Allen Oh's page

Hey all,

I am a little bit confused about a couple of things after my first session playing pathfinder (everyone is new at it, and i am surprised at how well we went!).

Anyway, on touch attacks: Do I have to have a free hand? If I have a mace in my primary hand do I only use half my strength modifier because it is an off-hand attack?

On Channel Energy: There is not an example of a 30ft radius in the CRB. Am I correct in assuming that if I could move to the square with a movement of 30ft the channeled energy would reach it?

On Preparing spells can I put the same spell in multiple slots? E.g. can I theoretically fill all slots with Cure Light Wounds? (I am a neutral cleric channeling negative energy)

Thanks for your help everyone!

Re: your touch attack question, are you thinking for touch spells, and are you asking whether you would only use half of your STR modifier to hit because you're making your touch attack with your non-mace-wielding hand? If so -- I think the halving of the STR modifier only applies to damage, not to your attack roll. Maybe someone else can shed more light on this -- I usually play casters, so I don't make off-hand attacks very often (at all, come to think of it).

Re: channel energy, that sounds right.

Re: preparing spells, yes you can...generally speaking. One exception is domain spells -- those can only go into your domain slot, unless they're also on the Cleric spell list.

Ok, now a follow-up question. I'm a Chaotic Neutral positive energy channeling Cleric. I'm planning to take the Versatile Channeler feat at 3rd level. When I pick that feat up, will I be able to spontaneously cast both Cure and Inflict spells, or just Cure spells because that was my initial choice at 1st level?

I was excited to download the playtest. My excitement turned to frustration, however, when I tried to create an account at wizards.com. You have to read and agree to TOU, but I was not able to view the TOU. Instead, I got a blank popup in Chrome, Firefox, and Safari. What's worse, I couldn't just check the box acknowledging my agreement to the TOU. So, no account --> no playtest for me.

I'd love some clarification on this too...this question has been bugging me for quite a while now.

I play a Magus at our table. The way we've been handling it is to say that my character can hold the charge indefinitely. Casting another spell discharges the original spell.

Perhaps there should also be a rule that says that you can't hold the charge beyond a given encounter. This has come up in cases where I cast shocking grasp, miss with my spellstrike, and the combat ends before I have the opportunity to use it. The next encounter might not be for an hour, or several hours, in game time, and it seems unreasonable to allow me to hold the charge that long.

We actually had a similar situation come up this past Saturday, but I think it was a Symbol of Death.

Anyway, in our campaign, we houseruled two things:

1. Death effects put you at negative (CON+1), so you are actually dead.
2. Breath of Life is a cure spell that can be spontaneously cast, and it does work on death effects. Incidentally, we also houseruled that BoL doesn't have to be cast immediately after someone dies to work, but can be cast within I think 2 or 3 rounds.

So in our session, BoL did work to revive the party member who was killed by the Symbol of Death, even though the cleric couldn't get to him until two rounds after the symbol went off.

We recognize this goes against the description of BoL in the rules, but we thought these houserules would work better in our campaign because character death from death effects was coming up a bit more often than any of us wanted.

I am considering switching my cleric to the Words of Power system. (I know that this is a choice that normally needs to be made at 1st level, but in our campaign, when the APG came out we were allowed to "retcon" our characters if there was something that fit our character concept better.)

I have a question about spontaneous casting of healing wordspells. Page 162 of UM says that clerics can spontaneously cast a healing wordspell by burning off a prepared wordspell of equal or higher level, but the healing wordspell can't contain any other effect words.

My question is: can such a healing wordspell contain meta words that my cleric would be able to pick on the fly, as the situation dictates? For example, picking Selected vs. Selected (boost), or adding Distant to heal someone across the battlefield.

My instinct says yes, because the rules specifically say that the healing wordspell can't contain other effect words, but are silent as to meta words.

Where is it stated that you have to shout the words if a spell has a verbal component, especially if the spell is 0th level?

Not necessarily shouting, but pathfindersrd says: "To provide a verbal component, you must be able to speak in a strong voice." I don't have a cite to the core rules as I am at work right now...but we interpret that rule as saying that you cannot be discreet while casting spells with a verbal component, unless you use the Silent Spell feat to obviate the need for a verbal component.

