Auspician's page

Hey there Paizo, I've been a loyal subscriber since the Pathfinder Beta, and am proud to own a physical version of every Pathfinder and Starfinder book you have ever released. A little over a year ago, I lost my job and had to cancel my subscription for about six months until I could get reestablished. After I did, I went back and purchased all of the physical books I had missed in that time, and reactivated all of my subscriptions.

Of course, now I am without the PDFs for all of those books (included in Order #4178830).

I love Paizo - it is one of the best companies I have ever had the pleasure of doing business with. But I simply cannot justify spending another $206.41 for the digital copies when I've already paid for the physical books.

I understand that Paizo is under no obligation to help with my plight because I was not a subscriber for those six months. But if there is anything that could be done to allow me access to the digital versions of the physical books I already purchased in order 4178830 without having to spend over $200 to get them, I would be very appreciative.

Thank you very much for your kind consideration.

This is absolutely not true. An event takes place in Rise of the Runelords that leads to the events in Book 2 of Curse of the Crimson Throne. The players can squint and never know the difference, but if they play Rise of the Runelords after a clever player will think 'wtf - did this happen before Curse'? Because yes, in fact, it did.

Interesting how your answers add 'maybes' and lack of clarification, while my answers, while possibly wrong, have no such ambiguity. May those who come after decide which is of more value.

Since no one has taken a shot at this yet, I'm going to try to add some clarification. My interpretation is that you keep your supertype but not your type(race) or subtype(subrace). For example, an elven lich would keep their supertype 'Undead' but not their creature type 'lich' or their race 'elf'. All abilities related to being an Undead would remain, and most abilities related to being a lich would be removed (other than specific features not based on body, such as its phylactery).

For clarity, the complete list of supertypes are: Aberrations, Animals, Constructs, Dragons, Fey, Humanoids, Magical Beasts, Monstrous Humanoids, Oozes, Outsiders, Plants, Undead, and Vermin.

Q1. Are the following abilities considered "dependent on form"(and thus lost when you polymorph)?
(a) damage reduction #/special material -
(b) damage reduction #/magic or alignment
(c) energy resistance/immunity/vulnerability
(d) spell resistance
(e) channel resistance
(f) fast healing
(g) regeneration
(h) aura, e.g. frightful presence, fear aura, unnatural aura
(i) vampire's sunlight vulnerability, drow's light blindness
(j) negative energy affinity
(k) ability damage, ability drain, energy drain

A: Yes.

Note: All of the foregoing answers assume the ability is granted due to being a creature of that type; if the ability is granted by equipment or class levels then it will never be lost when polymorphing.

Q2. Since you do not change creature type/subtypes, so do you retain traits associated with the type/subtypes even if the traits are "dependent on form"?

Only your supertype abilities. And you *always* retain all of your supertype abilities.

Q3. If answer to question 1c is "yes", does a silver dragon (cold subtype) still lose cold immunity and fire vulnerability when it changes shape into a human?

Yes, that is correct. It would lose both abilities.

Q4. To clarify further, if a lich polymorphs into a wolf, he remains undead...
(a) Does he gain a Constitution score since having no Constitution is dependent on his undead form?
(b) Does he still lose darkvision which is granted to him for being undead (since he remains undead)?
(c) Does he lose immunity to bleed, Str/Dex/Con damage/drain, stunning, poison, effects that require Fort save, massive damage? (These effects seem to depend on physical form.)

A: No, he does not get a Constitution score. His HPs are still dependent on Charisma.

Q5. If a ghost druid uses wild shape to become a wolf, does he retain the incorporeal trait and subtype, thereby becoming an incorporeal wolf?

No, he would gain a physical form because ghost is a type not a supertype. He would, however, be an undead wolf.

Q6. If a purple worm swallows an elf whole and then becomes a pigeon due to baleful polymorph, what happens to the still-living elf in its stomach?

The spell functions and the elf is automatically expelled because the creature no longer possesses the Swallow Whole ability.

Q7. An ancient silver dragon (Gargantuan dragon) uses change shape to become an elf (Medium humanoid). It does not gain Str+2 from alter self, since change shape does not adjust ability scores from the spell (see above). But does it adjust ability scores for changing size from Gargantuan to Medium?

