Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Count Lucinean Galdana

Wraith235's page

FullStarFullStarFullStarFullStarFullStar Pathfinder Society GM. 760 posts (772 including aliases). 1 review. No lists. 1 wishlist. 28 Pathfinder Society characters. 1 alias.


1 to 50 of 760 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Shadow Lodge *****

1st off society scenarios are a 4-5 hour thing ... not 4 ... the guide even gives language to support 5 hour slots

I think a lot of people forget this, heck even my FLGS tries to fit things into a 4 hour slot, the sad part is that it generally ends up cheating the players out of an hour of play and a lot of times out of a fame / PA / gold

Shadow Lodge *****

Andrew Klein wrote:

John doesn't condradict her post. He is talking about running duplicates, regardless of number of players, whereas Tonya is talking about party size.

EDIT: Freakin ninjas are everywhere.

they hide in the shadows waiting to strike

Shadow Lodge *****

I prefer Hardcopy for a # of reasons
top of the list is that if an archtype gets banned I could trade the book for a different book

Shadow Lodge *****

Steven Schopmeyer wrote:
I don't recall any specific prohibitions, but it has been clarified that you CANNOT run a 7 player table of these scenarios. As such, I would say no doubling of pregens, especially in 6-98.

ya I hadn't seen the clarification part but that's the way Ive been running it as is

like I said I could see 6-99 being able to without breaking things Too badly ... but 6-98 would truly destroy the story

Shadow Lodge *****

prepping to run these today and had a question come up that Ive not had before with these 2 - and Ive run them both at least twice before

doubling up on pregens

in Serpents Rise I would absolutely say no due to the way the scenario is written and and the story behind it

but True dragons is a bit different and TECHICNACLY I could see it as possible ... my Gut says no ... but there is some logicality to it

Shadow Lodge *****

much appreciated

Shadow Lodge *****

Ya I'm hoping John can swing through real quick like and say if they can or cannot work together to reduce the phases

Also that talent makes perfect sense the way it is I don't see any way of making 12 min crafting into 6 ....I'd say it's stretching it to say the least translating l1 round into 1 phase (6min)

Shadow Lodge *****

I actually did mess up on my math a bit
the Fame progression is correct but the levels need to be skewed up by 1 level
5=24 and so on .... so allow me to correct it

50k for a +5 - 49 fame = Min 9th
36k for a +6 - 54 fame = Min 10th
49k for a +7 - 63 fame = min 11th (Late 11th)
64k for a +8 - 67 Fame = Min 12th
81k for a +9 - 72 Fame = Min 13th
100k for a +10 72 fame = Min 13th

and yes it skews even farther if you calculate based on 5 PA / level (50/60 at 10th level)

I'm going to have to look for the old WBL Charts from when out of tier was introduced to compare that

Shadow Lodge *****

Sebastian Hirsch wrote:
Regarding your zen archer exampple,

guess I should have been more clear ... it was a combination of this thread and the fact that I just bought that bow that made me think about it ... Zen Archer comparisons have been done here ... was commenting on the thought process that brought me to this point

Sebastian Hirsch wrote:
EDIT: So arcane bond allows you to have a +7 weapon once you have 63 fame (something that might happen when you are level 11( if you have been quite lucky and haven't played too many modules) and a + 6 weapon once you have 58 fame which is unlikely to happen until you reach level 11.

+6 is minimum 9th lvl - assuming 6PA/level

+7 is Minimum 10th lvl - assuming 6PA / level
+8 is minimum 11th lvl - asuming 6PA/level
+9 and 10 are both 12th level

Shadow Lodge *****

couple of Counterpoints and questions

A) Im assuming Spell blending is whats used to get named bullet ? because the issue with this way is you must be lvl 12 in order to that spell (Arcana gained vs Spell level) if Im wrong please let me know

B) Staff of Many Rays - even if we assume it works (I have yet to dig into this) Id Like to point this out

Recharging Staves wrote:
Staves hold a maximum of 10 charges. Each spell cast from a staff consumes one or more charges. When a staff runs out of charges, it cannot be used until it is recharged. Each morning, when a spellcaster prepares spells or regains spell slots, he can also imbue one staff with a portion of his power so long as one or more of the spells cast by the staff is on his spell list and he is capable of casting at least one of the spells. Imbuing a staff with this power restores one charge to the staff, but the caster must forgo one prepared spell or spell slot of a level equal to the highest-level spell cast by the staff.