Allen Oh wrote:

does BoL work on someone who died from a death effect

No. There is a line in the spell that says:

Core Rulebook wrote:

Creatures slain by death effects cannot be saved by breath of life.

Wow, there it is. Somehow, we had three of us (myself included) debating the issue for a few minutes, and all of us somehow missed that. Thanks for pointing it out.

Well yes the spell is absolutely great.You don't have to pay for raise 5k and then restoration. Death effects... So great if you can raise your teamate. Fighter remeber to tip your healers. Next time they may just animate you.

This actually speaks to an issue that came up in our session last weekend: does BoL work on someone who died from a death effect, in our case, Phantasmal Killer? In this particular situation it was a moot question because my Cleric couldn't get to the character within the one-round period (he had done some fancy acrobatics to get to an enemy wizard, only to be felled by PK). But the ensuing discussion led to the ruling that it wouldn't have worked anyway, since he died from a death effect and not from damage. It will be good to have a rule going forward, as our GM has warned us that death effects will continue to be an issue in the campaign, especially at our level (our party is currently 11th level and most of us will probably hit 12 in about two sessions).

Essentially it's the perfect spell for some situations but it's hard to predict when you will bump into those situations. So clerics don't prep it on a normal basis. Bards, inquisitors, and oracles don't take it as a known spell since it's so situational.

Actually, my cleric does prepare it almost every day. But that may be because we run into enemy casters all the time in our particular campaign.

One of our more memorable combats began with the party rogue and my cleric sneaking out of a building just before our party was going to ambush a bunch of baddies. The rest of the party was all "WTH?" because we didn't tell them of our intentions. While outside, I cast Silence on the rogue, who then proceeded to go in and sneak attack the guards one by one. Since he basically one-hitted the guards, the Silence spell prevented their screams from alerting anyone else. The memorable part was that the enemy sorcerer was hit by some sort of obscurement spell, so she kept running in random directions...right into the area of effect of the Silence spell. It was pretty fortuitous, as the rogue couldn't see her either, so he was actually not trying to keep her silenced.

Oh, and our GM did give the enemies a Perception check (don't know the DC) to figure out that they were being silenced.

We "houserule" in our games that clerics are able to spontaneously cast any domain spells they gain from their god. It gives the character more of a focus on their god's area's of concern. If you choose to go that route, just disregard bonus spell slots that the cleric would normally gain for preparing domain spells.

We also have a houserule, and it applies to anyone who prepares spells ahead of time. Our houserule says that you can burn off an equal- or higher-level spell to spontaneously cast any spell on your spell list.

The catch is that casting a spell in this way takes at least twice as long as if you had prepared it, with a minimum of one full round per spell level.

This lets us focus on preparing combat spells, while preserving access to out-of-combat spells. The mechanic is such that you would almost never cast spells in this way in combat, especially now that we're regularly slinging fifth level spells that would take at least five rounds to cast spontaneously per our houserule.

My cleric's favorite application of this houserule is to cast Blood Biography and play CSI: Barsaive (our campaign takes place in the Earthdawn setting).

I've really only ever played full casters. I have a slight preference for clerics vs. wizards. I actually enjoy being the party healbot/buffer/debuffer more than getting into the thick of things. Many a combat has gone by without my ever pulling out my weapon (currently a holy double crossbow), just casting spells and channelling as necessary. And I'm fine with that. Also, I've found clerics really great to RP...the plot hooks almost write themselves sometimes.

We've got something in the works. Not official of course, but its in the works.

Nice! I developed some (unofficial, of course) updated summons lists for both SM and SNA for use in the campaign in which I am a player. I did this in part because I felt that my Chaotic Good cleric didn't have a lot of choices in outsiders -- most of the outsiders on the standard lists are evil and/or lawful. So I included all of the aligned outsiders (Aeons, Proteans, and Agathions to give my cleric more choices, and of course the others so the GM could have more fun too). For natural creature types, I purposely omitted some from SM that I put on the SNA lists so that our druid wouldn't feel like he had a gimped SM.