You would adjust the dragon's Strength down by 24 and Dexterity up by 4 as appropriate for becoming medium size (per the Monster Advancement rules, http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/rules-for-monsters/monster-advancement), and then apply the +2 Strength for the Alter Self spell. This would take the dragon's Strength to 13, and Dexterity to 12.

I hope that helps in clarifying what can be a confusing set of abilities!

Unfortunately, my wife and I will not be able to make it to PaizoCon this year as originally intended. Is it possible to request a refund to the original credit card please?

Just printed out a copy of my PDF to review prior to starting up this campaign, and on the copyright page I notice that it says 'Printed in China'. No it wasn't! I just printed it myself, and it was never released by Paizo in printed form! :P

Update: We tried to continue this campaign, I even built a new character, but the campaign died without my original PCs participation after only two sessions. Shadow demon possession with the ability to irrevocably capture a PC seemed to be the lynchpin in ending the campaign. Maybe we'll get back to Wrath of the Righteous some day, but this time around the AP was a failure.

I can't seem to find the response from Stephen Radney-Macfarland, so I assume it now has been removed. Huh. I really wish the designers would clarify some of the confusing points in their game system before some other upstart company comes along and pulls a Paizo on them.

Hey James,

I can't seem to find the rumored legendary stealth FAQ, so I'm hoping you can answer some of our groups queries on the matter before we pull our hair out.

If you're using stealth, and someone spots you, does ducking behind cover allow you another stealth vs perception check to regain your stealth? Or do you need to roll a bluff check first and then stealth with the -10 penalty?

If you're in stealth and nobody beats your stealth check with their perception check, but you end your movement without cover or concealment, does that automatically break your stealth? What if you have Hide in Plain sight?

If you're using stealth in a combat situation, do you need to reroll stealth vs perception checks every round if your enemies are not aware of your presence? What if they are?

What situations automatically break stealth?

Thanks so much for your insight and assistance!

Hey guys, I've just gotta say I'm not at all impressed with the direction you have taken the checkout on the website. It seems buggy, misleading, and intentionally customer-unfriendly. Whereas before it was a clear and elegant "this is what you're paying for this, these are your shipping options, how would you like to pay for this, etc" now it feels much more like "Oh, you want to buy this stuff? It'll be this much - what's your card #? Oh, we're not going to explain WHY it is that price. Figure it out. We need your card # to charge you money."

Specifically, the checkout jumps directly from #1 to #3 entirely skipping over shipping options and just saying it will charge you for whatever shipping option that happens to be there. A customer has to MANUALLY click shipping to select shipping options - why don't we get this option as we go rather than hiding it like a dark secret?

I think I know why...because the dark secret is that you've removed the option for standard postal (usually $6 or so) in favor of a much more expensive Priority shipping (closer to $11). While $5 might not seem like much, it is enough of a difference to make me decide not to participate in your Great Golem Sale for a few items I want when I'm unable to combine them into my sidecart for shipping with my regular subscription order.

I've been a good customer of Paizo's since 2007 and own almost every Pathfinder related product you've released - just check my order history. But the direction of the website and customer unfriendly practices makes me seriously consider cancelling my subscriptions (another problem with your website, being unable to see what I'm going to be charged for my subscriptions for over a month) and just going to Amazon in the future.

I really like working directly with Paizo, so I hope you can resolve these issues shortly. Was there really a problem with the old options in terms of checkout and shipping? If it isn't broke, why did you try to fix it?

In normal play, all potions are assumed to be created by a Wizard or Cleric unless such spells do not appear on their list. To my group the logic is simple - what ranger or paladin (martial classes who are typically rather feat deprived) waste a feat on Brew Potion? On the other hand, if the group does possess one of these classes, and they do decide to invest in Brew Potion, more power to them. But that's the only way I'd allow such cheap potions into my game, as it is obviously not what the designers intended.

Did we ever get a FAQ clarification to the question posed by this thread?

Strange. Mine is on the bottom left corner of the inside cover.

I sent you guys an e-mail. It is a relief knowing that you are not intentionally tagging your books. Thanks for all you do.

Went over this idea with my GM and her interpretation was this: the familiar can transform into an item and back again, but it is only treated as one or another at any given time. As a familiar it is not indestructible or immune to HP damage (even if a major artifact in item form). As an item it loses all benefits of being a familiar outside of its mental ability scores. This also means no Greater Familiar link to soak half of my damage taken into oblivion when the familiar is in item form.

