckler or light shield instead of a heavy shield. The buckler leaves one hand free for spellcasting, and you don’t even lose the buckler’s shield bonus to AC when casting with that hand. The light shield doesn’t give you a free hand for spellcasting, but since you can hold an item in the same hand that holds the light shield, you could switch your weapon to that hand to free up a hand for spellcasting. (You can’t use the weapon while it’s held in the same hand as your shield, of course.) The rules don’t state what type of action is required to switch hands on a weapon, but it seems reasonable to assume that it’s the equivalent of drawing a weapon (a move action that doesn’t provoke attacks of opportunity).

Buckler: This small metal shield is worn strapped to your forearm. You can use a bow or crossbow without penalty while carrying it. You can also use your shield arm to wield a weapon (whether you are using an off-hand weapon or using your off hand to help wield a two-handed weapon), but you take a –1 penalty on attack rolls while doing so. This penalty stacks with those that may apply for fighting with your off hand and for fighting with two weapons. In any case, if you use a weapon in your off hand, you lose the buckler's AC bonus until your next turn. You can cast a spell with somatic components using your shield arm, but you lose the buckler's AC bonus until your next turn. You can't make a shield bash with a buckler.

So when casting a spell or using any weapon in your off hand, including two-handed weapons (ie bows), you lose the bucklers AC for a round. As it does not matter which hand you use a bow in as its a two-handed weapon by the rules.

Sprith wrote:

Used to in 3.5 ranged touch spells didnt provoke if you successfully cast defensively. Now they do even if you succeed the check. So yep that part is new in PF.

You need to document that, as I'm certain you are incorrect.

If you do use it, consider this. Attacks of Opportunity can disrupt the spellcasting, but casting defensively can prevent this. No AoO can stop an archer from shooting you from 5' away. Sure, you might hit him, but if he survives it, he shoots you anyway. Likewise with this silly rule. If the casting doesn't provoke (because he successfully casts defensively) but the ranged touch attack does, then if the caster survives the AoO, he can make his attack - so at least all is not lost (if he survives).

Pathfinder uses the exact same text as the 3.5 players handbook, but the PHB has an example to help clarify stating
an empowered magic missile deals 1-1/2 times its normal damage (roll 1d4+1 and multiple the result by 1-1/2 for each missile.)

I can no longer find the post, but I know I read where Jason said that when using an Empowered Ray of Enfeeblement only the 1d6 is increased not the plus also. So the example above where only the 1d8 is increased is correct for PFRPG.

Why does the darkmantle get 1d4+4 damage? It has no strength bonus anymore, and no Feats that might give it extra damage, nor any special attacks. So, why does it get the +4 damage?

And why is it's melee attack bonus +6? BAB +2, Str +0, no feats, which means no Dex bonus to attacks?

I keep finding more. The Reflex save is wrong too. A magical beast has a base of 3 at 2 HD, and the Dex should make it +5.

And the CMB is wrong, unless there's a way for Small creatures to use their Dex bonus and not loose a -1 due to being Small.

Other than via antimagic, dispell magic where is this hypothetical suprression documented?

Also suppose you had flaming caltrops... and you dropped them. Is it really a good idea to believe they could *never* be picked up again?

Rings, etc activate for caster-level rounds. It seems a far more reasonable approach.

As even the 3.5 FAQ on the subject mentions the same thing, but I am not going to quote the whole thing as its HUGE.

The energy from a flaming, frost, shock, flaming burst, icy burst, or shocking burst weapon never harms you while you’re wielding or carrying the activated weapon (see the power descriptions), and it will not harm your equipment. If you lose or set down an activated weapon, the energy it produces will harm other objects it touches, so it is best to deactivate it first.

Hope that helps.

so for you "3,000 gp greatsword" is now +4 sheild bonus to ac, +2 to hit, 2d6+2+half strength damage. and if you enhance it past the the 2 sheild bonus inheriant to a large sheild you increase the AC and hit/dmg ( imageine a +5 large sheild bashing (+9 to ac +5hit/damage.)

a) Anti-magic fields shut down supernatural abilities, including Smite.
b) Dispel should dispel an active smite, it's a continuing supernatural ability.

