|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
You must be mortified! But you've stood up and explained it, to everyone, and pointed out the inside (and side and back) is unaffected.
Pity the first guy to post a review on Amazon.co.uk took one glimpse of the front and posted a 1-star review.
Once I get my copy, I'll actually read it, and then post something - which I expect to be more positive than 1-star.
If anyone else buys it from/via Amazon UK, do post a review too!
Snip the Shadow wrote:
Prehensile Tail and "Maw or Claw" are not actually Feats.
The "Advanced Race Guide" (p.168-169) offers Prehensile Tail and "Maw or Claw" as Alternate Racial Traits. They replace Spell-like Ability (use Darkness 1/day) and Fiendish Sorcery (+2 effective Cha if Fiendish/Abyssal Sorcerer).
For PFS you need to bring with you either a physical copy of the rule-book or a personal PDF of the book.
Can you settle an unresolvable argument we have:
in the APG, the Summoner and Evolutions are introduced. The Evolution "Bite" p.60 gives damage for a Bite attack by size, then states "if the eidolon already has a bite attack, this evolution allows it to deal 1-1/2 times its Strength modifier on damage rolls with its bite".
So far so good, if you only have one head!
Ultimate Magic introduces "extra head" p.77 The extra head doesn't have any additional attack unless you add Bite, Gore, or Breath.
So if I start with a Quadruped which has one head, and Bite, initially.
what happens if I add Bite to the 2nd head, then add Bite a further time, to boost damage to 1-1/2 Str?
James Jacobs wrote:
yes, but ... Assuming the "back of the book" is used is fine provided it provides all required info: Paralysis under Universal rules is *either* (Ex) or (Su).In an Antimagic Field, (Su) abilities are suppressed while (Ex) are not - so it matters which is used.
But the Ghoul/Ghast entries do not list this aspect!
(In 3.x, they were (Ex) abilities, so I generally go with that)
it's a specific problem for those PC characters taking a race with no racial hit dice ("wholly defined by class levels") but with a special racial type.For example, across the Bestiaries and the ARG there are now at least 7 Outsider (Native) PC Races: Aasimar, Fetchling, Ifrit, Oread, Sylph, Tiefling, Undine.
Blood of Angels and Blood of Fiends have about as much on Aasimar/Tieflings as you can reasonably expect and neither says "by the way, you get all Martial Weapons and Medium/Light armour proficiency thrown in for free".
I've been under the impression that Native Outsiders just have the special properties of eat/breathe/sleep + darkvision. The Advanced Race Guide agrees; Bestiary 2 and 3 trim that to eat/breathe/sleep (no automatic darkvision).
I've been challenged by someone pointing to the (first) Bestiary definition of Outsider [and hence Outsider (Native)] as having proficiency with Simple and Martial weapons, and with "whatever armour it's described as wearing".
Which of these contradictions is true, please?
Ragnarok Aeon wrote:
disarm, sunder, and trip are attacks and can be used as part of a Full Attack, replacing attacks within the burst on a 1:1 basis. You Can Sunder + Disarm + Trip an opponent (if you have 3 attacks). You can also use a Weapon and its Weapon bonuses in those actions. (And with a Trip weapon, drop the weapon if you blow the Trip).
Bull Rush, Overrun, ... are Standard Actions in their own right and cannot be combined with anything other than a Move Action.
You can't Disarm then Bull Rush in one Full Attack action - Bull Rush can't be part of a Full Attack.
F. Wesley Schneider wrote:
I'd seriously love to subscribe - but I'm in the UK and the postage is just too expensive - I have to wait for them to be shipped over and buy locally.
If you could find a distributor who'd accept subscriptions and handle posting locally...?
Tengu Swordtrained states Tengu are "automatically proficient with sword-like weapons (including bastard swords, daggers, elven curve blades,..."
The list includes some Simple, some Martial and some Exotic blades (e.g. Elven Curve Blade).
I have automatically been assuming that since Swordtrained includes several other Exotic blades, that it includes the Exotic 1-handed proficiency ... but I have been challenged, and the challenger suggests "proficiency" literally lets the Tengu wield the items listed without the -4 penalty and so need only grant 2-handed Martial Proficiency.
I'd *love* an official ruling, or as near as I can get.
Rulings based on personal interpretation, house rules, or campaigns are not going to settle the question!
Quite simply, I have given up any hope that the Pathfinder online game will be playable - I *hate* the idea on non-consensual play.
Having designated areas where PVP is permitted - fine - I'll stay out of those areas. But if it covers the whole game, then I won't be there. End of story.
Charles Evans 25 wrote:
I can't make it anyway this year (clashes) but would like a chance to get in next year!
There's been some discussion, here and elsewhere, about the cost of the included spellbooks.
No-one seems to have mentioned that in all of these books with Preparation Rituals, there is an extra cost, but no formula for the cost, nor any rules for how to prepare a spellbook to include a Preparation Ritual.