If it is an artifact, if the familiar form reaches zero HP it immediately reverts to item form and cannot become a familiar again until it is healed up past half its HP total.

Seems somewhat useful to do this if you're interested in hiding your familiar, but at the end of the day you get more mileage out of having both a familiar and a legendary item, so that might be the path I go.

I'm still open to other interpretations though guys, so keep them coming.

The basic question is in the subject of this post, but here's the general question I have:

1: Assuming that a wizard with a bonded item can take the mythic ability Legendary Item, it also stands to reason that the wizard could select his bonded item to be Legendary.

2: If that is the case, would also stand to reason that the same wizard with a familiar and the Transformative Familiar mythic ability could also select Legendary Item to select his bonded item-familiar as a legendary item?

3: And assuming all that works so far, could the same wizard take legendary item again (or twice more) to upgrade his familiar to an artifact?

4: And assuming that works could the wizard then also take the Greater Familiar link mythic ability to have his familiar take half the damage he takes, despite being unable to gain the broken/destroyed condition?

5: Would the familiar retain his artifact status in familiar form as well as bonded item form? Or just when considered an item?

6: Also, despite artifacts being unable to be destroyed through conventional means, if sufficient damage was taken to reduce the familiar to half of its HP does that mean it would cease to be a bonded item and return to familiar status?

What do you guys think? Does this logic break down anywhere? Or would it be possible to have a Greater Artifact Familiar whose mere presence absorbs half the damage that would be done to you without limit?

Hey guys,

Just received my Inner Sea Gods hardcover and I gotta say, wow, amazing artwork throughout. You guys really outdid yourself this time. I am curious about what appears to be a manufacturing defect in my book - in the inside front cover there is a large protrusion that looks like something got trapped under the paper during binding.

Are you guys including RFID or similar inventory control tags/chips to your hardcovers now? Seems silly to have it included in a book shipped directly from you that never saw a retailers shelf. Otherwise, if not (which is my hope), is there any chance I could swap out the book for a fresh one? I have the PDF so I'm fine with the replacement being included with my next month's subscription shipment to save on shipping. What would be the best way to send this book back to you guys?

Thanks for all the great work that you do!

Dustin

I'm currently playing a wizard character who uses the spell 'Emergency Force Sphere' as a way to prevent enemies from making attacks on him and his minions. I can't seem to find much detail in how immediate actions work and how they would apply to this spell, and was wondering what you guys think.

At what point does the immediate action need to be declared?

A: Between actions, but not 'in response to actions'.
B: After actions have been declared, but before targets/specifics have been selected. (ie: I'm going to attack, but I haven't decided who to attack yet).
C: After actions have been declared and the specifics declared.

If C is the case, does the immediate action happen before the specific action, potentially interrupting it? In the case of Emergency Force Sphere, if a creature Y declares an attack against target X, if Emergency Force Sphere is cast between Y and X does that make creature Y's attack target the force sphere instead for that attack? For all attacks that round? For no attacks, allowing them to switch to a different target for their first attack?

Tl;dr: Do immediate actions go 'on the stack' like in Magic the Gathering? Or does it work differently?

So I just got Champions of Balance, and have found myself enamored with the Impossible Bloodline. It seems to grant hitherto 'impossible' abilities with regard to constructs; my question naturally deals with the idealization of constructs, ie Golems.

The Impossible Bloodline power states:

"Constructs are susceptible to your enchantment (compulsion) spells as if they were not mind-affecting. Constructs are treated as living creatures for the purposes of determining which spells affect them."

But here's the rub: Golem writ large are immune to magic, and don't care one bit if the spells they are immune to are mind affecting or if they are treated as humanoids - they're still immune.

So either I'm missing the benefit of this bloodline power (short of low-level constructs such as animated objects) or it does in fact allow you to hit your Stone Golem minion with Heroism and heal them with Cure Light Wounds?

Could a developer shed some light on this? What was the intent behind this ability, and does it apply one iota to Golems? Thanks!

I'm just glad firearms are sufficiently rare, and I handed mine over to my cohort before the teleportation.