so your saying your going to spend 57k for 3 Shots ? because you cant recharge it with scrolls

I admit I was all behind this archtype being legal when I found out about it ... but then I started thinking about the Arcane bond because I just got my Zen Archer a +5 bow

the cost of a +5 adaptive Bow is 51,400 with fame requirement of 49 (Minimum of 9th level assuming 6 Fame every level)

when you apply the benifits of Arcane bond to this ... you have a final Gold cost of 25,500 for enchantment upgrade costs ...
this further skews once you start looking at higher end enchantments
36k for a +6 - 54 fame
49k for a +7 - 63 fame
64k for a +8 - 67 Fame
81k for a +9 - 72 Fame
100k for a +10 72 fame

I don't remember the WBL Charts well enough that came out around the time out of tier was introduced ... but I Imagine a +5 or better weapon Buries that chart even at its most abused amount

yes I realize Ring of protection, Amulet of Natural Armor, 4th level Spell Wands, and some staves (tho as noted above staves need to be rechargeable) also skew WBL in much the same way - but I think this is actually worse

I really would like to Argue for this Archtype ... but because of this fact alone ... I don't think I could support it being included as a legal option in PFS

Shadow Lodge *****

and even that really falls outside of the Scope since its only a 1 round reduction
6 Min = 60 rounds -1

Shadow Lodge *****

I and 1 other GM ran this at a local con over the weekend and We were both asked 1 question that was Identical

"Can we work together on a multi phase trap to complete it quicker"

there is nothing about that in the rules for it so we both said no .. but since both of us got this question it makes sense to ask here was this intended .. or an oversight ?

Shadow Lodge *****

Sojourner from the Mist Kingdom comes to mind

Shadow Lodge *****

andreww wrote:
rknop wrote:
Zach Davis wrote:
Muser wrote:
A troop of raging undead pugwampis with railguns. Ooh, and a chase!
Also, the haunt that manifested on the mass grave of every Pathfinder killed by a swarm which manifests as an ethereal ghost swarm and causes confusion! the dark.
In the deeper darkness..

My songs know what you did in the dark

Shadow Lodge *****

my concern is that I have a Con this weekend .. I really hate it when FQ's / additional resource updated land AFTER I leave my house for the night / weekend (Im looking at you UC Errata)

Shadow Lodge *****

hi ... not sure if there is anything in Ogdon ... but Logan has games at toad and tricycle
SLC has both Hasturs and Demolition games
also at HaJoMaJe Games & Comics in Kaysville tho they haven't been on the schedule for a couple months that Ive seen (they have been advertising on the facebook page)

Utah county has Dragons Keep in Lehi and Provo and some (Rarely) in Orem)

check out the warhorn here
Wasatch Front PFS warhorn

and the facebook group here
Wasatch front PFS Facebook

also know we have an event coming up in October at demolition games in SLC

Shadow Lodge *****

ya Ive spent time studying your thread and it is a fairly different situation as yours is a regular games day

I have had a situation where a game was all the way to the last encounter and we had a player leave (which would have caused a tier change) but since you cant retier a game 85% of the way through ... ya

Shadow Lodge *****

guess I should have clarified ... the question is regarding the remaining players

Shadow Lodge *****

Damanta wrote:
Schedule a new session to finish the remainder of the scenario (like playing a module over several session).

and if that cant be done due it being at an event

again the whys and hows are being ignored

Shadow Lodge *****

this is hypothetical only but Id like to know how to handle this

not getting into the whys or the hows ... just a simple "what do I do"

if 2 players leave a 5 or 4 man table at the tail end of the scenario (under an hour left) leaving it at 3 or worse 2 players obviously breaking legality what do you do

Shadow Lodge *****

whats the runtime like on this one ?

Shadow Lodge *****

Andrew Roberts wrote:

Not true actually. Serpents Rise is 4*/5* only and True Dragons of Absalom is 5* only (Can't VO out of either of those).

I would imagine that Bonekeep 2 will follow the footsteps of Bonekeep 1 and can be run by VOs.

Andrew please reread the conversation I was not referring to true dragon's or serpents rise ....I was only referring to what John said about bonekeep 2 being a 4 star exclusive

What I said is 100% acurate as it pertains to the standard

True dragon's and serpents rise are the exception

Shadow Lodge *****

Francis Webb wrote:
John Compton wrote:
Yes, Bonekeep 2 is now a 4-star exclusive.
Can it still be run by non-4-star VO's? Does it still have to be run at a convention or could it be run at a store or home game?