4 ) For the 7th level spell, mages sword, once you have casted the sword spell, does it continue to attack or do you have to direct it. I believe by reading the rule that is continues to attack and as a STANDARD action you can change targets but if you keep the same target you can do other actions in the round.

My bad on question 5) I meant to word it as: is it a standard action to activate those qualities of the weapon or it is a free action to activate frost, flame, shock, or thundering special ability.

He says: "An attack action is a type of standard action"
He says: "Vital Strike is an attack action, btw, which is a standard action."
Thus Vital Strike is a standard action.
Then he says: "Anything that applies to an attack action would apply to a Vital Strike attack, whereas it would not, necessarily, apply to Cleave."

The reason this feat has this wording and not "As a standard action" like cleave is because a feat that modifies your Attack Action can be combined with other feats that modify your Attack Action, but not with ones that require a Standard Action.

This is why currently you can combine Rapid Shot and Many Shot together as they both use a Full-Attack Action which modifies your Full-Round action.

In the PFRPG their is only one feat currently that modifies your Attack Action and that is Vital Strike, but their will more than likely be more in the future from paizo.

Hope that helps.

An unarmed strike is not a natural attack. It's using an appendage to make an attack even though the natural features of that appendage do not make it a viable natural attack in the same way that claws or teeth work.

Unarmed strike is therefore a "weapon" that's listed on the list of weapons in the Core rules.

Improved Natural Attack applies ONLY to natural attacks like bites, claws, slams, tentacles, etc; the list of natural attacks appears on our around page 301 or 302 in the Bestiary. Unarmed strike is NOT on that list.

Q: Can a monk take Improved Natural Attack (MM 304) to improve his unarmed strike?
A: Yes. As stated on page 41 of the PH, a monk’s unarmed strike "is treated as both a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve either.." which includes feats such as Improved Natural Attack.

I looked at the Improved Natural Attack feat from 3.5 and the PRD and their is only one difference which is the last sentence. Monsters in PFRPG can no longer take this feat more than once.

I am in no way saying your wrong James, but just wondering how if the above wording has not changed how come it no longer works?

Thanks

Treantmonk wrote:

Is there any official word as to whether this is how it works? If not, what are peoples opinions?

That is the way I see it as well. Isn't this the way it officially worked (in FAQ) in 3.5 rules also?

Another good place to find the differences between 3.5 and PFRPG would be in the pathfinder conversion document. Which can be downloaded HERE for free.

I too have a question regarding attacks from 3.5 to Pathfinder.

3.5 , the Dire Bear got 3 attacks, 2 claw attacks and a bite attack.
The claws got +19 attack each and the bite got a +13 attack. (weapon focus, claws)

The dire bear in pathfinder has +13 to its claw attacks and +13 to its bite.... so why does it get a full bonus to ALL of its attacks? As does the lion, as does the cheetah, as does the leopard.

So a bear or tiger or any creature that has Bite gets to use it as a primary attack. Any creature that has claws gets to use them as primary attacks. If they have both claw and bite then they are still both primary attacks and they do not gain the -5 to hit 1/2 Str damage as that is only applied to secondary attacks now.

From Table 3-1 we see that only the following are considered secondary attacks now: Hoof, Tentacle, Wing, Hoof, Tentacle, Wing, & Other.

Hope that helps.

Climb speeds is listed under Special in the Climb skill page91.

"A creature with a climb speed has a +8 racial bonus on all Climb checks. The creature must make a Climb check to climb any wall or slope with a DC higher than 0, but it can always choose to take 10, even if rushed or threatened while climbing."

So a spider must still make the climb check when climbing any surface just like anyone else, but it can take 10. The giant spider in bestiary page258 has a climb skill of +16 so taking ten gives it a 26. So on any surface with a DC of 26 or less the spider climbs without a problem. So strictly by RAW without something else to help the spider out a giant spider could not traverse on a ceiling upside down.

Nope, none of those items count for any of those kinds of feats. The only magic items that are able to be effected in some small ways are spells cast from staves.

...
Not all of them, only specific dex and str skills. Non proficiency means every form of dex and str check comes into play.

Just look on page 89 of Core book and you see that their is a * next to every Dex/Str skills which means ACP is applied.