The battle my party had with Eustoyriax, the Mythic Shadow Demon guarding the Sword of Valor in the lower levels of Drezen, was quite intense. Not only was the party split up prior to the battle, leaving it to just myself (Cavalier/Ranger who uses firearms), my cohort (melee fighter), and the party cleric (who thankfully knew how to cast Magic Circle vs Evil).

Eustoyriax was assisted in this combat by two other shadow demons who worked in tandum to possess the party. Without going into more details, near the end of the fight we had disposed of two of the demons leaving just a wounded Eustoyriax remaining. He managed to possess my character but before he could do much more than fire off a single bullet at the cleric was subsumed into the Magic Circle and suppressed.

Having reached an impasse, my character decided to make himself a less useful minion and handed his guns over to his cohort and left the Magic Circle, giving the demon a chance to escape and find a more useful servant. Not a moment after I left the circle, Eustoyriax took possession once again and used his Possession Mastery ability in conjunction with his SLA's to TELEPORT AWAY WITH MY CHARACTER to the hell's knows where.

Not only did we not gain our 3rd mythic tier for defeating the challenge, but now the GM is now asking me to roll up a new character as it might be numerous sessions before there will be a chance to recover my original character (his will save against the magic jar requires him to roll a natural 20).

How crazy is that? No idea what to do now, as my character was definitively the party's leader and his cohort has no reason to stick around without him there, short of trying to find him.

Has anyone else had this happen to them? Been possessed by Eustoyriax (or another Shadow Demon) who had the audacity to teleport away with them? I'm just curious if anyone has ever seen this before.

So.... deities using divine power cannot locate the creature, nor can 10th Tier Mythic characters with mythic spellcasting, +100 to perception checks, blindsight and true seeing. Does this mean they are immune to death?

Sounds like this ability is in need of clarification and errata.

Because, as noted earlier in this thread, it is a a violation of the agreement with the credit card companies. Some companies are willing to ignore this restriction; Paizo is not.

Because, you know, making digital products available for download is somehow under the purview of credit card companies. Having worked for both a bank and credit card company, I will say it again: Hogwash.

At the end of the day, this thread isn't about customers being entitled - it is about giving Paizo a chance to be the best place to get our books. Many subscribers may choose simply to cancel their subscription order and go buy their books at their FLGS. Instead many of us are choosing to voice our concerns. I'm also sharing an actionable option to satisfy consumer demand while not putting Paizo in a bad spot (as far as I can tell from my vantage point).

The other option is to simply expand the shipping department to avoid these delays; I'm sure Paizo has considered this, but it would entail additional financial cost. My option does not, but would pacify those of us who just want to see the new goodies as soon as possible. So Paizo? What do you think?

Since they knew they were going to be late they should have made sure the PDF's would be sent out on time or earlier as a way to apologize to the subscribers.

And as noted elsewhere Brent, they can't due to the credit card agreements.

Hogwash. Once a credit card is authorized successfully, the biller is guaranteed to get paid. Even if the authorization later drops off and all the money is spent on other things, the entire point of an authorization is to allow the money to be taken out of the account anyway (even if that would leave a negative or overlimit balance).

The only consideration here is what to do with customers who have their accounts authorized and attempt to cancel orders *after* they receive their PDFs. But first things first - how does Paizo currently remedy customers who buy PDFs, gain access to them, and then ask to cancel their order? Do they just give them their money back even though they received the product? I'm guessing not. This would be the same situation.

If the customer was insistent, it wouldn't be difficult for the Paizo Customer Service team to provide another option - namely, refunding the difference between the subscription cost and the PDF cost after the authorization turns into an actual charge on the account. One way or another the customers would have gotten their PDFs, so they should pay for them.

At this point, if Paizo decides to hold back releasing PDFs to subscribers until after shipment it will be a choice to favor customers inclined to cancel orders and give customer service a really hard time over their loyal customers and subscribers who have been with them since the beginning.

tl;dr: Releasing PDFs immediately upon a successful card authorization would not cost Paizo anything, would not open them up to any financial risk, and would make their subscribers far more happy. So why not?

I would buy this book. At the present 5th printing, 95% of the errors have been corrected - it is more than time for a special edition corebook.

I purchased two copies of the Corebook when it originally came out. My first edition signed copies are completely destroyed - numerous pages ripped, the cover marred and the spine broken and falling off. The books are basically no longer usable. I've toyed with the idea of buying new corebooks, but that seems a waste unless I'm getting something more.

