Some call me Tim's page

DR does not negate sneak attack damage. The sneak attack damage is not a special effect that accompanies the attack, it is part of the damage roll.

Hope that clears it up.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

james maissen wrote:

It sounds like you are already in an adversarial relationship with the person in question

Why would it be adversarial?

Because that's exactly how it sounded?

We have one person's account of the situation which admits to the guy getting on 'everyone's' nerves. That sounds as if the environment is not the most joyful does it not?

Now, as none of us baring the OP are members of this group, we have no first hand knowledge whatsoever and keep in mind we also just have one side of this.

That side is asking to try to specifically target and neutralize a player's character that the poster identifies negatively with..

So yeah, that sounds adversarial to me. I could be wrong. But I could be right as well. I respond based that it's quacking and walking like a duck for it to be a duck. It may be a plethora of other things, but I'll go with the odds.

-James

I always imagined the flavor of the ability is such that the shadow you summon actually IS your own shadow. You literally animate your own shadow. That's why losing it or banishing it requires a Fort save - you're basically ripping out a part of yourself, and you have to wait a month for it to "grow back," as it were, before you can animate it again. It also explains why it can't create shades, why you can communicate with it, and why it uses your saves and hit points - it functions more closely to a wizard's familiar (with whom he shares a part of his soul) than to a typical summoned creature.

When Pathfinder released the Core, it attempted to learn from the mistakes of 3.5 regarding the decline of the iconic builds.

The bump in power to the iconics was intended, it was stated, to bring them in line with later base releases that were more powerful than the core versions, and becoming more common than intended.

At some point, I expect Paizo is going to need to do a new release. I hope it is more like 3.0 to 3.5 rather than a new version, with a nod to backward compatibility or at least ease of conversion. But I also don't think it is far off as we've reached a point of complexity and loophole manipulation that is making a "common" character build far from common.

With that in mind, I humbly offer these suggestions.

1. Make the core weapons, that is the weapons most commonly used, the best weapons. Because people will commonly use the best weapon. Sure, exotic weapons can be better, but they also require a feat. So if you want a cool new weapon, make it exotic, rather than tacking it on the martial list.

2. When re-designing the classes to be what a single developer envisions them to be, rather than the amalgam some of the recent classes have become. Pick a single developer who loves the class, let them design what they what that class to be thematically, then everyone else playtest it down to power level equality when they are done making it "cool". I am looking particularly at the Monk, Ninja and Gunslinger, but I think this is true of many of the new classes and some of the variant classes that seem to be victim of having too many cooks in the kitchen prior to playtest release.

3. Keep it simpler. Stop adding addendum point systems and alternate rules. If it is a spell like ability you only want them to use so many times a day, make it that. If it is something you want them to always be able to do, make it that. No more "if you have a grit/ki point" stuff that makes players and GMs keep multiple running tallies. Caster classes already do that, which is fine because that is more or less the entirety of the class. Don't make what should be simple, complicated. It isn't a computer game, it's table top.

4. Don't start from scratch. You have built a library we all want to keep using. When 3.5 came out, we didn't have to throw out our 3.0 books, modules and adventures. We still haven't had to, and that is great as it lets everyone play at their own level. But that said...

5. Clear the slate with each class. You did a great job last time with lessons learned from 3.5. Sure, some stuff didn't work, but for the most part the changes really improved the product and play. I feel like a lot of the new classes really just need to get the same treatment you gave to the 3.5 classes.

6. Stop taking concepts you want to exist and trying to force them onto archtypes. I'm not talking the variations of the actual theme archtypes, those make sense and are...well...archtypes. I'm talking things like the Summoner with a powersuit or the bard archaeologist. Those are great concepts, I want to play those things. However when they are shoehorned onto the bard and summoner templates, the unintended consequences of mash up both fail to give us the cool thing we want, as we want it. I don't want to hear about base class creep, if it is a concept that is "big" enough, it deserves proper treatment. And not the "Gunslinger that was going to be a fighter alternate, but then became some Frankenstein's monster of two many ideas in one bag..."

To sum up, good job for the last 5 years or so making what we are currently playing. But we may be reaching a point where a reboot is needed to clear some of the memory. When that time comes, please reboot using the same strategy you used to convert from 3.5.

If you do, I think you will get similar positive results.

If a tree falls in the forest, and no-one is around to make a Perception Check, does it make a sound? The rules are unclear on this.

The rules are clear... everyone in the world makes a perception check but takes the appropriate penalties for distance.

"Hey, Steve. It is really cool that you managed to bump you AC so high, but now, with the disparity between your character and your fellow party members, I'm having a bit of trouble designing varied and appropriate difficulty encounters; they'll either be too easy for you and you'll be bored, or too hard for the others and they will get frustrated. I don't want to have to resort to tricks to damage you regularly that bypass your AC and ruin all of the work that you've done on your character, would you mind doing a slight rebuild or modification to tone it back some? I'd appreciate it a lot."

Remind him of the most important rule. Rule Zero. The one that says that whatever you say, goes.

Do NOT say this, at least not this way. Laying down the rule-zero right off the bat is the surest way to piss off a rule-centric player.

Rule zero is fine, but should not be used to justify a lack of rules knowledge, which is what the rules-centric character is concerned about.

Make them your rules lawyer. Tell them that if they know the exact location of the text off-hand than you'll use it, but otherwise you'll make a "for the moment" ruling while they search. This legitimizes their concern for rules while also ensuring that the game doesn't get slowed down.

In the meantime, it couldn't hurt to learn rules better. There's only so far you can go, but a look-up shouldn't happen more than once or twice a session.

Also, tell them that you reserve the right to make stuff up. This means that sometimes the enemies will have a special ability that you give them for the express purpose of bypassing a normal rule. (For example, give them a special ability that makes their magic not show under detect magic.) This includes the possibility of new spells and/or feats.

I love what Monte Cook said at a seminar at GenCon a few years ago. Instead of restricting what the players can do, try making challenges that REQUIRE them to use their abilities. That way the players feel good that they can use them, and the GM feels good that he doesn't have to worry about them being used at more unexpected times.

Can they fly? make the enemy castle a floating one that they have to fly to, then they get to make the spell useful, and you get to keep it out of the way of the challenges where you don't want them to fly.

I will put it bluntly. Chris, not only were you wrong but you owe that player an apology. It was also so easily handled.

When you get to the goblins, it turns out these goblins love bacon. They go into a bacon! frenzy and react the same way to the pig the same way they would otherwise react to the dog/horse, with only a slightly different motivation. More importantly, your players are delighted.

As for the reflavoring, it's done all the time and sometime is even REQUIRED. For example, I had a an eight year old boy playing the Cheliax faction and his mother sit down last convention for Murder on the Throaty Mermaid. The Cheliax contact in that module is

. It was MY JOB as a GM to work around it, which I did by making her a traveling entertainer and making her

I did the same thing with the zombie wolf in Among the Dead, simply because had a better mini for a giant bird. Stats did not change and the gaming was enhanced.

As a player, I have a paladin who is from Minkai, now 9th level, who uses a glaive she calls it a Naginata, and a bastard sword which is a 'katana'. She worships her divine ancestress, Lady Sun, who the 'gai- I mean inhabits of Avistian call Sarenrae.' She is changing from Andoran to Lantern Lodge for season three but gee, I can't change my feats because the rules don't allow that even though there are NOW stats for the Katana and Naginata. Which is a better? Allowing the the retoactive grandfathered in reflavoring (which won't be repeated with a new character) or lecturing me as a player in front of other players or asking me to gimp my character in in the name of accuracy.

Basically, not going along with cosmetic reflavoring is nothing other than bad GMing, period. I cannot be polite about how strongly I feel about this.

That is totally different from a mechanical mistake like a summoner who took reach multiple times. In those cases, the onus is the player to get their character right and if you have to gimp them at the table, too bad.

Currently there is a debate going on about why sword canes were added if they were not mechanically better than X.

There was a huge thread about the Monk vow of poverty, and how horrible it was.

To which I slam my head repeatedly into my desk.

Crazy thought here, maybe every build isn't an optimal build.

Maybe, and I know I'm going to get a little nuts here but stay with me, maybe some people think flavor is more important that power because maybe they actually play the game to create a story with the DM, and they want to play an interesting character in that story.

Maybe, and this could just be crazy talk, some people think that your huge eideolon with 15 attacks would probably not be allowed in most major cities, or your Svirfneblin or Dhampir may cause some interaction problems in well lit rooms.

Maybe some DM actually ask the question "What do these characters look like when they walk in a room, and how would people react to them"

Maybe a sword cane is less conspicuous and that has value. Maybe as a player you want the challenge of trying to build a monk character without significant gear.