Thanks for the clarification. This is a change from the 3.5 skeleton actually - there the full attack is listed as:

Scimitar +1 melee (1d6+1/18–20) or 2 claws +1 melee (1d4+1)

I'm not actually seeing this 1 hand for use thing anywhere in the Scrolls section under activation in the Magic Items section. Are you looking at it someplace else?

ShadowChemosh wrote:

If you and you DM want to play a game where you do nothing but buy and sell magic items than you could get into being able to make a profit. Personally I don't see many DMs wanting to do that and that is why by RAW you can't make a profit.

I don't think there is any call to get snippy over his question. He didn't really go into what he wanted to do in the campaign with this idea, did he? He was just asking how the rule was suppose to work.

He asked if this would be allowed and I was trying to show how I thought many DMs would see it.

Again very sorry if it came across bad. I will add a smiley face next time as you can't get mad at someone who uses a smiley face. =)

If you had a heavy shield in one hand and your other hand was empty then you cast the scroll. It only requires one hand to use a scroll.

You need 1000 gold of materials for enchanting a masterwork sword to make it a +1 sword. The argument is that you can with the right connections buy that raw material at a slightly cheaper price, thus EFFECTIVELY doing it for 900 gold. You are still using 1k worth of oils essence or whatever materials are used up in the enchanting process, you just buy those materials at a discount.

would you allow this? 300- 10%= 270. 1000- 10%= 900-5%=855. 855=270=1120.

okay math at 4am is not my strong point

If you and you DM want to play a game where you do nothing but buy and sell magic items than you could get into being able to make a profit. Personally I don't see many DMs wanting to do that and that is why by RAW you can't make a profit.

would you allow this? 300- 10%= 270. 1000- 10%= 900-5%=855. 855=270=1120. so instead of paying 1300 to make item you instead spend 1120. now say your party member dont want so you sell. normaly this would be for 1150, but with trait you get more 1150+115=1265. just made 145 gold, for 1 days work, 2 traits and 1 feat. DO I HAVE THIS RIGHT???

So its 300gp for the base item -10% gives you 270gp
1,000gp -%5 for Hedge Magician gives you 950gp.
So your cost is 1220gp.

When you go to sell it you have to find the new base price as you can NOT use the book value anymore as its wrong. So to find the new base item cost its 270 MW item + (950 x2) Craft = 2170gp the new current base price of the item. Then you sell that for half for 1085gp, but your other trait raises that by 10% (+108.5) for a total of 1193.5gp.

-1220gp to Create
+1193.5gp Sold
===========
(-26.5gp) loss of gp.

Not what I would call a good deal. This is the same as when players in my games wanted to use the Eberron feats that are similar to this to make money. The math in those cases worked out to be zero as you still sell at half the base item price NOT the book value. =)

and the RAI does seem to be in line with the way you explain it,

Thanks

example is Lunge with Great Cleave. Does this give him an effective ten foot reach, all threatened, for Great Cleave? I didn't see anything that specifically prevented this, but I may have missed it.

I can also ask this question of many feats. Can you stack Power Attack + Great Cleave + X + Y? Etc.

...
A creatures base land speed is set by his/her race and does not change. A creature's speed can be modified by many things: haste, armor, and yes tumbling. Therefore if a creature with a base land speed of 30' was under the haste effect and his current speed is 60' he would get a +12 to Acrobatics checks for jumping. Then if he attempted to jump while tumbling his speed would again be 30 and he would recieve no bonus.

Tumbling simply makes each square you tumble in count as double or 10ft. You can tumble only one square and then move normally the rest of the time. Once you start to tumble you are not forced to tumble the rest of the round.

Which is why you simply don't change the base speed of the creature when tumbling. So why under hast a character gets +12 to jump even when tumbling or walking across difficult terrain even if the character actually only moved 30ft he still had a base speed of 60ft.

The only negative tumbling would normally cause is its harder for the character to move the 10ft(2 squares) before making the jump. If he didn't manage to do that then the DC for the jump is doubled. In 3.5 it was 20ft, but PFRPG makes it way easier at 10ft.