A leatherbound edition could be that option. It would certainly stand up to abuse better than the existing Corebooks that use substandard binding. Otherwise I'll probably go to a professional bookbinder and have them recompile the pages in my signed books so they can continue to be used.

If the devs intended that Grand Beastform Mutagen superseded all previous mutagens, don't you think they would have just come out and said that? Since you are replacing a normal alchemist ability for every step in the progression, why would you somehow 'lose' those previous abilities when you get new, better ones?

If you do indeed lose the lower level Beastform Mutagen abilities when you get the higher level ones, why doesn't a fighter lose weapon training with the first group of weapons when he selects a second? Or a Druid lose the ability to wild shape into small and medium animals when he achieves large and tiny sizes at 6th level? Or a Paladin lose the shaken mercy when he takes the frightened mercy?

Was the fact that you are intended to get more and more beast-like abilities as the class progresses so unclear? And why don't we have an errata for this nearly six months later?

At high levels there is always Scintillating Pattern that (strangely) the Heavens Oracle was deprived of (in favor of a better 'flavor'(?) spell, Prismatic Spray).

I'm also curious how this could work. Didn't see any clarification in the second printing. Any further follow up on this?

In Ultimate Magic there is a spell called 'Malfunction', which duplicates confusion for constructs. However, this spell allows for spell resistance. Am I correct to understand that this spell would have absolutely no effect on golems (which are immune to any spell which allows SR)?

If this is the case, what is the point of the spell? As a 4th level spell, what constructs could hope to pose a threat to a party of 7th level+?

Paizo appears to have changed the configuration of their site so that I cannot access the above link. I'd love to have a copy of the documents, if you'd be so kind to send them to me. mail at ausp dot org

Thanks!

What makes Pathfinder so unique is the ability to create a character concept in your head, and make it work in a wide variety of different ways using different classes. Since everything is designed to be balanced, I don't need to wait until very high levels to make my character concept work if I'm willing to make some sacrifices.

Sure, a feat that gives a class ability might seem overpowered, but most such feats have several prerequisites to balance things out. It allows a character to gain similar abilities and thus complete a concept much earlier than usual.

I'll admit that it does get somewhat confusing at times, but it allows the books to remain a treasure-trove of ideas and possibilities rather than a cold set of inflexible rules. Honestly, I like how Paizo has chosen to blur the lines somewhat.

Thanks Ross.

I had another n00b question; I'm having a bit of a hard time understanding GM rewards in the Guide to the Pathfinder Society. It says that the GM does not get special boons bestowed by the Chronicle sheet such as free magical treasure, regional boons, or bonus die rolls.

But does the character who the GM applied the chronicle sheet to gain the ability to purchase the equipment of the appropriate Tier listed on the Chronicle Sheet?

Thanks, Doug. I'm looking forward to running another scenario next week!

I just finished GMing my first Pathfinder Society Scenario, #29 Shipyard Rats. After the session was finished, I reported it to Paizo, but I'm a bit puzzled by my rewards page.

In the Guide to Pathfinder Society Organized Play it clearly states that GMs gain: +1 XP for the scenario, 100% of max gold for the Tier, and Full PA. Full PA for this scenario is 2, but according to my character record I only gained 1 GM PA credit for this scenario, and that 1 is tabulated at the bottom next to my faction name.

Can someone clarify this for me? Did they change the rules for this? Is this an error in the recording system?

Thanks for any clarification you can offer.

I'm going with the target taking the damage over and over every round until they fix this obvious error. :)

I did find it a bit entertaining that succeeding in the saving throw for Terrible Remorse is actually worse than failing it. I'd much rather take a bit of damage here and there than not be able to act for a round on a successful save.

Example of brokenness, even with the FAQ: Four member party, each is able to cast terrible remorse. Fighting a creature such as a Kraken (CR 18), the party cycles through with one member casting terrible remorse each round, shutting the creature down, while the rest of the party wails on it. This still works just fine even if the party is around 10th level.

Honestly, I see no reason why a typical CR 20 creature cannot be killed by a 7th level party when *someone* in the party can penetrate its DR/regen if the party uses multiple castings of Terrible Remorse. At least as long as it doesn't have SR and is not immune to mind effects.