4 star exclusive is just that .... it can now be run by any of the Following

4 star GM
5 star GM
Venture Lieutenant
Venture captain

Let the bodies hit the floor

examples of previous 4 star exclusives are

Midnight mauler in Season 2
Cyphermage delima in season 3
Day of the Demon in season 4
Bonekeep level 1 in season 5

Shadow Lodge *****

Thanks John for clarification. ...still don't have true dragon's but I have some players that have been bit chomping for bonekeep 2 since June of last year

I expect true dragon's will land soon

Shadow Lodge *****

I'd been told recently it was event only still (not 50 table event but event none the less)

Shadow Lodge *****

ok want to confirm something before I jump to assumptions ... Checked and just had

serpents rise
ruins of bonekeep 2

added to my downloads
am I correct in assuming that bonekeep 2 is now open for 4-5 star GM's to run in the wild ?

Shadow Lodge *****

its now August 26th and I do not have access to these

I'll also send you a PM about it too

Shadow Lodge

just checking in on this ... 3 weeks since GenCon ended - any word ?

Shadow Lodge

Cronge wrote:
John Compton wrote:
Qstor wrote:
When will this be added to the 5 star GMs accounts? Thanks
I'll check with my scenario-granting coworkers to see when we can expect this.
Any word yet?

agree - its been 3 weeks since GenCon updates would be appreciated

Shadow Lodge *****

Encounter 1 -During Combat:
The gnolls initially try to avoid permanentlydamaging any of their slaves, but the more damage the
gnolls sustain, the more lethal they become.
Same text at both tiers

Encounter 2 -During Combat:
Farug uses lethal force to quell any serious
slave uprising, and he switches to nonlethal attacks if it
seems clear that he’s winning the fiht. He barks commands
at his subordinates and tends to get frustrated when they
can’t match his tactical cunning


The gnolls follow Farug’s lead and deal
nonlethal damage if he does

Same text at both tiers

leaves quite a lot to gm interpretation IMHO tho if you were getting rolled as hard as it sounds then - yes I agree

Shadow Lodge *****

Calenor wrote:

Just to be curious, knowing that you play high with a low group, why did you choose the frontal assault, and did't sneak into the Fortress, as ordered by VC?

This would have made these encounters a lot easier.

having just played this on thursday and running out of time my guess is stagnation on the 1st encounter spot or simply saying "Ive had it with the treatment"

I know when we went on the offensive things sped up SIGNIFIGANTLY

Shadow Lodge *****

IMHO if a GM makes a mistake its on the GM to fix it if possible

I have 2 different examples from personal experience both times I was a GM

1st was Legacy of the stonelords at paizocon last year, a PC Died at my table and even I wasnt 100% Comfortable with how it happened, I decided to research things over the next several hours even into the next day
I found that I had indeed made the right call and spoke to the player explaining my process - he was ok with it

2nd was during a Bonekeep game - I had killed a PC in 1 particular encounter, later while discussing it with some people a friend of mine reminded me of how the mechanic that killed the player actually worked,
I showed up to the FLGS the next week with a red pen and overruled the death myself

I do agree that weeks later on a public forum is probably a bit late to the party
but IMHO the best way to police something like this is from the GM himself -
unfortuinatly in a con setting due to time constraints and everything it makes that difficult

tho I would beg for more details ... what was the option presented to you from the HQ Table ? I dont think Ive seen that listed
and one with as extensive as yours Im not sure how I would handle it

Shadow Lodge *****


Shadow Lodge *****

forgive me ...maybe Im blind ... but I see nothing in the errata that applies to pistols, Muskets yes but nothing for pistols

Shadow Lodge *****

Joe Ducey wrote:

If you have the 6-98/6-99 and the requisite stars you can run them.