Maybe some of us are less worried that the new splat book didn't give you the broken option you were hoping for so you could show all your friends how awesome your broken combo is in a made up world for a little while until the Devs realize a mistake and errata it.

Maybe...just maybe...some of us like having more options, while still allowing old options to have value and not be obsolete.

Crazy, I know...

Chris: Sara gets more favorites than I do. /sigh

Couple of questions....

A) What's your take on PC death. Personally, I find games where PCs can't die to be bleh. I don't even like it all that much if the PC can only die for doing something stupid (like rushing the dragon at level 3). But there's a lot of GMs/Players out there (especially on the forums) that say you're a **** GM if you kill your players.

B) Similar question about wizard spellbooks/witch familiars. A bunch of forum posters feel that targeting them is a **** move, and that they should be sacrosanct and not targetable. Which brings to mind why even have them, if they're not actually a limitation on the class. That's always been a plus of a sorcerer to me. You can't sunder his books, you can't take away his spells, you can't kill his familiar. If a wizard's spell book is sacrosanct, and so is a Witch's familiar, then why bother with them, just make all casters have a mental place to store their spells.

I prefer to run games with strong storylines in which the player characters are the KEY element of that story—they have plotlines as important as the plotlines of the campaign itself. As a result, I find PC death (or otherwise loosing a PC) to be disruptive, annoying, and frustrating. To combat this, I use hero point-type mechanics in games I run to help give the PCs a bit of control over the fickle hand of fate—a PC who dies due to a monster's lucky critical hit is lame.

Once PCs can cast spells like raise dead or breath of life, then that's certainly a help... but still—having your character die sucks. It means that you can't play the game until your character is brought back to life, and NOTHING you can do in game can really speed that process along.

Any GM who thinks that death isn't a worry or isn't something that players are worried about needs to try playing the game from the player side of things. For a long time, I only ran games, and I kind of had the same feeling about PC death—it's no good if no PCs die, because then the players think you're soft. That's not true. It's not the death that causes stress and tension—it's the possibility of it. Once I played a few campaigns as a player, I really got a new appreciation for GMs who play fair AND who periodically fudge things or make things work periodically in the player's favor. Games where the GM don't do this I find to be too frustrating, and I often lose interest in those games.

As for spellbooks and familiars... why have them? For flavor. That wizards use spellbooks and sorcerers don't is cool—it's compelling and interesting flavor. And it does put a bit more responsibility on the PCs' side to take care of the book or familiar... but a GM who sets out to specifically destroy these thing is a jerk in the same way he'd be a jerk if, say, he knew a ranger took "Favored Enemy (dragon)" and then adjusted every adventure so that there'd never be a dragon in the game.

A GM's MOST IMPORTANT job is to make sure the players have fun, because if they don't have fun, they go away and then the game doesn't happen at all. A GM who is a jerk and enjoys crippling characters by killing them or taking their things away doesn't deserve to play the game.

After casting around in search of the right solution for battlemat condition markers, I realized that there wasn't anything out there that was both immediately legible and completely unobtrusive. I like the Litko markers, but I don't like that the text of them is hidden by the mini. I like the Dark Platypus magnetic flags, but it seems like a lot of rigmarole, and it puts more clutter on the map. I have no desire to use those stacking magnet rings I've seen used elsewhere, and the pipe cleaner/rubberband options just looked bad IMO.

Yeah, I'm picky. Your point?

So I fired up Photoshop and made my own, as I'm sure many before me have done.

As I am currently just getting into the WorldWorks Games paper terrain, cardstock was a natural choice. That said, I wanted something that could be used either as a flat cardstock tag to slide under a mini, or -- in the case of close melee -- in such a way as to show the condition without it being hidden under the bases of surrounding minis.

I made a page of counters to include all possible states (many of them only rarely needed, but hey, it's paper, and I had room). In fact, the only condition left off was "broken," because I couldn't foresee ever needing that on a map.

Here are a few pics of what I came up with: pics of Pathfinder Counters

Here's how they work:

1. Print the .pdf page on 80 lb cardstock or similar. Regular paper works fine, too, but if you want them to last longer than a session, cardstock is a nice choice. NOTE: make sure your print page is set to print at 100% size (no scaling).

2. Grab some scissors (or if you are a papercraft adept, reach for your cutting mat, steel ruler and snap-off blade).

3. Decide whether you want the counters to lie flat on the map, or for the colored tabs to stand up vertically.

3a. If you choose the former, cut just below the colored tabs.

3b. If you choose the latter, cut just above the colored tabs.

That's it! So have at it by clicking the link below: cheap as free, peeps:

Pathfinder Condition Markers

redcelt32, have you checked out the Random Name Generator at Behind the Name? One of the tricks I use is generate a whole bunch of NPC names ahead of time and keep it in my GM notebook and scratch names off as I go.

Tracking right or left handedness isn't something we bother with in Pathfinder. The ONLY time an attack is considered an off-hand attack is when you make an attack with a second weapon in the same round you make an attack with a first weapon.

If you have a longsword in your right hand and a shield in your left, and you only attack with a shield bash in a round, that shield bash is NOT considered an off-hand or secondary attack for that round.

It's a relatively easy bit of house rules to institute handedness, though, if you're looking for that level of additional detail... but that's not a level of detail we want to assume for the core game.

This is a last case scenario, but I'd love for all players to be able to describe their characters VISUALLY to me prior to a PFS session beginning. In my experience, this can sometimes get awkward and non-descriptive for some players. For players that have difficulty with this, I'd love to see them fill out this template:

"[insert name] steps into the [insert lighting/surrounding conditions]
[He/She/It] is a [height description] [perceived race] wearing a [adjective] [clothing or armour]. [He/She] [facial action] with an air of [mood]. [He/She/It] has [adjective] [hair colour or type] and [adjective] [colour] eyes. Strapped to a [adjective] [belt/sash/back] is a [adjective] [favoured weapon/tool/wand/magic item]. You have heard rumours in the Society of [insert name] being connected to [character trait/position in home nation/feat chain choices]. Overall, they look [adjective].

[OPTIONAL:]
At [insert name]'s side there is a [adjective] [animal companion type/eidolon type/mount type]. The creature's eyes regard the surroundings with [personality type]. It [does something the creature normally does out of combat]."

Please note I know there's plenty of great roleplayers who can do much better than this when they introduce their characters. For players who resort to saying things like 'Um, he looks like Bruce Willis in armour. I guess.' This is for them.

Here's an example:

"Oakland steps into the bright sunlight.
He is a ample and coffee-skinned Mwangi human wearing fine noble's velvet in Taldor's colours. He grins with an air of mercantile opportunity. He has neat, short black hair and sparkling brown eyes. Strapped to a stretched warbelt is a inscribed Rod with a healing wand hanging close by. You have heard rumours in the Society of Oakland being connected to the Taldan Summoning School, but having no distinguishing achievements in his time there 'cept for derision raised at his Eidolon. Overall, Oakland looks hearty and confident.

At Oakland's side there is a ridiculously oversized spaniel quadruped Eidolon. The creature's bulging eyes regard the surroundings with passive stupidity. Drool hangs from its maw."

Now you go! Feel free to add some fine tuning!

I've recently put together a method to develop 1" and 2" mini-circle-token thingies for my face-to-face gaming needs, and I thought I'd share.

I got the idea from here, but was too cheap to buy those materials and tools. Plus, I'm impatient, so I didn't want to order anything online. Everything below is available at my local Wal-Mart and HobbyLobby. Hopefully your home town has similar. Anyway, here goes...

You will need:

A) A printer that can handle thick paper. Preferably a color ink jet.

B) Texture-backed card stock - Wal-Mart, ~$6/50 sheets

C) White construction paper - HobbyLobby, ~$2/50 sheets OR Wal-Mart, ~$2/8 sheets (in a multi-color pack, wherein you give the colors to your kid and keep just the white sheets, etc)

D) Paper-cutter and/or scissors. (Must trim 1/2" from construction paper so it goes through the ink jet. Also helps to slice rows of tokens into ribbons for easy punching.) - Wal-Mart, ~$11 for the sliding-razor blades model cutter.

E) Spray-on adhesive. I used Elmer's Craft Glue and it works great. - Wal-Mart, ~$6/can.

F) Used pizza box or similar disposable surface.

G) 1" inch and 2" inch scrap-booking 'Craft Lever' punches. Like so. - HobbyLobby, ~$9/$11

H) TokenTool. This will require Java as well, but you probably have that already.

J) OpenOffice or similar to lay-out the images for printing.

I) Stock images. Google images works well. Also wallpapers on this site, from the pfsrd site, or from within your pdfs. You decide...

Steps:

1) Locate the desired image. Save it in an 'images' folder.