Cure light wounds doesn't have the good descriptor...so I would rule it ok. Though, if you serve an evil god, then I would rule as GM that you may not cure innocents or anyone not worthy of your god's power. Basicaly, make sure your party works within the views of your god and you should be ok.

Spells you'd avoid would be like Order's Wrath, Holy Word, and any spell with a good or lawful descriptor.

If I were the GM, I would rule that a cleric or inquisitor who serves an evil god could cast cure spells on innocents...if it furthers the character's or god's ends (maybe, for example, to convince others that he is good, or because he needs to use the innocent as a pawn). But out of pure altruism, no, unless the innocent is, say, a family member (even villains have loved ones).

On the same note, the rulebook is quite clear, it specifically states; "domain powers AND abilities". Correct me if i'm wrong but a Cleric's Channel Energy class feature is an *ability* and should therefore stack with levels of Inquisitor.

Furthermore, do levels of Cleric and Inquisitor stack for the purposes of determining Judgement bonuses ? Again, if this is considered an *ability* then why not...?

Gah! My router ate my post, so I'm going to try this again.

I would rule in both cases, no.

It's true that the APG does state "domain powers and abilities," and that could be interpreted to include class features like the cleric's channel energy ability and the inquisitor's judgment ability.

However, I would note that this rule appears under the heading "Domain" in the inquisitor's class features, so the rule should be read as "domain powers and [domain] abilities." Otherwise, the effect would be to allow either clerics or inquisitors to take a single level in the other class and thus gain access to the other class's signature class feature at a power level equal to a single-classed member of the other class. So you could have, for example, a Cleric 19/Inquisitor 1 who could use judgments like a 20th level Inquisitor (and channel for 10d6), or an Inquisitor 19/Cleric 1 who can channel for 10d6. Either seems a little unbalanced to me.

By the way, in the year since we discussed this issue here, I have respec'ed my character as a single-classed cleric, which is what he was before the inquisitor class was offered.

Sounds like the perfect opportunity for the GM to get creative. A quest or a specialized ceremony would seem most fitting.

Thanks, everyone, for your feedback! BTW, our campaign takes place in the Earthdawn setting, with slightly modified Pathfinder rules. I think what I'm going to suggest to our GM is to have the weapons be once-holy weapons that were Horror-touched (for those who are familiar with the setting). One of our PC's is also Horror-touched at the moment.

So, our brave heroes found a couple of unholy and keen weapons. We (including our GM) are all wondering whether it is possible to remove the unholy enchantment so we can wield them. Would enchanting the weapons with holiness cancel out the unholy enchantment? If so, would the weapons be holy and keen, or just keen?

Or would the weapons now be both holy and unholy, and thus somehow both good- and evil-aligned? Or would it simply not work, as the weapons are already evil-aligned (just like Align Weapon can't align weapons that are already aligned)?

Thanks for your insights.

I have a NOOKcolor and really like it. Many PDFs work well on it. However, the Paizo PDFs don't. They take forever to load and turn pages.

ePub would be a good format, even if there are no graphics and very light formatting -- page turns are downright snappy for ePubs. As my collection of books grows, they are starting to stretch the capacity of my handy haversack. No doubt when the Bestiary 2 and Ultimate Magic come out, I'll have to find another way to transport my books to gaming sessions.

As a workaround, my GM has a wireless network, so I can just go to pathfindersrd.com if I want to see the rules on my NOOKcolor. Still, I would really be interested in seeing ePubs.

How does blink work in 4e? Or is the spell no longer available there? Or do the 4e rules not bother with anything but mechanics?

Thanks, everyone, for your input (and please continue to chime in!).

I didn't see anything for Blink in 4/e; I am assuming that the spell doesn't exist.

To answer some of the other points raised:

The Shadowfell is described as a sort of spiritual successor to the Negative Energy Plane and the Plane of Shadow.

I think we (the GM and I) are in agreement that Blink should work by accessing the plane where incorporeal undead live. We just don't know where that is. :)

It's been ruled that the Ring of Blinking does exist (the GM awarded it as treasure, and he doesn't do random treasure, so he actually picked this one out), and that the Ethereal Plane does not.