For rules I reference the 3.5 FAQ

When a character tumbles (at half speed) during a move action, does that mean he is moving at half speed for the whole move, or just in the squares where tumbling?
Although it’s easiest to apply the half-speed penalty to the entire move action, it’s not strictly necessary to do so. If the player and DM can handle this additional level of complexity, it’s perfectly okay to rule that you pay an extra movement cost only for each square that you use Tumble to exit without provoking an attack of opportunity (as well as for each square of an enemy’s space that you enter using Tumble).

Klar however occupies a hand, so you cannot hols it while using two handed weapons.

You have mastered the ancient Shoanti fighting style of Thunder and Fang, allowing you to fight with increased effectiveness when wielding an earth breaker and a klar. As you swing at foes with Thunder (your earth breaker), you slash at them with the Fang (your klar).

It has been argued that you can wield an Earthbreaker and klar without the feat, but take some extra penalties that the feat removes. I have never seen anything official either way, but with the feat it works really well and you get to keep the klar's ac bonus even.

What is going on right now is why I disagree using the dictionary to try and explain game rules.

Their is still nothing in the core book that really shows or describes what is meant by a innate ability of any type. Its found in one place and one place only and that is in the Spell Immunity desc.

My opinion and what follows is only that. I am pretty sure that the word for innate spell-like abilities is an oversight left over from when the original designers of 3.x thought all Sp would only happen innate to creatures. What game balance reason would it need to only affect innate Sp, but not a class Sp. Not only is Spell Immunity weakened by having the word Innate in their, but its harder for DMs and players to pickup on that single word during actual game sessions.

Although there is no longer a zero level spell that heals living creatures for actual hit points, since plants are alive any healing spell would heal them as long as they were not dead. This would include the new channel energy features or any mass healing spells, you may want to consider grass and other smaller plants as swarms, then any healing spell would heal the plant life, although asking the cleric to heal all the trampled grass with a channel would also lead to a very good RP as well :D

..
Edit: hmm...I'm reconsidering. I'm not sold on my side of things, any other opinions?

..

Basically I can't understand why he did choose this mushy wording:

"When you use the attack action, you can make one attack ... "

Instead of

"As a standard action, you can make a single attack ..."

or

"As part of a standard action, you can make a single attack..."

The purpose is that a feat that modifies your Attack Action can be combined with other feats that modify your Attack Action, but not with ones that require a Standard Action.

This is why currently you can combine Rapid Shot and Many Shot together as they both use a Full-Attack Action which modifies your Full-Round action.

In the PFRPG their is only one feat that modifies your Attack Action and that is Vital Strike, but their will more than likely be more in the future from paizo.

Oh, another reason spell immunity won't protect against bleeding touch:

Spell immunity states that it protects against "Spells, spell-like effects of magic items, and innate spell-like abilities of creatures".

Bleeding touch is not a spell, it is not a spell-like ability of a magic item, and it is not an innate spell-like ability of a creature. To be innate, it has to be "existing in one from birth; inborn; native" or "originating in or arising from the intellect or the constitution of the mind, rather than learned through experience". Bleeding touch isn't something a character is born with; it is something a character learns through experience. Thus, it is not innate.

In matter of fact the only place I found any rule reference to back up what you said is in the 3.5 FAQ.

What does "innate spell-like ability" mean for the purpose of qualifying for the Supernatural Transformation feat (SS 39)? Does the Innate Spell feat create an innate spell-like ability?
"Innate," for the purpose of the Supernatural Transformation feat, means "gained normally as part of the creature’s race, type, subtype, or kind."

A duergar’s enlarge person and invisibility spell-like abilities, a tanar’ri’s summon tanar’ri spell-like ability, and a juvenile gold dragon’s bless spell-like ability are all "innate" spell-like abilities. A warlock’s invocations, a paladin’s ability to call her special mount, and any spell-like abilities gained from your class, feats, or similar sources are not.

Despite its name, even the Innate Spell feat doesn’t create an "innate" spell-like ability for the purpose of the Supernatural Transformation feat. This is simply an unfortunate case of the same word being used for two different purposes.

The effects listed under Spell Immunity are spells, magic item effects (which frequently, nearly always) duplicate an exact spell, and the spell-like abilities of creatures (also frequently duplicating the effects of a specific spell).