2) Open TokenTool. Drag and drop the image from the images folder onto the software. Use the scroll to resize the image and drag whatever representation you wish into the circle on the left. The right-hand side will preview your token. Select whichever border-ring suits you best, and save the file in a 'tokens' folder.

3) Repeat until you've covered all the imaginable tokens you might wish. You can get a LOT of them on a single page, depending on their size, as you'll see in a moment.

4) Open OpenOffice Writer (or similar). Go into the Page preferences and set the size to 12" long. Also set the margins to the minimum your printer will support.

5) Drag a token from your 'tokens' folder onto the new document. Position it in the corner. Drag all subsequent tokens adjacent to the first one. OO handles this rather well. Where necessary, resize the image to be exactly either 1"x1" or 2"x2". You can also copy+paste image squares to easily make rows of the same creature.

6) Save this file. You never know.

7) Take a sheet of the construction paper and trim off one half inch from either side. Make sure you get a straight, even cut. If you slip up, trim it again. Better too small than it causing a jam.

8) Load that sheet, all by itself, into your printer.

9) Print the document from above. Go nudge the paper into the pickup rollers on the printer, if need-be.

10) Take the printed sheet and lay it face-down on your pizza box. Take your spray glue and give it a generous coating. Don't be afraid to over-spray. That's what the box is for...

11) Take a sheet of the card stock, hold the textured side TOWARDS YOURSELF, and lay it down against the now-sticky, face-down construction paper. Count to five and peel the two off the pizza box carefully.

12) Let the glue set. 30 minutes is plenty.

13) Trim the margins off of your sheet, so you can get your punch in close to the circles. Optionally, use your cutter to slice your rows of tokens into strips. If you do, expect some square edges on your circles. If you don't have a pair of scissors handy to get all the resulting triangles out of your way while cutting. I recommend the strips. Your call, though.

14) Remove the plastic shield/catch from the bottom of your punch. They're not intended to make circles. They're intended to make holes. Plus you'll need to see what you're doing.

15) Position the punch upside down and slide it over the circle you intend to cut. You should see the finished product in the bottom of the punch before you squeeze it. This is your last chance to make them look nice, so be careful.

16) Punch, punch, punch your way to glory. Set them aside and let them harden/dry fully.

NOTES:

i) Watch the thickness of your materials. That 1" punch won't take anything so thick as cardboard and punch it cleanly. Remember this when shopping for cardstock. Thin is fine. The textured back is key, as it will help keep them from slipping around on the game surface.

ii) DO NOT CLEAR COAT THEM. I tried a lot, a lot, a lot of different ways to seal them and wasn't happy with any of the results. Unless you're some kind of spray-sealer expert, just skip it. Besides, you can always print more, right?

Thanks guys, and I hope you enjoy your tokens as much as I'm grooving on mine.

What sort of reward would be appropriate for a party of 7th level characters?

I always reward my players with pain and suffering. The question should be, now that they've rescued the king's wife and son, who wants them dead for it?

-Skeld

Now that the FAQ is being more frequently updated, I figured I'd bump this thread and mark it as a FAQ candidate :)

So, for specific phrasing:

"Should 'Spiritual Weapon' and 'Spiritual Ally' use base attack bonus + Charisma modifier (instead of Wisdom) when cast by an Oracle?"

"Will future printings include more standardized phrasing for spells that should use the relevant casting stat, now that there are divine casters whose spells are not based on their Wisdom modifier?"

Is there a definitive FAQ on the topic of what you add or do not add when calculating CMB/CMD?

I know there are a lot of posts on this topic - but I am looking for one clear authoritative statement (if such a legendary item exists!).

yes, there is. It's not a written statement, but it is in the Core Rulebook/PRD. It gives the information you're looking for.

Please see the Core Rules: Combat: Combat Maneuvers section

Combat Maneuvers

Each character and creature has a Combat Maneuver Bonus (or CMB) that represents its skill at performing combat maneuvers. A creature's CMB is determined using the following formula:

CMB = Base attack bonus + Strength modifier + special size modifier

[...]

Some feats and abilities grant a bonus to your CMB when performing specific maneuvers.

Performing a Combat Maneuver

[...]

When you attempt to perform a combat maneuver, make an attack roll and add your CMB in place of your normal attack bonus. Add any bonuses you currently have on attack rolls due to spells, feats, and other effects.

If you're using a weapon for the manuever then add the weapon's enhancement to your attack roll and/or weapon focus in addition to the normal attack modifiers (like flanking, etc.).

Combat Maneuvers: Combat Maneuver Defense

CMD = 10 + CMB +Dexterity modifier + miscellaneous modifiers
Each character and creature has a Combat Maneuver Defense (or CMD) that represents its ability to resist combat maneuvers.

[...]

Miscellaneous Modifiers
A creature can also add any circumstance, deflection, dodge, insight, luck, morale, profane, and sacred bonuses to AC to its CMD. Any penalties to a creature's AC also apply to its CMD. A flat-footed creature does not add its Dexterity bonus to its CMD.

Hope that helps!

For Pathfinder Society, the prices for all consumables, such as scrolls, that use spells from the cleric/druid/wizard spell list are based on the cost of that item as made by a cleric/druid/wizard regardless of the class's spell list it is on. This means a bard can buy a scroll of cure light wounds at the cleric/druid/wizard scroll cost but still buy it as an arcane scroll of cure light wounds. This also means that a paladin can buy a scroll of lesser restoration at the cleric/druid/wizard scroll cost and still cast it as a paladin scroll.

Scrolls that contain spells that do not appear on the cleric/druid/wizard list are made at the appropriate costs for their classes.

The attitude of 'if it isn't explicitly spelled out because its glaringly obvious then it doesn't apply' can be a dangerous way to look at the rules. I don't think it needs errata./QUOTE]

This.

Common sense suggests that you drop your weapon in your square when you go unconscious or die.

At least, it does to me. If it doesn't to any other GMs out there, they should absolutely rule otherwise in their game.

How does your DM handle that? Or if you are a DM, how do you handle it?

I'd say, "How about you let Hobbun play his character, and you play your character?"

Want to add a +1 to hit with Horseshoes. How?

Skip the horseshoes, just buy a masterwork horse. Voila! +1 to-hit.

No need to get upset about it. Next time, just say, "I'm ruling it this way for now so we can get on with the combat, we can discuss it later." That gives both sides time to think about the rules... and gather evidence. :)

Sean K. Reynolds wrote:

If I make you think about the rules and you develop a reasonable interpretation of how they work, you're a better GM and a better player, and don't need to rely on an "official" ruling from the staff.

[smaller]Let's look at it this way: From a game mechanics perspective, is there any difference between the following two abilities?
1) A class ability that gives you the ability to channel energy.
2) A revelation, feat, racial ability, magic item, spell, or other ability that gives you the ability to channel energy.

First, let me give a bit of background. Back when I was at Wizards, at the start of 3E I worked with Jonathan Tweet on a bunch of advice columns, including an article called "How to Design a Feat." One of the concepts we established was "things should be the same, or they should be different." (And by "different" I mean "very different" so you don't mix up the two.) That concept helps players remember different rules--if rule X is already in the game, and you're creating new rule Y that works a lot like X, you should either (1) make Y work EXACTLY like X, or make Y work differently than X. That way, players can remember that Y works like X, or not accidentally confuse how Y and X work. And if Y feels a lot like X, it's almost certainly supposed to work like X, and things that attach to X should be able to attach to Y.

For example, imagine an alternate universe where the PFRPG feat Improved Trip gave a +2 bonus on trip maneuvers, but Improved Sunder gave a +3 on sunder maneuvers, Improved Grapple gave a +4 on grapples, and Improved Disarm gave a +2, and only some of them said you didn't provoke an AOO for attempting the maneuver. That would be incredibly confusing and hard to remember--unless you were a total memory freak, every time you encountered one of those feats you'd have to look up the exact bonus it gave because the listed bonuses were all very similar, and you'd have to look up whether or not it provoked an AOO because there wasn't a clear pattern to which ones did or didn't. Instead, in this universe, all of those feats give a +2, they all let you do the maneuver without provoking an AOO, and all of them give you a +2 to your CMD when defending against that sort of maneuver. Not only does this mean the feats are balanced against each other, but they're consistent and therefore easy to remember. Likewise, all of the +2/+2 skill feats give you +2 to two skills, not +1 to one skill and +3 to another skill. Consistency in rules means you have to memorize fewer specifics and just remember things like "the core skill bonus feats give +2/+2" and "the improved maneuver feats are all +2 offense/+2 defense/no AOO." That helps you play the game and run the game.