I play in a group that uses the Earthdawn campaign setting with (essentially) D&D 4/e cosmology. It has been ruled that Horrors come from the Far Realm. And, as some of you may know, D&D 4/e does not have the Ethereal Plane in its cosmology.

My character has a Ring of Blinking. Mechanically, we're treating it just as it's written up, but saying that blinking works via some plane other than the Ethereal. We figured we'd handwave it for the last session, but make a ruling in time for the next session.

Our question is, for those of you who are familiar with either Earthdawn or (probably more importantly) D&D 4/e cosmology, what would be a good plane to stand in for the Ethereal in this setting? The question came up because we were trying to figure out how Horrors would interact with my character while he is blinking, i.e., could they perceive and/or hurt him. It was established that they could perceive our Wizard character who was perceiving them astrally.

Thanks in advance for any suggestions.

I also once played a half-orc wizard in 3.5 (I rolled an 18 and put it in int). He used a spell-storing scythe and (with 16 str) no-one seemed to notice his lower BAB, cause he still hurt.

Ideas:
A dwarf bard (more cowbell?)
A halfling/gnome barbarian
A dwarf archer (longbow, not crossbow)
A half-orc healer (not just cleric, but healer)
A dwarf sorcerer (air bloodline just to go all the way)
A tiefling paladin
An aasimar assassin
A halfling necromancer (WHY ISN'T HE JOLLY?!)
A half-dragon carpenter
An aberrant-bloodline gnome sorcerer

I'm playing a half-orc healer. His best stats are Wisdom and Charisma, and his worst are Strength and Constitution (he's the runt of the family). The first social encounter we had as a party, we had a good laugh at the fact that, besides the Sorcerer, my half-orc was the party "face."

Hmm. This sounds pretty interesting for my character...however, he's a Chaotic Good cleric/inquisitor -- do you need levels in paladin to take this PrC?

Steelfiredragon wrote:

I'd have to ask if its possible for the requirements for the holy vindicator

You gotta be holy.

And you gotta like vindacatin' stuff.

** spoiler omitted **

My character is a half-orc 4th level Cleric -- mostly focused on healing and buffing. Most of his attacks are ranged, with very occasional melee.

I'm leveling up and taking my next level in Inquisitor and am wondering how I might best allocate my new Inquisitor spells, 5th level feat, and skills. Right now I'm thinking of focusing my Inquisitor spells on what would otherwise be Wizard/Sorcerer spells (because I can cast the rest as a Cleric), taking a bunch of Knowledge skills to take advantage of Monster Lore, and taking Extra Channeling as my feat so that I can somewhat make up for the "lost" extra die of channeling that I would've gotten if I took my 5th level in Cleric instead.

Has anyone played a Cleric who has gone on to take levels in Inquisitor, and how have your builds gone?

Thanks for any advice.

I'm wondering if my character, who has the Birthmark trait, can use his Birthmark as a holy symbol for channeling. The description of the trait states that it can be used as a divine focus for spellcasting, but is silent as to whether it can be used for channeling. The description of the channeling class feature says that the cleric must be able to present his holy symbol in order to channel. Page 213 of the rules says that "the divine focus for a cleric or paladin is a holy symbol appropriate to the character's faith."

Does this mean that a divine focus is equivalent to a holy symbol for all purposes (e.g., channeling) or just for spellcasting?

This issue came up because we (my GM and I) are trying to reason out whether there would be an unbalancing advantage to a holy symbol that essentially can't be lost or stolen. I suspect the ramifications of a cleric losing his holy symbol are not as significant as the ramifications of a wizard losing his spellbook.

The issue of the holy symbol is coming up because, in our campaign world, clerics of the deity in question have to keep a low profile or risk being found out by clerics of a rival deity or by certain political forces, so there is an in-game reason why such clerics would not want to carry around holy symbols. So we came up with the idea of a normally-invisible divine seal that would be bestowed upon such clerics via a spell cast during an initiation ritual.

My understanding is that he gets to pick the judgment each time he uses it. Also, he can change judgments mid-combat, but the bonus resets to the first round bonuses. See p. 16 of the APG final beta, at the first full paragraph (immediately before the descriptions of the various judgments).