For example reference Mind Blast on an Mind Flayer and you will see that its actually a Sp ability and as it does not duplicate an exact spell it says its the equivalent of a 4th level spell. This means one could use Spell Immunity to become immune to the Mind Blast ability of a Mind Flayer.

Bleeding touch is not subject to the effects of the spell immunity (or the greater or lesser versions thereof) for one very simple reason:

It has no equivalent spell level.

Spell immunity and its derivatives have clearly defined boundaries as to which spells, spell-likes, and magical effects they can grant immunity to. One of those boundaries is spell level. If the effect you're trying to become immune to is outside those boundaries, it is not a valid target for the spell.

Eldritch blast is subject to spell immunity because it does have a defined (if variable) spell level.

As Bleeding Touch is gained at level one then it should be treated as a level 1 spell equivalent. The 2nd domain powers are gained at level 8 so they should be treated as 4th level spell equivalents.

Rewritten in a cleaner format:
0<=5 feet RADIUS = 20%
>5 feet RADIUS = total

I am with nexusphere as nothing I am reading in the spell description seems to indicate that a tiny creature attacking from inside your square would have any miss chance. Lets break the spell description down.

A misty vapor arises around you. It is stationary.
Nice bit of fluff text with a bit of rule information about the mist not being able to move. Nothing about concealment one way or another.

The vapor obscures all sight, including darkvision, beyond 5 feet.
This 2nd sentence means that vision 5ft or further away is affected. Nothing about vision in your square or at 0ft away.

A creature 5 feet away has concealment (attacks have a 20% miss chance).
So this means at 5ft away or one square away all attacks suffer the 20% miss chance. Again nothing about vision in your square or 0ft away.

Creatures farther away have total concealment (50% miss chance, and the attacker cannot use sight to locate the target).
So at 10ft away or further a creature has 50% miss chance caused by being completely unable to see the creature. Still not reading anything about the mist affecting your own square.

After that the 2nd paragraph goes into rules to disperse the mist. So with the above information it means that a creature in your square does NOT suffer any miss chance do to Obscuring Mist, but if in any other square they would start at 20%.

...

ShadowChemosh wrote:

you seem to be showing that if we ignore half the spell description that you are right.

You conveniently ignore the explicit beginning of the spell that requires the effect be a spell, not a spell like ability to focus on the later parts where it extends that protection out to creatures using that spell like ability of the same name as the spell.

Spell Resistance
Only spells and spell-like abilities are subject to spell resistance. Extraordinary and supernatural abilities (including enhancement bonuses on magic weapons) are not. A creature can have some abilities that are subject to spell resistance and some that are not. Even some spells ignore spell resistance; see When Spell Resistance Applies, below.

The Spell Immunity specifically says it affects spell-like abilities as they are spells. From the Spell-Like ability description: "A spell-like ability has a casting time of 1 standard action unless noted otherwise in the ability or spell description. In all other ways, a spell-like ability functions just like a spell."

I am very sorry I can't make this anymore clear. I quoted the rules from the actual book both from the spell and related sections. I think you are latched on to the name of the spell instead of the actual spell description which has the actual rules.

...

You are right on both counts.

The first move is posible, but will require the Spring Attack feat.

Jumping while tumbling imposes a penalty on the jump check according to the modified movement, unless he takes the +10 DC increase for tumbling at full speed. In addition he would be required to make two separate checks, one for jump and one for tumble, with all pertinent penalties. Aside from that, there is no problem with his request.

Things like Armor changes a creatures base speed or barbarian's fast movement, but running through one square of difficult terrain or using tumble for one square only does not change a creatures base speed.

ShadowChemosh wrote:

Please quote exactly where in the rules it says that as I see no such wording in the spell or under spell-like abilities. By their very definition spell-like abilities are just LIKE spells.

Spell immunity protects against spells.