So when the cleric class has a header section called "Class Features" and under that is an entry that says "Channel Energy," and the oracle class has a section called "Class Features" and under that is an entry that says "Channel: You can channel positive energy like a cleric," and the paladin class has a section called "Class Features" and under that is an entry that says "Channel Positive Energy (Su): ... she gains the supernatural ability to channel positive energy like a cleric," those all are intended to work the same way, even though they're not given identical names. For one, because the paladin and oracle "versions" of that ability tell you it works like the cleric "version" of the ability. For two, because having them all work the same way is simpler and easier to remember than each of them working a different way. Now, given, the oracle gets 1+Chamod per day instead of the cleric's 3+Chamod, and the paladin spends uses of lay on hands instead of a separate X/day allotment, but if you line up a good cleric 5, a life oracle 5, and a paladin 5, and tell each of them to channel a burst of positive energy, all three of them are healing 3d6 to living or dealing 3d6 to undead, DC 10 + 1/2 level + Chamod, 30 ft. radius, no AOO, and so on. Exactly the same. Because it's easier to remember that way. Because it makes the game easier to run that way.

And that means things like Improved Channel and Alignment Channel and Extra Channel should apply equally to the cleric, life oracle, and paladin (you'll note for Extra Channel the paladin ability's counting method of uses per day for the feat is slightly diff because the paladin ability is based on using lay on hands, but the net result is the paladin gets +2 uses of channel per day, just like the cleric and oracle). Because to do otherwise means we need different versions of these feats for oracles and paladins because under the strictest interpretation, neither of them has a class ability that's specifically and explicitly named "channel energy;" and three sets of redundant identical feats for clerics, oracles, and paladins is lame and a waste of space.

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck. If you line up Daffy Duck, Donald Duck, Duckman, and Howard the Duck, from a game standpoint it makes sense that a +1 duck-bane arrow is going to do +2d6 damage in addition to normal arrow damage if you shoot any of them, because they're all ducks. And if you shot that arrow at "Duckie" from Pretty in Pink, it wouldn't get any bonus damage, because he isn't a duck. And you should be able to see why those first four are ducks and the last one isn't.

And if for some reason two things that seem almost the same (like "channel energy" vs. "channel" vs. "channel positive energy") shouldn't act exactly the same, count on us to tell you how it is different. For example, take the necromancer "power over undead" ability; you can't heal or harm with it, but you can use Command Undead or Turn Undead with it (both of which are based on channeling), and can take feats that augment those two applications, but not feats that alter your purpose away from undead. So, necromancers get an ability that works just like channel energy, except (1) it always works like Command Undead or Turn Undead (i.e., no heal-harm aspect), and (2) can't ever be used on something other than undead. Does the necromancer have an ability called "channel energy"? No. Does it let you do stuff that clerics with Command Undead or Turn Undead can? Yes. In those cases, does it work exactly like channel energy modified by those feats? Yes. Does it make sense that the necromancer can use feats and abilities that rely on channel energy as long as the feat or ability augments their power over undead? Yes. So if there was a "Prerequisite: channel energy class feature" feat that increase the number of d6s you healed or harmed, would you let a necromancer take it? No, because their channel never heals or harms. If there was a "Prerequisite: channel energy class feature" feat that increased the number of HD of undead you could command or turn at one time, would you let a necromancer take it? Yeah, because that sounds exactly like something the necromancer should be able to do with his channeling ability, as it's something a Command Undead/Turn Undead cleric ought to be able to do it. What about a channel feat that changed the area from a sphere to a cone? Sure, because you could see a Command Undead/Turn Undead cleric taking that feat.

Sometimes rules aren't going to have the exact same name or wording.
* Part of that is because things are designed by different people and one prefers one wording to another.
* Part is because we don't want similar chunks of text near each other to be identical, because that's an awkward read and is boring.Note that the descriptions for flaming and frost aren't exactly identical, even though they work basically the same way. And would you really want the cleric class ability to be written as "channel energy (positive)" or "channel energy (negative)"? And the paladin ability as "channel energy (positive)"? And the necromancer ability "channel energy (positive, Turn Undead only)" or "channel energy (negative, Command Undead only)"? I mean, c'mon, try using that in a sentence. :/
* Part is because between book A and book B we've decided a better way to phrase a rule so it's clear to more people, so B's rule looks or is named just a little different than A's rule.
* Part is because English is a very flexible language, and whether you say "Sean kissed Jodi on their first date" or "Jodi was kissed by Sean on their first date," you should understand there was a kiss.
* Part of it is we have to wrap some text around a piece of art or make sure that a paragraph ends at the bottom of a page so a new header can start at the top, so we alter a word or two so the lines break differently. Not important words like "as a cleric of your level," but stuff that keeps the same intent. A paladin's ability could have been written as "Channel Energy: You channel energy as a cleric of your level. Paladins always channel positive energy, never negative energy, etc. etc." but it's cleaner to present it the way it is, rather than presenting negative channeling as a possible option for the paladin and then taking it away in the next sentence.
* And part of it is sometimes we make mistakes and don't write things as clearly as we should, or forget some obscure combination in this very complex game, or an author use a pre-errata wording of an ability when writing a new ability.

Could the game be more "perfect" by using exactly the same terminology? Yes, mostly. But I think holding that up as some kind of ideal is a pipe dream. Even programmers, who copy a subroutine from one part of a program to use as a model in a different part, still make changes sometimes, either because they better understand how the coding works since they wrote the original sub, or something unique is needed for that sub in the new location, or whatever.

But, as Monte says, "the DM is not a robot." Players aren't robots, either. And as James Wyatt says, "You can never write a rule that is so clear that *everyone* understands it." Skip Williams used to get Sage Advice questions like, "Do I have to take Power Attack before I take Cleave?" Obviously the answer is "yes"... but it wasn't obvious to that reader, for some reason. Now, that's a very simplistic example, and the "channel energy class feature" prereq is not a simplistic example, but I think you get the gist of it: sometimes you're going to have to make rulings based on how you think the rules fit together. Sometimes it's more obvious than others how those rules fit together, but if they seem to have the same root, it's better to assume they're supposed to work the same way than to doubt your own ability to realize the similarities between them.

If "channel energy" and "channel positive energy" and "channel" aren't all class features (even though they're all listed in the "Class Features" part of their respective class writeups, and even though the book never defines exactly what a "class feature" is, although each class's "Class Feature" entry does say "The following are class features of the [class]" or even "All of the following are class features of the [class]"), you'd have to wonder why the Core Rulebook didn't include paladin versions of Improved Channel and Turn Undead that have "channel positive energy" as a prerequisite. And you'd have to wonder why consecrate boosts cleric channel energy DCs but not paladin channel positive energy DCs (the spell specifically says "The DC to resist positive channeled energy..." which probably means a cleric channeling positive energy, but is unclear if that also means a paladin's "channel positive energy" ability). And so on. When, realistically, it makes sense that paladins should be able to take Improved Channel, and that consecrate should affect paladin channel DCs just as well as it affects cleric positive channel DCs. And likewise for life oracles. And necromancers.

Things should be the same, or they should be different.

(To be continued, as I don't want to lose this post....)

(Actually, I'm going to bed, I'll address the other points tomorrow!)

To be honest i'd prefer developers not to come in and answer rules questions. I feel thats what the FAQ system is for.

As a knock on effect, now theres an trend towards people on the forums insisting on a developer response and calling them out in thread titles. It just doesn't sit well with me personally.

Which is why I don't give rules responses to "Developer response needed!" threads.

ProfessorCirno wrote:

You are either ignoring or misinterpreting what I am saying.

Welcome to my world. :P

When 50 people read something and get the same impression the problem isn't the readers. The emotionless and expressionless nature of text does not easily transmit the the subtle things like sarcasm and tone that you may mean when you type. Combine this with a relative lack of context because most of the communication here is so brief (compared with a book or even an article) and you leave the reader with little or no means to detect a subtle distinction that you think you're conveying. This has to be taken into account when writing.

Also, when you're asking about the very specific wording on a ruling, it would help if you would just cut to the chase and explain how you plan on exploiting it in the beginning rather than starting the semantics discussion first.

These terms mean different, very specific things:

* wizard spell list (all spells that have "wizard" in the Level line, which a wizard could potentially learn)
* wizard spells known (a subset of the above category, consisting of the wizard spells a particular wizard has written down in his spellbook)
* wizard spells prepared (a subset of the above category, consisting of the wizard spells known that wizard has prepared that day)

A wizard can use a wand if its spell appears on the wizard spell list. :)

Um...Shouldn't the designers and developers agree upon how a rule should work before publishing the rule?

I can read a rule and understand how it works. Jason or Stephen can do the same. We talk to each other after our readthroughs to clear up any questions we have. But that still means it's possible for me to read the rule and interpret the answer as "π," and for Jason and Stephen to read the rule and interpret the answer as "22/7." All three of us are right, it's just in some corner cases where the slight differences in our rightness is an issue. Or, to look at it differently, it's possible for all three of us to agree that it's "22/7," and when the book is published have a player point out that using π instead of 22/7 affects things elsewhere in the game.