Ok, back to the topic of spells -- if I have levels in both Cleric and Inquisitor, does my Wisdom bonus affect both my Cleric daily spells and my Inquisitor spells known (but, of course, not my Inquisitor spells/day)?

I wouldn't think so -- I could see levels stacking if straight Inquisitors could channel, but they can't. Yes, I'm mulling over that too.

To address stringburka's comment -- adding some skillfulness is part of the motivation. My character concept is basically a slave liberator (we're using a different pantheon than the core rules), so in terms of my character's role in the party, I'd lean more to the sneaky stuff and combat options. Wizard seems harder to reconcile with this concept...also, in a previous campaign, I played a cleric/sorcerer, and I found it to be too many different spells and powers (domain + bloodline) to keep track of. With Inquisitor, they'd still be mostly divine spells, and easier for me to keep track of as a player.

From a game mechanic standpoint, I'm looking at Inquisitor for some of the unique class features, such as judgments and monster lore. From an RP standpoint, the Inquisitor class meshes very well with my character concept.

What about the Channel power? I'm guessing that the levels don't stack for that since it is a Cleric ability and not specificially a Domain opwer, which would be unfortunate for the overall effectiveness of the Cleric as a healer. Thoughts on that power?

Hi,

I'm actually the player in Don's campaign that is looking to take a level or levels in Inquisitor (I'm currently a 4th level Cleric). That ruling on caster levels makes sense. Come to think of it, having levels stack could lead to some unbalancing in that I'd get a larger spell selection (both spells known and spells/day), as well as a higher caster level.

To flesh this question out a little bit, does this mean that if I use a spell that is available to both Clerics and Inquisitors, I would have to keep track of whether I prepared it as a Cleric spell or whether I'm using it as a known Inquisitor spell?

Also, to follow up on the last statement that "if you're an 8/8 inquisitor cleric, both with the same domain," I'd have the domain powers as a 16th level cleric -- keeping in mind that Inquisitors only get one domain, and such domain would have to be one of my Cleric domains (i.e., no taking a third domain), would that mean that (in this hypothetical) I'd use one domain's powers as an 8th level Cleric and the other domain's powers as a 16th level Cleric? In other words, in the APG preview it says that levels of Cleric and Inquisitor stack for the purpose of determining domain powers and abilities -- is this only for the domain in which there is overlap, or does the stacking work for both Cleric domains?

Thanks!

Don Fuller wrote:

Hello,

I haven't found a ruling in any of the beta test forums. My question is about the new Inquisitor Class; since it is a core class and not a prestige class, it would appear that the caster levels don't stack with each other. The only reason there seems to be some room for interpretation is that per the APG preview,

Levels of cleric and inquisitor stack for the

purpose of determining domain powers and abilities,

but not for bonus spells.

But it doesn't spell out anthing about Caster levels that I can find. Anyone know the official ruling here?

Thanks.

It only stacks for the domain powers and abilities. Not for caster levels, spells, or anything else like that. So if you're a 8/8 inquisitor cleric, both with the same domain, you have those domain powers as a 16 cleric.

There's no such spell as Know Alignment that I'm aware.

I must have been thinking of an older edition of the Oldest RPG. I distinctly remember a Know Alignment spell when I played it as a teenager, and I guess I assumed that there was one in PF. My bad. :)

Hmm. If I'm reading the original poster correctly, he doesn't really want to change alignment; he just wants to "read" as good-aligned. So a Helm of Opposite Alignment is probably not what he's looking for in that it would produce a real alignment change to Chaotic Good, and one that he would not want to change back to Lawful Evil.

An Amulet of Undetectable Alignment would conceal his alignment, but he should be prepared to answer questions as to why he's not reading as anything.

Is there another magical item that provides the effect of a Misdirection spell? Then he could "read" as one of the other party members for purposes of a Detect Evil spell, though not for Know Alignment. Not really a perfect solution either.

Ideally, there would be a spell that not only hides one's alignment, but actually makes it appear to be something else.