As for Bonekeep 2... that's still up in the air/debatable.

the question was based on when those 4 and 5's not at PaizoCon or GenCon will see these scenarios added to their account

Shadow Lodge *****

so I dont mean to shamlessly bump this .. but is there any update on this as of yet ?

also is there any word on if / when bonekeep 2 will become open to 4 and 5 star GM's .. I have a group in another city still waiting on word about this - they played part 1 under me and have characters on hold for part 2

Shadow Lodge

BNW no offense but I never said you hated them ... I Paraphrased what you said

its ok if its a low level Monk (or 8 and lower)
but its not ok for a 9th+ ...

thats about the most hypocritical stance Ive ever seen

and what do you call it by allowing it for 8 and lower Monks but not for 9+ if not punative

you also Chose to avoid answering the situaion I presented to you

7th lvl Monk Aborts Flurry - by your interpretation your going to let it slide
9th level you wont

what happens when they are both at your table

Shadow Lodge

its really odd I cannot reply to your entire post

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Manyshot: Benefit: When making a full-attack action with a bow, your first attack fires two arrows.

Flurry of Blows (Ex): Starting at 1st level, a monk can make a flurry of blows as a full-attack action.

I don't see the difference in wording that you're alluding to here.

Ok, so what logic reason and rules basis make many shot works the way that they clarified?
I'm at a loss as to what difference in wording you're getting here.

When Making a Full Attack Action

Starting at 1st level, a monk can make a flurry of blows as a full-attack action

very different Wording ... one IS .. the other happens WHEN


I'm not ignoring them.

I see that they're there.

I see what you're saying.

What I see is that there is a contradiction between the general case where you can choose to make a full attack after your first attack and where conditions on your first attack require you to decide to full attack prior to making it.

Fighter attacks at +6 bab. he hits. Monster dies. There's no contradiction: he hasn't decided to full attack and he doesn't have to because his attack would be the same either way. its full attack yes/no status doesn't matter so it doesn't get checked.

With other abilities RAW gives me a timey whimey ball that raw cannot untangle. I don't decide to full attack until after the first attack. I have benefits on the first attack that don't exist unless I'm full attacking.

That leaves open, if not requires,...


Find me raw that says you can full attack without full attacking.

Thats the problem There IS no raw resolution to this and you're treating it like there HAS to be. Like the rules are perfect, don't contradict, and never but heads in opposite directions.

we have provided Raw for you - numerous times

you have to make a full attack in order to get multiple attacks, but can abort the rest of your attacks based on the result of the 1st Regardless of the method by which you get multiple attacks


By my interpretation The rapid shotter, The ierative attacker, magus, the two weapon fighter, and low level monks can all abort with no penalty. The idea that i'm trying to punish anyone for being outside of that, or dislike high level monks but not low level monks, is absurd. I MIGHT be a lunatic, but hating on builds does not fit the pattern of my lunacy here.

I just think that if you get benefit you pay the cost. Equivilant exchange and all that.

and its your interpretation because you dont like it .... and regardless of saying your not trying to punish anyone for being outside of that ... by using this Stance that IS in-fact exactly what your doing what are you gonna tell the table of 2 monks (7 and 9) having the lvl 7 abort an attack but when the 9 tries you say "Nope you get a benifit to attack from flurry" that wont go over well at all

Shadow Lodge

Allow me to rearrange this for organizational stuff

BigNorseWolf wrote:
IF those are the only rules you look at then yes. But you cannot call other positions ridiculous when you only look at rules that agree with you and not the rules that agree with the other position

Manyshot had Wording that forced it to only be useable as part of full attack action, Rather than it being its own Full attack action (such as FoB, Rapid, TWF, Iteratives) and as far as I was concerned Manyshot Locked you into a full attack action (and the FAQ Clarified this). While other full attack actions (FoB, TWF, Iteratives, Spell Combat, Rapid Shot) were convertable to a standard after the 1st attack - As per the Rules

Im sorry but as much as you would like to think I am ignoring "Rules that agree with other positions" (Like you are) Im not ... Manyshot is an exception to the standard , not the standard itself

So now the burden of proof is on you ... Find me some RAW with source that States if you gain a bonus from a full attack you cannot abort and take a move, find me Raw that says "Manyshot is the standard not the exception" because others are looking and not finding it.. As far as I know there is no RAW supporting the "Bonus no move" Thought process far as I can tell this is a fabricated rule


It very much does not.

And you cannot both deny a slippery slope and then try to grease the ramp like this. It is entirely possible to use other criteria than "do it all the time"

Is ANYONE arguing against being able to stop after the first iterative attack? No, so this isn't a genuine counter argument.

the Slippery slope argument - as you call it - Started as Sarcasam -

however your Cherry Picking of the paragraph has given the Sarcastic comments Legitimacy

Specifically - no, no one is arguing the abortion of iterative attacks, tho you are Cherry picking the Paragraph and applying Raw to one of Several listed ways of gaining multiple attacks, - Which the Rule doesn't care how you get them, only if you have them - not the Whole if it therefore by your interpretation becoming punative to anyone gaining multiple attacks through means other than BAB.