More importantly, sometimes we disagree on whether or not a rule is "clear enough." In most cases, it's impossible to make a rule clear enough that EVERYONE who reads it is going to exactly understand all permutations of how it works... and trying to get close to that 100% comprehension would mean many feats and spells would be a page long. So sometimes we discuss something, agree that it's not clear enough as written, and add a sentence or two to clarify it... which may put us at 99.9% clarity, but there's still that .1% of the readers that aren't going to get exactly what we mean, or are going to think of some weird combo we never thought to address (like a four-armed magus using spell combat, a 2H weapon, and a buckler). Just remember that for every rule that you think is perfectly clear, there's a Sage Advice question from a player to Dragon Magazine about that rule (for example, one person actually asked "Do I have to take Power Attack before I can take Cleave?").

Do I think that most of the rules are clear enough for a typical player? Yes. Do I think that many of them are too wordy and could be written in a more clear and concise manner? Yes. Do I think that confusion about an unclear rule means you're stupid? No. There are unclear rules in the books. High up on the list are the Spellcraft/crafting issue, the animal companion Intelligence issue, and the HIPS/Stealth issue. The reason why those issues were/are part of the design blog was so we could work out a ruling and get the Core Rulebook changed to include that ruling in a clear way. And for those things, Jason, Stephen, and I want to sit down for an hour to discuss each of them so we work it all out. Jason could have just posted a two-sentence response to each of those topics just to be done with it, but it deserves more thought than that and he knows it, so we're going to give it the time it deserves--and now that the Beginner Box is just about out the door, we can take that hour-per-topic to deal with this important issue. Yes, it sucks that these issues haven't yet been answered... but I'd rather they be reasoned out and answered in a correct and fair way, than giving a half-assed answer that may later have significant conflicts with other rules.

leo1925 wrote:

1)When you normally recover a dropped weapon you need a move action and you provoke AoO, now with a weapon cord you can recover it with a swift action but does it provoke AoO or not?

Free actions and swift actions are not automatically exempt from attacks of opportunity. Because, it does not state that this does not provoke I would rule that you provoke as normal.

Correct. It doesn't state that it changes whether or not you provoke, so it doesn't change it.

2)What action does it require to "wear" the weapon cord? Free? the cord is simply part of the weapon and i am assumed that i "wear" the cord when i draw my weapon? or what?

Since it takes a full-round action to untie the cord, it seems logical to assume that it would take at least a full-round action to tie the cord.

I don't see anything that restricts you from doing this long before a fight, but remember that its two-foot length might restrict other activities.

I agree with this, too.

All things are up to DM discretion.

Yes, but that's as much of a cop-out answer as explaining everything in your campaign as, "um, a wizard did it."

Creatures can only wears rings on fingers (and can only use two rings at once) for a reason in the game. Changing that requires you to think about the reason for it and the consequences of changing it.

Here's some advice to people planning to design archetypes (it's too late to affect this round, it's really just an FYI):

1) Just because the math is the same doesn't mean it has the same value.
Not all skills have the same value. Appraise is a much weaker skill in the game than Perception. Handle Animal is weaker than Stealth. And so on.
A bonus on sunder checks is less useful than a bonus on grapple checks because grapple comes up far more often than sunder.
So when you take away bardic knowledge (+1/2 level to all Knowledge checks) and giving them +1/2 level to combat-useful skills like Bluff, Perception, and/or Stealth, it isn't an even trade. Even taking a rogue's trapfinding (+1/2 level to Perc and DD against traps) and applying it to all Perc checks is a significant powerup because you use generic-Perception far, far more than you use trap-Perception.

2) An offensive bonus is more valuable than a defensive bonus of the same number.
The game favors offense over defense. Attack bonuses increase faster than AC bonuses, and that's intentional so higher-level fights don't become stale (you hit more often at higher levels, and your iteratives are at least somewhat viable). So if you take away a class ability that gives +X to AC or saving throws and replace it with an ability that gives +X to attack rolls or DCs, that is a powerup.

3) It is safer and easier to trade abilities one-for-one.
Until you really know what you're doing, don't try to swap two weak abilities for a stronger one, and don't try to add another penalty/limitation ability to compensate for a swapped ability that's stronger than what it's replacing. Just focus on class abilities one at a time and balance what you're swapping in against what you're swapping out.
So if you're doing a rogue archetype and want to swap evasion for something, try to balance what you're bringing in against *just* evasion. If your ability is too powerful, don't think, "oh, I'll just say the archetype also loses trapfinding, that'll compensate for this new ability"... instead, tone down the ability so it's balanced against evasion.
(This also means the archetype is open to more characters who want to experiment with multiple archetypes, because you're swapping fewer abilities.)

4) Limiting an existing class ability to one already-available choice isn't cool, nor is it a limitation.
A rogue archetype that says "you have to take this rogue talent at level 4" isn't cool.
A fighter archetype that says "you have to take this weapon category at level 5" isn't cool.
And, assuming that choice is especially appropriate for that character, it's not really a limitation because the character would probably want that thing anyway. A character with a dagger-fighter archetype wants to take "light blades" for weapon training, so forcing him to do it isn't a limitation to the character at all, and you shouldn't treat it like it's a penalty or weakness to justify making another new class ability better (as in, "oh, the daggermaster has to take "light blades," so to compensate for that limitation I'll give the archetype this other cool thing...").

5) Giving away too much at low-levels encourages multiclass dipping.
If your class gives away a lot of cool stuff at low levels (particularly 1st or 2nd, and especially if it compensates for that by cutting higher-level abilities), you've just given minmaxers a good reason to take a level in that class just for those goodies that augment their main class.

6) Don't swap in a new ability that's simply better than the original.
Don't swap out wild shape for an ability that's wild shape + rage. Don't swap out Weapon Spec for an ability that's Weapon Spec + Improved Disarm. And so on. (See also #3, as that and this often go hand in hand.)

7) Keep in mind the character level where comparable abilities become available.
If another class gains a certain ability or spell at level X, don't award that spell or ability to this class before level X. Especially if that's a key ability of that class. Frex, you shouldn't give an ability like fireball or fly before character level 5 (when a wizard could get those spells), nor should you give teleport effects before character level 7 (when a wizard would have access to dimension door).

Krome wrote:

I would rather get myself killed by a melted face from avenging angels than die from a stupid freaking giant water bug. A WATER BUG! A freaking TPK from a WATER BUG!

Think the worst death I had ever seen was from a homebrew elemental made from a corn crop. The player walked out into the field and we found him dead with corn cobs stuck in unmentionable places. The player never showed his face again. Think the GM said it was an illusion later on that killed him...

No wait, a player died once by trying to climb down a 80' cliff holding a bull's eye lantern. He slipped, and survived with 3Hps. The GM rolled to hit because the bull's eye lantern fell after him. it hit and killed him. It was a bloody mess.

What a bad GMing job. seriously?! That happened?

If he was holding it when he fell, wouldn't it be considered "equipt" and therefore part and parcel of said "falling damage"? He would no more take damage from it that he would his other "equipt" items, like weapons, backpack, etc. It's part of the damage "calculations".
Sounds like the GM was out to "win" to me.

One of my "basic" GM rules : Heroes do not die ignoble deaths unless they work to deserve it. Accidents of dice rolling happen, do not punish the player for it.

Now the elemental situation just sounds funny and gross all at the same time. heh

Hi all,

I talked to Bill this weekend and received some big news in regards to The Tome of Horrors Complete (PF and S&W editions).

In order to have the books available by Gen Con, we are closing the preorders after June 30th so we will know how many of each to print. We will likely print a few extras, but the books are going to be fairly expensive to print on anything other than a large scale, so there is unlikely to be a reprint (not impossible, but there would have to be a huge demand to justify the cost). So while the pdf will remain available, those hoping to catch a physical copy other than through preorder could have difficulty finding it. There have been some copies ordered for distribution through Noble Knight and Troll and Toad I believe, but again due to its prohibitive cost I don't believe that there will be very many on store shelves. Frog God is just a little company, and this is hugemongous book, so we can't just flood the market with copies without knowing how many will sell or not.

So I just wanted to let you all know; no rush and no need to panic, but we did have to set a hard date on which to end preorders so we can actually print the book, and I wanted to make sure you all knew with as much prior notice as possible.

Thanks, Greg

Sometimes you need a little help fighting monsters, especially when one or more have completely wiped out your stalwart band of adventurers—several times. Kobolds, of course, recognize the necessity for adding a little firepower to the group when that sort of thing happens.