You gain a net increase in CMD, and CMB, you gain reach, and you get an increased damage die step and strength bonus.

Your AC goes down by 2 (if you are a sword and board full plate "cant hit me" character, this spell is not for you).

If you are strength based there is a next 0 effect to your 'to hit'. If you are dex based, again this is not a spell for you.

A strength based character especially one that uses combat manuevers gains alot from enlarge person, and that is who the spell is for.

I think this right here sums up why the spell did not work so well for me -- I'm a cleric, and my highest physical stat is DEX. So casting it on myself in a combat situation was really more of a liability than an asset. But for the right subject, it could be quite effective.

In the future, I'll probably use this much like I use the other spells in my arsenal -- to buff others.

Allen Oh wrote:

Are there other implications of Enlarge Person that we're missing here?

Nope, you've pretty much nailed it. A fighter with a ton of hit points with Enlarge Person cast on him "draws the fire" of the bad guys, allowing other characters to perform better. Additionally, a fighter's already-decent melee damage increases rather substantially. Add reach to this and you've got quite the melee monster stomping around the battlefield.

Not bad for a 1st-level spell.

Got it. So I just have to know whom to cast it on to maximize its effectiveness.

One thing I did miss, which I learned after the fact: it gives me a +4 to Intimidate skill checks.

This weekend my new cleric character cast Enlarge Person for the first time, and I'm not sure I'm seeing the net benefit of the spell -- wondering if I'm missing something. Here's what our group figured out:

+2 STR bonus means +1 to attack rolls with melee weapons, but there's a -1 penalty for size, so no net change to attack rolls with melee weapons, and actually a -1 penalty to attack rolls with projectile weapons.

Granted, the +2 STR bonus means a +1 bonus to damage rolls, and melee weapons do more damage due to increased size. For example, my enlarged greataxe does 3d6.

-2 DEX penalty effectively means a -1 penalty to AC, combined with the -1 penalty due to size means a -2 net penalty to AC.

10' reach.

It seemed to us that the only thing that the spell really accomplished during this particular battle was making my character easier to hit, and a more attractive target. Thus, we renamed it the "Decoy" spell.

Are there other implications of Enlarge Person that we're missing here?

Modera wrote:

I was staying away from the murder one since it's a monster prone to evil in this case

I only buy that argument when it's a being that literally embodies evil (creatures with the [evil] subtype, essentially), and even then it's on a case-by-case basis.

RotRL spoiler:
** spoiler omitted **

Hypothetical: assume (contrary to the fact pattern) that the enchantress is CG. Did she commit an evil act?

I say no, assuming that she truly intended to propose and follow through with a truce (as evidenced by her disgust at her comrades' actions).

Again assuming she is CG, if she found out or got suspicious about her comrades' intentions, what would her obligations (if any) be to the goblin, given that she cast the charm spell that facilitated this scheme?

First situation: I agree, absolutely an evil act involving attacking a vulnerable opponent after getting his trust under false pretenses. Evil on multiple levels.

Second situation: I agree here too. The issue here is whether the sorcerer had an obligation to disclose the cursed nature of the bracers. I'd argue that that the enemy wizard could reasonably be expected to do his due diligence by waiting to use the bracers until he could identify them himself. After all, as a wizard, he should be pretty savvy about magical items -- savvy enough to know that not all of them are beneficial. Also, being evil, I'd argue that the enemy wizard is likely less trusting of others. The result might be different if the recipient of the bracers were a magic-naive barbarian.

Situation:

You're talking with some friends or family members who aren't role-playing savy and have to leave to go play Pathfinder RPG/Society. Do you:

A) Tell them you're going to go play Pathfinder.
B) Tell them you're going to go play D&D.
C) Tell them you're going to play a game that's like D&D.
D) Other.

I know there's are answers of "I don't tell them anything" or that you "lie about where you're going," but I'm not interested in those.

Option A to me has always involved a lot of explaining. Option B gives me the "usual looks." Option C has seemed to give me even stronger looks than Option B.

So what do you say?

With my wife, I say B -- she knows what D&D is, and if I correct her and say "actually, it's Pathfinder" she thinks I'm being anal.