PRPG p. 347 wrote:

The warded creature is immune to the effects of one specified spell for every four levels you have. The spells must be of 4th level or lower. The warded creature effectively has unbeatable spell resistance regarding the specified spell or spells. Naturally, that immunity doesn’t protect a creature from spells for which spell resistance doesn’t apply. Spell immunity protects against spells, spell-like effects of magic items, and innate spell-like abilities of creatures. It does not protect against supernatural or extraordinary abilities, such as breath weapons or gaze attacks. Only a particular spell can be protected against, not a certain domain or school of spells or a group of spells that are similar in effect. A creature can have only one spell immunity or greater spell immunity spell in effect on it at a time.

Read the spell as it is written. It really is not that hard to understand what the intention of the spell is.

It is really simple... just read the spell and stop trying to wrigle something out of it that just isn't there. You are grasping at straws.

You can use the spell any way you want to. Just don't try to make any one think that you are not playing by house rules. Because you are wrong!

You are stating your opinion instead of any facts at all. When you get around to showing me some actual rules to back up your opinion I would be interesting in reading them.

P.S - I fixed your highlighting above to take into account the whole description not just select words.

..

Not if you play by the rules.

The warded creature is immune to the effects of one specified spell for every four levels you have. The spells must be of 4th level or lower. The warded creature effectively has unbeatable spell resistance regarding the specified spell or spells. Naturally, that immunity doesn't protect a creature from spells for which spell resistance doesn't apply. Spell immunity protects against spells, spell-like effects of magic items, and innate spell-like abilities of creatures. It does not protect against supernatural or extraordinary abilities, such as breath weapons or gaze attacks.

The above is showing that any magic that is affected by spell resistance can be used for Spell Immunity.

Please, read the full spell description again.

This spell protects against spells and spell-like abilities that reproduce spells.

Its really simple as you get unbeatable spell-resistance vs a specific magic affect. Spell-Like abilities are affected by Spell Resistance. So their for Spell Immunity works against Spell-Like abilities just like the description says it does. It specifically mentions Supernatural and Extraordinary abilities as not being affect as neither one of those are affected by spell-resistance.

That is all you have to know to correctly use this spell. Does the ability you are making yourself immune to get affected by Spell resistance. If you answer yes and its less than 4th level in power then the magic does not affect you. If the magic you make yourself immune to is not affected by Spell Resistance (ie Acid Arrow) then you are affected by the magic.

James Hunnicutt wrote:

I don't think a spell-like ability from a class is "innate," but it seems totally appropriate that spell immunity could and should be used to block specific class-based spell-like abilities. For example, if I'm about to enter a temple full of priests I anticipate have Death as a domain, I'd like to be able to cast spell immunity against their nasty Bleeding Touch spell-like ability. Thoughts?

Spell immunity protects against spells.

Spell-Like Abilities (Sp): Spell-like abilities, as the name implies, are magical abilities that are very much like spells. Spell-like abilities are subject to spell resistance and dispel magic. They do not function in areas where magic is suppressed or negated (such as an antimagic field). Spell-like abilities can be dispelled and counterspelled as normal.

So a Sp can be defeated by spell resistance. Spell immuntity says "The warded creature effectively has unbeatable spell resistance.."

So you would be casting Spell Immunity vs Bleeding Touch which is a spell-like ability which means Spell Resistance applies and you now have unbeatable SR vs that one specific spell.

Abraham spalding wrote:

Shield proficiency is shield proficiency, weapon proficiency is weapon proficiency. Armor proficiency is armor proficiency and the three shall not cross.

Light armors are: Padded, Leather, Studded Leather, and Chain Shirt.

All this is basics and covered in the pathfinder core rule book or at the website here (link).

That still doesn't answer my question though. I know it SHOULD read something along the lines of "are proficient with light armor and shields (except tower shields)", but was hoping that it was some kind of short hand since that would actually make sense.

The problem I'm having is that apparently swashbucklers can use light shields and light spiked shields as weapons, as per the weapons table, but also can't use them as armour because they're not proficient with them. I'm just wondering how that's possible, and if any penalties would incure? Or, do you just not gain the +1 AC bonus from them, but can still smash someone's head with it?

The above penalty would be on top of the penalty caused by the weapons finesse feat for using a shield.

Weapon Finesse (Combat)
Benefit: With a light weapon, rapier, whip, or spiked chain made for a creature of your size category, you may use your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier on attack rolls. If you carry a shield, its armor check penalty applies to your attack rolls.