Once you look at the Rule as a whole(Rather than only the parts you dont like) this is indeed a genuine counter argument - I would prefer to not have to Legitimatly go down this path TBH - but this Debate is Trollbait and has been from the start

Will you be applying the same penalties to TWF, Iterative, FoB, Rapid Shot because if you don't then you are applying rules you like / dont like because likely as claudekennilol said "I think it might be too powerful so I'm saying no"?

I dont see any other legitimate interpretation of this

--------All 4 Allow multiple attacks "because your base attack bonus is high enough (see Base Attack Bonus in Classes), because you fight with two weapons or a double weapon, or for some special reason."

Also Note the above Rule Does not Differentiate between the source of multiple attacks ...

--------All 4 are Full attack actions
--------All 4 use the rule "After your first attack, you can decide to take a move action instead of making your remaining attacks, depending on how the first attack turns out and assuming you have not already taken a move action this round."

the entirety of this is stated under "Full attack" in the combat section.This is RAW, and any change to this would only be because we do not like it or disagree with it

Is the position that you can't break off if your action requires you to full attack or gain a bonus from full attacking stopping iteratives? No.

as I mentioned above there is no differentiation on the Source of the attacks ... only "do you gain multiple attacks"

and as far as the "bonus no move" what about power attack, expertise, Critical Focus, deadly aim, .. if you use those are used in a full attack are you specifically precluded from breaking off and taking a move action - you ARE gaining a bonus... your Logic Not mine


You're acting as if the FAQ has no underlying logic, reason, or basis in the rules, which is just silly. FAQs aren't based on nothing they're based on something.

the FAQ is based on Logic, Reason and Manyshot which noone is arguing how it works anymore.

The FAQ doesnt even Touch FoB, Rapid Shot, TWF (or Spell combat) nor does it even pretend to

this is splitting hairs over a +1 at 9,13,and 17 - and since I know this argument started from PFS its basically a +1 at 9 and MAYBE at 13

Shadow Lodge

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Wraith235 wrote:

and you could even take it farther and argue that iterive attacks fall into this as well and makes the Rule about canceling the rest of your attacks a worthless rule that doesn't do anything

A slippery slope argument as no one is doing that. Though its good to know that two weapon fighting is specifically called out.

The "yes on penalties , no on bonus interpretation" is consistent with the text and the faq.

Sorry BNW ... there was a lot of Sarcasam involved because of the ridiculousness of this

Flurry is Termed as
"as if using the Two-Weapon Fighting feat" in the Monk CRB entry
tho it also falls into "Some special reason"(Flurry on its own is an EX)

so by those Rules listed in Monk and whats listed above ... you SHOULD be able to Cancel the remainder. particuarly since we only have 1 instance of something saying you Can't cancel it (Manyshot)

and if you look again ... even iterave attacks are called out as well so its not as slippery a slope as you may think - the slippery part is NOT allowing cancellation because it then becomes punitive decisions to Monks, TWF, Magus and anyone else that gain multiple attacks through Truthfully - anything

also under the logic of "Bonus no move" come power attack, Expertise, Deadly aim, fight defensivly, full defense, Critical focus feats, etc..

Shadow Lodge

srd wrote:

if you get more than one attack per round because your base attack bonus is high enough (see Base Attack Bonus in Classes), because you fight with two weapons or a double weapon, or for some special reason, you must use a full-round action to get your additional attacks. You do not need to specify the targets of your attacks ahead of time. You can see how the earlier attacks turn out before assigning the later ones.

The only movement you can take during a full attack is a 5-foot step. You may take the step before, after, or between your attacks.

If you get multiple attacks because your base attack bonus is high enough, you must make the attacks in order from highest bonus to lowest. If you are using two weapons, you can strike with either weapon first. If you are using a double weapon, you can strike with either part of the weapon first.