To assist all those hapless, soon-to-be-dead-meat adventurers out there, Kobold Quarterly is starting a new contest, the Relics of Power contest! This time around our focus is on artifacts. We want you, our fans, to design some amazingly useful and interesting artifacts that adventurers can use to vanquish all those nasty villains and powerful monsters that keep pestering them. Each artifact will be evaluated by a panel of industry professionals and by the fans. And, yes, fame and prizes play a part in this.

So, what do you need to do? First, read all the stuff below, then start designing!

Here’s how it works: To enter this contest, your artifact submission MUST…

• Be sent to the Relics of Power Contest—that is, to relicsofpower(at)koboldquarterly(dot)com—no later than June 30, 2011, by noon PST. (That’s a little less than two weeks from now!)
  
• Be submitted as a doc, docx, or rtf attachment.
  
• Read Relics of Power Submission [insert artifact name] in the email’s subject line. Your full name and contact information should be in the body of the email (not in your attachment).
  
• Be designed for Pathfinder Roleplaying Game/3rd Edition D&D, 4th Edition D&D, or the AGE system.
  
• Be 800 words or less, follow the format used for artifacts in each system, and have the appropriate flavor text and lore to flesh out your creation.
  

Who's judging?
Wolfgang Baur (KQ, Dungeon, Dragon, Planescape...you know this guy),
Jeff Grubb (Midgard, Al-Qadim, all-around-RPG-legend), and ...
Christopher Bodan (Kobold Quarterly, Privateer Press, Zombie Skies, and Soda Pop Miniatures.)

Minor and major artifacts are welcome! And they don’t necessarily have to be completely combat-oriented—have fun with them. Find all the extra details and other rules here, at Koboldquarterly.com.

-The Kobold Quarterly News Minion.
--
-Small but Fierce.

So my advice is - roll with it. Sometimes the ending of the story is a surprise, even for the person running the game. That's not a bad thing.

Amen. You might even get a story like this.

I am curious to know how others handle it. It being the big final battle, the climatic battle of heroes vs bad guy. the DM has spent weeks, or months, working on this campaign, and this bad guy/thing is tweaked just right, just enough to make things very difficult for the PCs to over come, with plenty of magic and mundane items, terrain favorable to the npc, and just enough minor npc's for cannon fodder. but then, at game time, one PC comes up, gets a lightning bolt to the face, then proceeds to make his attack roll. on his first attack swing, he rolls a natural 20. he then confirms his crit, and ends up doing so much damage that the NPC is literally turned into goo.

.
.
.
how do you handle that?

Firstly, I rue my poor BBEG design. No supervillain worth his salt should go down to one critical hit.

Secondly, I use my description to turn it into a crowning moment of awesome for the PC: "You charge toward your foe, and take a surging lightning bolt hammering into your chest with barely a wobble, so focused are you on this terrible foe. As your sword arm raises, images of all the terrible suffering he has created flash through your mind and your righteous indignation drives on your sword arm with incresible force. You are almost willing the destruction of this terrible enemy of virtue!
Finally, your blade powers through his magical protections and wickedly curved armour. All come to nought in the face of your skill and fury. As your flashing blade sinks deep into the enemy's flesh he grants you one disbelieving, incredulous look before sinking to the floor, defeated. Dead."

Frequently Unknown Rules (through post 570)
Frequently unknown rules
including summary from: Things you might have missed
FAQs and other Reference Pages:
Pathfinder Core Rulebook FAQ
Pathfinder Bestiary FAQ
Pathfinder Advanced Player’s Guide FAQ

This is a list compiled by the users of http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards. The contents are those items identified as rules that are often unknown or forgotten, whether these were rules new to Pathfinder, rules that had changed from D&D or SRD 3.5 to Pathfinder, or which have not changed, but are frequently unknown, missed or forgotten. This list avoids taking a position on subjects that are highly debated and irresolvable due to rules conflicts or ambiguity. On the other hand, items that come up frequently, but are easily answerable by a direct reading of the rules, are included, as are both positions if the distinction is easy to explain. It also does not attempt to comment on every possible change. In particular, for Spells and Feats, only those that are extremely common or have wide-ranging impact are included.

The list is ordered by the type of change and then in by the order of the Pathfinder Core Rulebook chapters. Items that fall in multiple areas often appear in both. This list is an ongoing project and is unlikely to ever be complete. If you see something missing, add it. Changes from the last summary are shown in italics.
Change from SRD/D&D to Pathfinder (includes brand new to PF)
Races
1. Elves sleep, but are still immune to magical sleep.

Classes
1. Class Hit Dice changes in many areas. In general, HD are tied to BAB progression.
2. Barbarians rage x rounds/day instead of x times/day
3. Bardic performances no longer based on Perform skill (other than Countersong and Distraction) and the bard can do other things while performing without interrupting a performance, such as cast spells. In SRD/3.5, a verbal performance would be interrupted by spellcasting.
4. Bardic Knowledge is changed. Bards get bonus to knowledge checks and can use untrained.
5. Clerics don’t get heavy armor proficiency, get proficiency with deities favored weapon, and need a feat to turn undead.
6. Fighters can retrain bonus feats.
7. Monk flurry of blows different.
8. Paladin double of smite against some creatures is on first attack only. Note, this is an errata that did not appear in early editions of the Core Rulebook.
9. Caster level for ranger and paladins is class level –3 with a minimum of 1. In SRD, these classes had caster level of class level/2, minimum of 2.
10. Ranger favored enemy bonus applies to attack rolls as well as damage.
11. Cantrips and orisons are at-will
12. Uncanny Dodge changed: character with uncanny dodge is not flat-footed.
13. Wizard specialists can now take spells from their opposed schools, but such spells cost two slots to prepare. All wizards, whether specialist or not, gain abilities at levels based upon their specialty.
14. Wizards can opt to have a bonded object instead of a familiar. A bonded object provides various benefits for use and penalties if unavailable.

Skills
1. Concentration is no longer a skill. New mechanic makes it tougher for multi-classed characters.
2. Stealth/Perception changed in multiple ways from multiple skill set in SRD. The details are complex and outside the scope of this document.
3. Alchemical items no longer require CL1 for some items.
4. Blind creatures use Acrobatics check to move faster than half speed else prone. Cannot run or charge.
5. Animals do not gain armor proficiency via any form of trick training. The animal type description text regarding trained for war leaves the discussion as well. Armor proficiency for animals is obtained through feats.
6. Acrobatics is now used for jumping. Acrobatics is a Dex skill, whereas Jump was a Strength based skill. The speed penalty for speed below 20-feet is reduced to –4 per 10 feet less than 30. The running start needed to require lower DC is reduced from 20 feet distance to 10 feet. Reducing the damage from a jump/fall down can only be accomplished if the jump is deliberate; in SRD, one could tumble to reduce damage from an unintentional descent.
7. Diplomacy checks are modified by the target’s Charisma modifier.

Feats and Traits
1. Many Shot and Rapid Shot can now be used together.
2. Dodge applies to all opponents, not just one specified opponent.
3. Improved Trip and Improved Disarm split into a feat tree (Improved and Greater)
4. Grapple works differently. Some highlights: grapplers no longer share space. Ranged attacks into a grapple no longer risk hitting the wrong target. Grappled creatures threaten surrounding squares and can attack into them (at –2 to hit). Effects on AC and sneak attack are debated (see below). Effectively, while changed, grapple is still problematic.
5. Power Attack, Cleave, Greater Cleave, and Combat Expertise all different.
6. Track is no longer a feat
7. Far Shot halves range penalty instead of increasing range.
8. Mounted Combat now uses immediate action rather than 1/round language.
9. Animals do not gain armor proficiency via any form of trick training. The animal type description text regarding trained for war leaves the discussion as well. Armor proficiency for animals is obtained through feats.
10. Vital Strike feat is a standard action. It cannot be used as part of a full attack, charge, or spring attack.
11. Empower spell only applies to the rolled portion of the effect. (Note, this appeared with clarifying non OGC text in the PHB that it applied to the full numeric portion, or at least, that portion unrelated to caster level. That text did not appear in SRD.)
12. The trait Heirloom Weapon does not meet the prerequisites for feats that require proficiency in a weapon type. The trait provides proficiency in a single weapon, whereas the feat requires proficiency in all examples of the weapon. This is not a universal opinion.

Equipment
1. Spiked chain no longer has reach.
2. Weapon enhancement bonus (the plus portion, not the cost equivalent) overcomes various DR at different DR than just magic. Specifics: +3 negates cold iron/silver, +4 negates adamantine, +5 negates alignment based DR. This ability is not granted for greater magic weapon.
3. Mithral weapons count as silver for overcoming DR/silver.
4. Mithral armor now requires proficiency in original type of armor, not just resulting armor.
5. Damaging Magic Weapons: An attacker cannot damage a magic weapon that has an enhancement bonus unless his weapon has at least as high an enhancement bonus as the weapon struck.
6. Armor proficiency is not required to wear armor, merely to avoid some penalties to attack rolls and some checks. Some armor has no penalty even if non proficient. Some has no arcane check penalty as well. See masterwork and mithral for examples.
7. Worn clothing counts toward encumbrance.