I have my print copy of the APG, but the Pathfinder SRD has not yet been updated. I find the online SRD very useful, as the cross-links let me chase down questions in a way that paper books don't...
Any word from Paizo as to when the SRD will include the OGL content from the APG?
And,for that matter, the OGL content (eg tables) from the Gamemastery book?
I am very disappointed overall. This series of books would have been great if the time was taken to go and fix the problems that were mentions, which was supposed to happen but never did. Instead more books were cranked out, but the olds one were never fixed. I will not be purchasing from Louis Porter Jr. Design anymore.
Sadly, I must concur - badly edited conversion, and the promised fixes are simply not forthcoming.
I hit this recently too - triggered by the Bestiary entry for "Horse".
Horse as listed is explained as being a "Light Horse", and the Bestiary explicitly states that you can stat a Heavy Horse by adding the Advanced Simple Template.
If Heavy Horses all had Int 6, I think the world would have noticed by now!
p4 fixes p.167 Green Hag - if Disguise Self (Sor 1) is replaced by Alter Self (Sor2) the DC should increase from 13 to 14
p4 fixes p169 Half-Celestial. In revising Smite Evil to be the ssame as the paladin, it should have "attack bonus = HD, dam bonus = cha bonus". The Uniform given has 8HD so should be Attack +8, dam +4.
p4 fixes p175 Hobgoblin.
p4 fixes p186 Lamia. The errata fix the damage from the "+1 dagger" but not the attack. +1 dagger wielded by Monstrous Humanoid 9HD has BAB 9, +4 Str, +1 enh = +14/+9 (1d4+5)
p6 fixes p265 Tiger, Dire. There are other errata in this document showing clearly that Stealth bonus of the form "+4 (+8 in <terrain>)" means "+4 bonus -OR- a +8 bonus instead, when in <terrain>". (i.e. +4, with an extra +4 when in <terrain>)
Wolfgang Baur wrote:
thanks - I took the hint, and have ordered it from KQ -- though $10 postage still hurts...
Shame no-one will import it - I'd have thought there was enough interest in PF that something like SE, with so much approval from Paizo, would be a sure thing to distribute.
another error in the errata (as I carefully go through applying them).
This makes BAB +1, so the Rapier attack correction is wrong, as the blighter has a Rapier and Weapon Finesse, and Dex 15 (+2). Rapier Attack should remain +3, not be errata'd to +2.
Drow Noble, Cleric 3 (BAB +2)
the definition text for "Spell-like abilities" is fragmenting as more text is added.
There are 3 entries in the core PFRPG book, in thr "significant term", under combat actions, and in the glossary;
The PF RPG core states
Spell-like abilities can be dispelled and counterspelled as normal.
The bestiary states
Spell-like abilities cannot be used to counterspell, nor can they be counterspelled.
...so which is right?
I had hoped it;d be as simple as "the Bestiary came 2nd, Paizo corrected something, and updated the PRD as well as the OGL Bestiary", but they haven't...
a question has come from a player - if they have (eg a Rogue with "Minor Magic" Rogue Talent) a Spell-like Ability, does it count for activating a Spell Trigger item like a wand?
Actually, the player is trying to argue that having one spell-like ability as a class feature puts spell-like-casting into her class, and wants to evade Use Magical Device for other wands she has!
I can't actually find anything specific to clarify the question, and it applies to Monsters too, so I'd like to get a grasp on this...
A related question, which I fell I have seen an answer to somewhere but can't pin down (maybe in 3e stuff?) was: ok, a spell-like ability requires speech is the spell has verbal components, and gestures if it has somatic components, but does a Spell-like Ability require spell-components??
P.65, 1st para of "Combat Style Feat (Ex)", last sentence:
He can choose feats from his selected combat style, even if he does not have the normal prerequisites.
Lack of prerequisites means the Ranger doesn't have to bother with prerequisite Feats, but it also means bypassing BAB and Level/Class requirements.
As for the number of attacks - yes it seems quirky, but fortunately a dose of XP will solve the problem by raising him to L11 and 3/3 attacks!
Vic Wertz wrote:
Any idea when retailers (or at least, distributors) in the UK might get it?
I am puzzled about "same size" changes.
Consider Alter Self, and a Small or Medium target.
I see that if a Human (Medium) changes to "Halfling" (Small), he gains +2 Dex, and changes Size category which adds a further +1 AC, +1 Atk, -1 CMB, -1 CMD;and if a Gnome changes to "Elf" (Medium) she gains +2 Str, and changes Size category which adds a further -1 AC, -1 Atk, +1 CMB, +1 CMD;
but is this really saying that changing from Human to "Elf" gains +2 Str? and Gnome changing to "Halfling" gets +2 Dex?
Assuming I read correctly, then:
Hmmm... or have I missed some rule that says "0-level spells are not Intense Spells"?
Michael Donovan wrote:
Brilliant idea - I'd go for that too!
I'd Subscribe directly, but trans-Atlantic shipping rates are insanely expensive...