Deciding between an Attack or a Full Attack

After your first attack, you can decide to take a move action instead of making your remaining attacks, depending on how the first attack turns out and assuming you have not already taken a move action this round. If you've already taken a 5-foot step, you can't use your move action to move any distance, but you could still use a different kind of move action.

pretty straightforward IMHO .... tho I suppose if you want to follow this logic down its ultimate path any of the above mentioned situations (particuarly since they are lumped together in the description of Full attack) "because you fight with two weapons or a double weapon, or for some special reason" you would be excluded from taking a move action after the 1st attack - you know whats good for the goose is good for the gander and all

and you could even take it farther and argue that iterive attacks fall into this as well and makes the Rule about canceling the rest of your attacks a worthless rule that doesn't do anything

edit - quote is from srd due to ease of copy paste

Shadow Lodge *****

another interesting one is Dermal Armor +1 (which functions as an amult of natural armor) I believe this is a more clear cut no ... but still something to consider since there IS a listed price for it .. can it be upgraded

Shadow Lodge *****

more than likely it will be banned over Errata'ed .... I have a friend who has said "a bargin at 25k" so I hope its just a simple price change

but since its a splat book an errata is unlikely particularly one this old

Shadow Lodge *****

it is legal

Equipment: all magic items on page 25 and pages 28-29; Prestige Class: Liberator (reduce all skill rank requirements by -3)

its on page 25

Shadow Lodge *****

Just reminding everyone that there is a level 12 character list google Doc for everyone to use

Shadow Lodge *****

Torch a member of the Decemverite ?

I shudder the thought

Shadow Lodge *****

Tri I sent you a PM

Shadow Lodge *****

1 person marked this as a favorite.
TheFlyingPhoton wrote:

I was kind of hoping there might already be something that distinguishes between "is half-human" and "has the humanoid type" that my own searches failed to turn up. I was especially hoping there would be something said by campaign leadership, since the agreed upon stance in this disagreement has been, "argument from authority is the best argument."

Wraith235 wrote:

are you the GM or player

if your the GM then the burden of Proof is on them
if your the player then you get to Just Roll with a broken rule set or quit playing with that group

is this Rule actually affecting you as a character in a negative way ?

This has only come up when I am the player. No one in my area is trying to enlarge their melee Outsider.

It mostly only comes up in regards to Hold Person. I almost never see an enemy caster with Hold Person, but every time I do, it just happens to be when someone from the pro-#2 camp is GMing and there are people playing Outsiders (and the Outsiders end up getting targeted with it every single time). This is such a corner case, but the frequency of it is getting frustrating. It's seriously happened the last three or four times this one GM in particular has run over me.
Whenever it comes up, I and the other players that agree with everyone in this thread just let it go. It hasn't caused anything catastrophic.

Wraith235 wrote:
I would say leave

That is way too far for the given situation. The GMs in question are overall good GMs, they just have a few rules blind spots.

They don't GM all that often anyways.

Wraith235 wrote:
or contact a VO in your area
Yeeeeeeeeeeah, about that...

Bottom Line - unless they are an aasimar with Scion of humanity ... they are outsiders(Native) and target humanoid doesnt work on them

and no Faq is required for that ... just look at the entry in the beastiary

Shadow Lodge *****

are you the GM or player

if your the GM then the burden of Proof is on them
if your the player then you get to Just Roll with a broken rule set or quit playing with that group

is this Rule actually affecting you as a character in a negative way ? if so then I would say leave or contact a VO in your area .. not much they can do about it other than say "Hey- do your research"

if not - meh let it slide ... or better yet point them to this thread .. IIRC the ONLY thing Mike brock commented on was FCB Stuff but its been over a year

but the "Scion of Humanity is useless and does nothing" that just shows a lack if intelligence IMHO

Shadow Lodge *****

#1 is Correct
#2 is Sort of Correct

Aasimars have an alternate Racial Trait called Scion of Humanity that makes THEM subject to the spells listed above (it specifically makes them count as humanoid)

SRD wrote:

Scion of Humanity Some aasimars' heavenly ancestry is extremely distant. An aasimar with this racial trait counts as an outsider (native) and a humanoid (human) for any effect related to race, including feat prerequisites and spells that affect humanoids. She can pass for human without using the Disguise skill. This racial trait replaces the Celestial language and alters the native subtype.

however they are the only ones with that option

so as Scion of humanity says Humanoid(Human) - YES .. Bane / favored enemy Human does work on them - but ONLY them (not Tiefling or the elemental races) and ONLY if they have that Trait

Furthermore - only Aasimars with that trait may take Human Favored class bonuses as well

1 to 50 of 760 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.