With others I'll say I'm gaming.

gigglestick wrote:

Jal Dorak wrote:

Yes, for every level. Otherwise you get into a weird situation where your first level (the class you trained in from a young age) is not giving you the benefit of being your favored class and may as well be something else.

Wait, so you can decide at each level wheher to take the +1 HP or +1 Skill Point?

Yes to that as well. It's not set in stone.

I actually read the rule as the opposite -- that it is set in stone once you pick the +1 HP or +1 skill point for a particular level. The rule says "the choice of gaining [+1 HP or +1 skill point] each time a character gains a level . . . cannot be changed once made for a particular level."

I think the "for a particular level" may have been put in there to address the unlikely situation where someone picks a favored class other than what they take their first level in (e.g., I'm picking cleric as my favored class, but I'm going to start out as a fighter).

Having said that, I think the rule should be that you get to decide at each level (it's not clear from an in-game perspective why you should be locked in to either choice for your whole career). In any event, our GM has ruled that you get to decide at each level, regardless of what the "official" interpretation of the rule is.

A bunch of friends and I here in the Twin Cities are starting up a Pathfinder campaign this weekend...I'll mention this thread to them and see if there's any interest.

has anything happened with PFS in the twin cities area?

i'm down in eau claire, and i run a couple of PFS game days a month down here, and would love to be able to play every now and again, if there's anything happening up in the cities...

Seems to me it's all of his Cure spells (but not damage done to undead by Cure spells, nor channelling effects). Also note that this doesn't stack with the Empower Spell metamagic feat.

So I'm having a problem with figuring out Cleric domain spells. If a cleric takes Healing for his Domain then are all his Cure spells empowered or is it ONLY the spells from the Healing Domain?

Thanks guys!

Found out from the DM since this post that the rules for rolling were slightly different from what I thought/heard/was expecting. In his own words:

DM wrote:

You roll 3d6 6 times, and place them how you like. You can roll 3 sets of stats and pick one of them, but if you don't like any of those sets you can keep rolling until you get a block you like.

This just seems bizarre. What's the point of rolling if you get to roll indefinitely until you get one you like?

That is bizarre. What's the point of rolling three sets of stats at a time?

Sounds like a "take 18" rule. :)

In our campaign that we'll be starting in a couple weeks, we're doing 4d6-drop, but reroll anything 8 or under.

My understanding (mainly related to software) is that it is illegal to reproduce any copyrighted work without an explicit license to do so. That includes the free downloads. It's just the damages that Paizo could claim would be small/zero.

[...]

Reading the exact text of the Council of Thieves Players Guide, reproduction of parts not designated as Open Content is directly forbidden without written permission. It certainly contains 'locations' and hence has parts which are not Open and therefore it is currently illegal to print in its entirety even for personal use. Technically it's even illegal to make a backup, although I believe that there is precedence that the copy made in RAM when you open a PDF from disk is allowed.

That's basically right -- it's illegal to reproduce copyrighted work without permission. One exception is what's known as the fair use doctrine. There are a number of factors that inform a decision as to whether a particular use qualifies as fair use; ultimately it's a balancing test. If you're making money off the use (like in the example of stores charging for character sheets), that weighs against a finding of fair use. Other factors include, for example, how much of the work you're using.

Actual damages might be small/zero, but there could be statutory damages, which can be from $750-$30k per work, at the court's discretion (recall the recent music downloading case, where a woman was found liable for almost $2 million for 24 songs).

As far as RAM copies are concerned, that exception applies for software because it's necessary to make a copy of the software in order to execute it in a computer. I don't specifically recall any cases on point, but I would imagine that by the same logic, the same exception would apply for the RAM copy of a PDF you're opening from a disk.

A lot of game stores I go to have a big pile of printed out pathfinder character sheets. Is that illegal too? If so, then I know quite a few stores who are in trouble (particularly the ones who make a profit off those character sheets)

I would argue this type of usage is not "personal use" as in "permission granted . . . for personal use only." If I were counselling a store, I would strongly advise them not to even make a pile of character sheets available, let alone charge for them -- even just to recoup printing costs, and especially not for profit. I don't see how that could fall under fair use.