Now the quickest method to make all the penalties go away is to use a buckler or shield without an ACP. For example a masterwork buckler has an ACP of zero. So the effective penalty for using it would be zero. Darkwood shields or mithril shields work great for this also.

Liquidsabre wrote:

Once you take on the TWF penalty and gain the extra attack you can't wield the weapon 2-handed to gain the extra damage. Your DM is correct.

Could I get the relevant page number and book where you're getting this information? I couldn't find it anywhere.

Double Weapons
You can use a double weapon to make an extra attack with the off-hand end of the weapon as if you were fighting with two weapons. The penalties apply as if the off-hand end of the weapon were a light weapon.

PRD: Magic

Near the bottom of the page, under "Special Abilities", it reads:

Quote:

Spell-Like Abilities: Usually, a spell-like ability works just like the spell of that name. A spell-like ability has no verbal, somatic, or material component, nor does it require a focus. The user activates it mentally. Armor never affects a spell-like ability's use, even if the ability resembles an arcane spell with a somatic component.

The actual name is "Detect Evil (Sp)" where the (Sp) means its a Spell-Like ability. Yikes looks like they changed Sp in PFRPG or left out alot of the wording from 3.5.

PFRPG Spell-Like Abilities (Sp): Spell-like abilities, as the name implies, are magical abilities that are very much like spells. Spell-like abilities are subject to spell resistance and dispel magic. They do not function in areas where magic is suppressed or negated (such as an antimagic field). Spell-like abilities can be dispelled and counterspelled as normal.

In 3.5 Spell-Like abilities use to say "A spell-like ability has no verbal, somatic, or material component, nor does it require a focus or have an XP cost. The user activates it mentally. Armor never affects a spell-like ability’s use, even if the ability resembles an arcane spell with a somatic component."

Though that information is now missing and it now says specifically that Sp are magical abilities that are very much like spells. which could mean they are suppose to work exactly like spells including needing a materiel component.

Personally I think its another area where they just didn't use the full 3.5 text and so Detect Evil should have no verbal, somatic, or material component needed to use.

At present, I would define a living creature as being a creature that is not categorized as either an undead or construct.

Don't see any reason such information will change in PFRPG.

ShadowChemosh wrote:

[Their is fan based rules FAQ already that does list if the answer came from an official paizo member. Its located on the d20 PFSRD wiki.

Nice link, but none of the questions posed here are answered in the link or have been adressed by designers.
And many of the answers in that link are not official!

I would like an official answer to these questions as well, Understanding of the ACTUAL rules of the game make it easier to make correct adjudications when questions arise mid game.

[EDIT: For JASON and JAMES: If you would please answer these questions I can once again get a decent nights sleep!]

If the questions above get answered officially it will get added to the FAQ, but questions that don't have a clear RAW answer are not part of the FAQ. It seems a little weird to have a question with an answer of "answer not clear check back later." =)

I think its GREAT that paizo guys are willing to give official answers on these boards and I removed the not nice thing I was going to say about every thread ending with asking for an official answer....

a) a starting point for a mini-FAQ -- I believe that there are lots of people who are interested in finding official rulings only, and this could be a handy way to find out if something's been answered as well as save time reading and searching. Let others keep debating if they want.

Their is an Unofficial Errata for Rise of the Runelords and the players guide. It can be found HERE and covers everything mentioned and more.

For the other chapters and additional stuff see this site HERE.

Also don't forget to check out the Paizo Rise of the Runelords Forums which has lots of fan created bonus material for the game.

Brodiggan Gale wrote:

Some call me Tim wrote:

As to the second question, the rules really don't address it. I probably wouldn't allow it, as it offends my sense of how the armor is crafted with the spikes incorporated into the design, but nothing in the rules prevent "bolt-on" or "after-market" accessories.

And now I have to photoshop up a picture of a Dwarf with some sick vinyls, underbody lighting, and a sweet full plate body kit.

Well, I seriously rushed this out, and it's chock full of reaaaaally bad photoshop shortcuts, but hopefully it will amuse someone.

May I present, the aftermarket dwarf (http://img178.imageshack.us/img178/5645/atermarketdwarf.jpg).