Additional Rules
(none)

Combat
1. Anything that changes attack rolls changes CMB, including weapon feats if using weapon for the special attack. Likewise, anything that changes AC impacts CMD.
2. Sneak attack and critical damage applies to many additional creatures, including undead and constructs.
3. Characters can draw a weapon during a charge, but can only charge a single move distance and must have a BAB of +1. If charging a single move distance due to being restricted to a single action (surprise, slow, etc.), charging character must have Quickdraw to draw a weapon in the same round as a charge.
4. Stabilization and death changed.
5. Blind creatures use Acrobatics check to move faster than half speed else go prone; they cannot run or charge.
6. Initiative is rolled prior to the start of surprise round for all combatants. In SRD/D&D, surprised characters do not roll initiative until after the surprise round is over.
7. If damage is less due to strength penalties such that damage would be less than 1, the damage in PF is 1 point of non-lethal. In SRD/D&D, the damage is reduced to 1 point of lethal.
8. Sunder can be used as a tactic that is not self-defeating for loot-loving PCs. Minor repair magic, such as mending and make whole, are more useful as a result.
9. Damaging Magic Weapons: An attacker cannot damage a magic weapon that has an enhancement bonus unless his weapon has at least as high an enhancement bonus as the weapon struck.
10. Per the PF FAQ ruling you gain the benefit of a defending weapon only in those turns when it is used. For a shield, this would require using it for a shield bash.
11. There is no size limit to an opponent you attempt to grapple. In SRD, you can initiate a grapple with a creature up to two size categories larger than you are.
12. Removed (included in Combat 1)

Magic
1. Concentration is no longer a skill. New mechanic makes it tougher for multi-classed characters.
2. Polymorph school spells have changed. See polymorph spells and specific spells, such as alter self.
3. Empower spell only applies to the rolled portion of the effect. (Note, this appeared with clarifying non OGC text in the PHB that it applied to the full numeric portion, or at least, that portion unrelated to caster level. That text did not appear in SRD.)

Spells
1. Many save-or-die and save-or-suck spells have re-saves or more limited effects.
2. Cantrips and orisons are at-will
3. Gate spell changed from 2x level to 1x CL in terms of HD called/controlled.
4. Detect (alignment) spells work differently. They do not detect alignment auras at low hit dice, and can register based upon intentions rather than actual alignment or deeds.
5. Harm spell explicitly cannot reduce hit points below 1, whether the save is made or not.
6. Celestial and Fiendish templates, such as used with summon spells, do not advance Intelligence to 3. This reduces communication options related to language.
7. Summoned creatures cannot use spells or spell-like abilities that require expensive material components. Expensive material components are typically those that would need to be tracked with a cost of 1gp or more.
8. Protection from evil grants a re-save at +2 and does not automatically suppress ongoing effects.

Prestige Classes, Gamemastering, Environment, NPCs
(none)

Magic Items
1. Magic item creation vastly changed. Note that there are various disagreements about exactly how it works, particularly with reference to prerequisites; those discussions are outside the scope of this document.
2. Magic item creation no longer uses XP.
3. Market Value of Magic Items (Language Pending)
4. Indentification of magic items changed significantly (see detect magic, identify, Spellcraft, and Perception)
5. Scrolls take a standard action, but longer if the spell contained has a longer casting time. (This may have been added in D&D add-on material as well, such as Rules Compendium).
6. A character can make a magic item without being a spell caster through the Master Crafsman feat.
7. Damaging Magic Weapons: An attacker cannot damage a magic weapon that has an enhancement bonus unless his weapon has at least as high an enhancement bonus as the weapon struck.

Appendices and Monster Rules
1. Poison rules incorporated into affliction and changed significantly; poison tougher all around.
2. Natural attacks changed. Creature can have multiple primary attacks.
3. Regeneration is simpler. See universal monster rule for regeneration.
4. Templates changed in many ways.
5. Incorporeal creatures take 50% of damage of each effective attacks instead of only being affected for the full amount of effective attacks 50% of the time.
6. Ability damage results in a penalty for every full –2 damage. The result of such penalties are limited in scope depending on the ability. Contrast with ability drain.
7. Ability drain is required before losing benefits from skill points and ability prerequisites required to qualify for feats and prestige classes. Contrast with ability damage.
8. Animals do not gain armor proficiency via any form of trick training. The animal type description text regarding trained for war leaves the discussion as well. Armor proficiency for animals is obtained through feats.
9. Celestial and Fiendish templates, such as used with summon spells, do not advance Intelligence to 3. This reduces communication options related to language.
10. Grab can be used against a target the same size or smaller than the grabber. In SRD, the target must be strictly smaller than the target. (This is published in Bestiary 2, and incorporated by FAQ into Bestiary. See Bestiary FAQ.)
11. Monsters advanced through PC class levels gain bonus to stats. Adjust stats by +4, +4, +2, +2, +0, -2, distributed in an appropriate way. This substitutes for SRD granting elite array for the same purpose.
12. When advancing monsters, the addition of NPC classes or non-key classes (known as non-associated classes in SRD), adds ½ CR for each level until reaching creature’s original CR rather than HD.
13. Many monster type traits and features have changed. Some monsters are no longer of the same type as in SRD.
14. Centaurs use weapons sized one size category smaller than their size.

Always like this, but frequently misplayed or not known previously

Races
(none)

Classes
1. Inspire courage is free action to continue once having started.
2. Animal companions can be dismissed at will and replaced with 24 hours; note that new companion requires training other than bonus feats.
3. Animal companions gain feats as they gain hit dice.
4. Animals do not have to be proficient in armor to wear barding, but may have penalties depending on what barding they wear.
5. Sneak attack and other precision damage applies to every attack in a round, not just once per round.
6. Familiars and animal companions can be the target of spells that they can not normally be the target of, such as enlarge person.

Skills
1. Rules for tying up a character are in Grapple section.
2. Auto-success on a 20 and Auto Fail on a 1 are not universal to all rolls. They apply only when called out. Typical examples are attack rolls and saving throws. The following are not subject to auto-success/failure: Skill checks, caster level checks, concentration checks.
3. Take 10 on skill check can be used when not in immediate danger or distracted. Do not confuse with Take 20’s restriction from use if there is a negative consequence.
4. Take 20 cannot be used if there is a negative result for failure. Do not over-generalize to apply this to Take 10.
5. If failing on Use Magic Device with a natural 1, you cannot retry for 24 hours.

Feats
1. Ride-by Attack is still a mess.
2. Removed.
3. Metamagic applied to spontaneous casting (bards, sorcerers, etc.) and to class-based spontaneous casting (cleric’s spontaneous cure or druid’s spontaneous summon) take longer to cast. Such spells take a full round action (different than 1 round casting time) to cast if originally a standard action; spells with a casting time originally longer than a standard action take an additional full round action. A sorcerer’s empowered magic missile would take a full round action to cast, and would come into effect at the end of his turn; in contrast, a wizard’s enlarge person (with no metamagic), has a 1 round casting time and comes into effect at the start of the wizard’s next turn.
4. Quicken Spell applies to spells with a casting time of a standard action or a full round action. Some view this as also applying to a casting time of 1 round, such as enlarge person. Expect table variance.

Equipment
1. Reach weapons can be used to attack opponents 10 feet away, but cannot be used against adjacent foes. Various feats and class abilities can make it possible to do so.
2. Animals do not have to be proficient in armor to wear barding, but may have penalties depending on what barding they wear.
3. Carrying too much gear can slow you down and might incur additional AC max Dex limits.
4. Character’s start play with an inexpensive suit of clothing in addition to starting gold.

Additional Rules
1. Darkvision is not spoiled by other light sources. (Different in comparison to some pre 3e versions of D&D)
2. Rolling a natural 1 on a saving throw can damage a randomly determined worn magic item.
3. Carrying too much gear can slow you down and might incur additional AC max Dex limits.

Combat
1. Ranged attacks suffer from cover from objects, enemies, or allies. Allies often overlooked. Applies to reach weapons, ranged touch attacks, and melee touch attacks that have reach as well. (Last portion of this is subject to review).
2. Readying an action is a standard action. One can move first, and then ready. The readied action itself can be a standard, move, free, or swift action. (Note: could not explicitly be swift in SRD 3.5; swift was not in the SRD.) Can include 5’ step as part of the readied action if no other movement in either the readied action or prior to the readied action during regular turn.
3. Characters who use the run action lose Dex bonus to AC, and thus are subject to sneak attack.
4. Spells can crit if they have an attack roll.
5. Characters and creatures can charge a single move distance as a standard action if limited to a single action, such as during a surprise round. This doesn’t mean you can opt to only charge as a standard action if you have a full round of actions available.
6. Coup de grace can be performed against a creature with total concealment, such as invisibility, by using two full round actions.
7. Rules for tying up a character are in Grapple section.
8. Withdraw action can be double move. AoO only prevented from first square left. Withrdaw can be made during a round in which a character is limited to a single move, but may only be a single move distance. Withdraw can be in any direction.
9. You cannot take AoOs when flat-footed (usually in surprise round or before you have acted in first round) unless you have Combat Reflexes or a similar ability.
10. Ranged touch attacks (rays) and touch attacks can be the object of weapon improvement feats such as Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization, Improved Critical, etc., and also benefit from feats such as Weapon Finesse.
11. A character can take only one immediate or swift action per round. Note: Swift and Immediate actions not part of the SRD, but commonly in use. (When does it reset language; language needed)
12. Reach weapons can be used to attack opponents 10 feet away, but cannot be used against adjacent foes. Various feats and class abilities can make it possible to do so.
13. Initiative is a Dexterity check, which is influenced by rules that modify ability checks.
14. When using manufactured and natural weaponry, all natural weapon attacks become secondary.
15. Difficult terrain and poor visibility hamper movement. You cannot take a 5-foot step nor charge in hampered movement.
16. The delay and ready special actions may be taken in initiative. When initiative starts is generally at the determination of the GM/DM. The ability to delay or ready an action outside of initiative should not be assumed and is subject to the individual table or playing group culture.
17. A character may take a 5-foot-step between attacks, or either before or after the attacks.
18. Multiple attacks of opportunity can be made by an attacker with Combat Reflexes against a single target, but only one may be made if incurred for moving out of threatened squares. A target may be the subject of AoOs, even for movement, but each attacker that threatens the target.
19. Running must be in a straight line. This should not be confused to require running along the grid lines.
20. A character using the total defense action may not make AoOs.

Magic
1. Spells can crit if they have an attack roll.
2. Removed.
3. Mutliple magical effcts that increase size do not stack.
4. Wizards learning new spells require time and a Spellcraft check. If the Spellcraft check fails, it cannot be tried again until the wizard gains a rank in Spellcraft. The wizard may Take 10 on the Spellcraft check.

Spells
1. Lesser restoration is a three round casting time. Usually, this means it isn’t used during combat. Potion of lesser restoration is good for in combat, though.
2. Enlarge person has a 1 round casting time.
3. Dimensional anchor has no saving throw, just spell resistance.
4. Harm (moved to item 5 of things that have changed -> spells)
5. Summon spells have 1 round casting times, even from wands.
6. Grease can be used to disarm.
7. A number of spell effects (remove disease, remove curse, knock, etc.) require a caster level check to be successful instead of automatically; this is not universal to all similar spells
8. Summoned creatures attack enemies without additional communication. Communication is required for other tasks or more specific instructions. Different groups may handle specific instructions differently.
9. A spellcaster has no control over a summoned swarm. Such a swarm attacks the nearest creature, whether friendly to the spellcaster or no.

Prestige Classes, Gamemastering, Environment, NPCs
1. What constitutes an authoritative source for rules questions and clarifications varies from play group to play group.

Magic Items
1. Weapons and armor must have +1 enhancement prior to gaining additional enchantments.
2. Summon spells have 1 round casting times, even from wands.
3. Using a wand with a casting time longer than a standard action takes that long to activate. A wand of summon monster I takes 1 round and a wand of lesser restoration takes 3 rounds. But, you have to know to look under the activation section at the start of the wand section to know this.
4. A character can use a wand with a spell on his class list, even if he can’t cast spells yet. For example, a 3rd level paladin can use a wand of cure light wounds.
5. Spells with range of personal cannot be made into potions.
6. A weapon can have multiple special abilities. It is possible to have a command structure that allows them to be turned on/off in different ways, at the option of the weapon’s creator. Note: This is supported by the D&D 3.5 final FAQ, which is not recognized by all players as an authoritative source. Some specific readings of the relevant core rules text may result in play groups having a different interpretation.

Appendices and Monster Rules
1. Immunity to cold/fire gives vulnerability to opposite. (Developers have indicated future change for this)
2. Elementals are immune to flanking and critical hits.
3. Creatures can often overcome the DR that is needed to hit them (magic, epic, etc.)
4. Fear effects stack or escalate; characters can become more fearful.
5. When using manufactured and natural weaponry, all natural weapon attacks become secondary.
6. Centaurs do not count as being their own mount for the purposes of qualifying for Mounted Combat and related feats.

It’s the same between SRD and PF, but PF makes it confused

1. Reach weapons for small and medium creatures have a reach of 10 feet. Despite a diagram that says otherwise, they can still attack two squares on a diagonal.
2. Double weapons are two-handed weapons with special properties regarding two-handed fighting. If a double weapon is used in one hand, only one end can be used. The missing text that clarifies things is that using a two-handed weapon with one hand only happens if it is sized smaller than you or you have an additional rules resource to permit it.

It’s the same between SRD and PF, but PF makes it clear

1. Wizards with prestige classes only get 2 free spells when gaining a level of wizard, not when gaining a level of the prestige class.
2. Ranged touch attacks provoke an attack of opportunity, even if the spell that causes the attacks was cast defensively. (In 3.5, this was subject to variance.)

Pending Resolution or More Complex than Can Be Dealt With Here
1. Quickened Spell on spells with casting time of 1 round. (see discussion in rules section of forum, here. A line is included that there is table variance on this matter above.
2. What is the interaction between grapple, pin, AC, Dex Bonus to AC, sneak attack? Contradictory rules (particularly when inclusive of condition table footnotes) are contradictory or ambiguous. discussion thread.
3. Defending Weapons resolved by FAQ
4. The arcane topic of dragon skin armor.
5. The role of Wealth by Level and interaction with crafting, consumables, wizard spell book, etc.

Whether ray of enfeeblement deals ability damage or it applies a penalty to an ability score, the FAQ is correct in that it says:

1) Weapon Specialization (ray) only adds to hit point damage caused by a ray attack that would normally deal hit point damage.
2) Weapon Specialization (ray) doesn't increase ability score damage or drain, negative levels or other damage or penalties from rays.

I'm not sure what sneak attack has to do with this. I don't see where you're getting that a FAQ about Improved Critical and Weapon Specialization (a FAQ which doesn't mention sneak attack at all) has anything to do with sneak attack.

Cats or dogs?

Cats.

Cats bury their feces. Dogs eat it.

Cats all the way.

Please do not debate rules in this thread

In the spirit of the Frequently Unknown Rules thread, this thread is for the group think collection of those rules or rules topics that are highly debated, possibly unresolvable due to contradiction or ambiguity, or otherwise nearly impossible to obtain a meeting of the mind. I will maintain a summary list, as done for the Frequently Unknown Rules thread, along with links to the detailed argument threads.

In a perfect world, identify the rules issue, the conflicting positions, and the rules source that gives rise to the problem. Provide links to either existing discussions on the topic, or start new threads with links here if appropriate. If a position has been misrepresented, post your rebuttal and then take the discussion elsewhere, with a link from here to that thread.

Please do not debate rules in this thread

Additionally, if the message hasn't gotten across,

Please do not debate rules in this thread.

I know there are people out there looking for good character sheets, particularly ones that aren't colour and that incorporate the recent additions. I've been designing some character sheets for Pathfinder (based on the much more complete set I did for D&D 3.5) that I hope people will find useful.

Download the PDF from my website here
(you'll find my 3.5 sheets on the same site)

These sheets feature:

• Specific sheets for each class (so far I've done all the core classes and 4 of the 6 classes from APG)
  
• Designed for high and low levels, with space for plenty of classes, attacks, gear, skills, special abilities and favoured enemies, as well as conditional and temporary modifiers
  
• Familiar/Animal Companion and Wild Shape sheets
  
• Plenty of inventory space and a Party Funds sheet, for those adventurers whose first thought on approaching the dread doors to an ancient temple is "Can we pinch the hinges?"
  
• A whole section of Dungeon Master sheets, including NPCs and maps
  
• Consistent styling and soft grays to allow pencil to stand out
  
• British spelling, A4 layout
  

They're very much a work in progress, so do give me feedback.

I'll start.

A Bard doesn't need the Perform skill. The only performances that require it are Countersong and Distraction. Inspire Courage et al don't mention it at all, and you don't even need to use your primary artform when using it. It was intentionally left ambiguous so bards didn't have to keep on playing their instrument while using the performances. It's a free action to continue the performance.