Yeah, Terrible Remorse still needs to be fixed - maybe making the target *staggered* rather than unable to act if they succeed in the save, hmmm Jason?

I did find it a bit entertaining that succeeding in the saving throw for Terrible Remorse is actually worse than failing it. I'd much rather take a bit of damage here and there than not be able to act for a round on a successful save.

Example of brokenness: Four member party, each is able to cast terrible remorse. Fighting a creature such as a powerful dragon, with great saves. The party cycles through with one member casting terrible remorse each round, shutting the dragon down, while the rest of the party wails on it.

Honestly, I see no reason why a typical CR 20 creature cannot be killed by a 7th level party when *someone* in the party can penetrate its DR/regen if the party uses multiple castings of Terrible Remorse. At least as long as it doesn't have SR and is not immune to mind effects.

Yay for a party of 7th level characters easily murdering a 20th level fighter by making him feel bad for being too powerful?

Yeah, Terrible Remorse still needs to be fixed - maybe making the target *staggered* rather than unable to act if they succeed in the save, hmmm Jason?

I agree; the smite evil ability for celestial/fiendish creatures is even more powerful than a Paladin equal to the level of the summoner could accomplish by virtue of animals having more HD to balance their CR. The 1/day limitation also doesn't mean much for a creature that likely won't be around more than a single battle.

But a celestial dire tiger shouldn't be able to make mince-meat out of a boss purely because it can do an additional 70 damage above-and-beyond its normal in a single round with all five attacks.

In our games, we've house-ruled this to work like the old Paladin's smite ability from 3.5; the smite can only be used for a single attack. This is still more than enough considering the DR/good many of the potential smite targets already have.

My tabletop group just finished the Rise of the Runelords AP. Based upon total sessions and session duration, I would say the campaign offered between 150 and 200 hours of actual playtime. It would likely be longer for a less experienced group, as this group has been playing D&D/Pathfinder consistently 2-3x each week for the last decade.

If you prefer an estimation of an online venue, my online group uses Maptool to play, and we completed the Council of Thieves AP in about 250-275 hours of actual playtime.

Obviously, for the typical 4 hour session, this means you'll likely get between 35 and 80 total gaming sessions out of an AP, possibly more for a newer or very RP intensive group. Put another way, based on the cost of the books you're looking at around $2 a session, or likely cheaper than what you pay for food or gas to drive to the session.

The section on Monk vows is either self-contradictary or extremely unclear. First it says:

This section introduces monk vows, which *any user of ki* can take to increase his ki pool.

Later on,

A monk who takes a vow never gains the still mind class feature, even if he abandons all his vows.

Does this mean that non-monks taking vows suffer no such penalty? Or that non-monks (or monk archetypes who will never gain still mind) simply cannot take or benefit from vows?

For a more in-depth look at this concern, please see this thread.

"A monk who takes a vow never gains the still mind class feature, even if he abandons all his vows." (emphasis mine)

Based upon this wording it seems clear to me that other ki users can take Vows without penalty or prejudice; the above sentence only applies to monks.

Additionally, it does not say "The taking of a vow replaces the still mind class feature." It makes it clear that by taking a Vow, if you have levels of monk, you never receive the still mind class feature.

My question on this should be simple: If a character takes the Ki Mystic archetype, which replaces the still mind class feature, can they still take Vows? Of all the existing archetypes, the Ki Mystic seems an excellent candidate (by flavor) to take Vows; does this mean they are prohibited from doing so because the still mind class feature has already been replaced? What if they take the vow before 3rd level, can they not progress in the archetype? Or do they simply not gain the Ki Mystic replacement ability (which is central to the archetype)?

Or alternatively, does this mean they can take Vows just as can any other user of ki, and since they've already negated their ability to take still mind (via archetype) negating their ability to take it again (via Vows) can be done without concern?

An example of this in the existing rules is as follows: A Paladin's code sets down requirements that the Paladin must abide by in order to maintain his class abilities. They are in effect penalties traded for more powerful abilities. Likewise, an Order of the Sword Cavalier's Edict does the same thing. Since both the Paladin Code and Order of the Sword Cavalier's Edicts requires him to Act with Honor does this mean that the character with levels in Paladin who multiclasses into Cavalier simply cannot choose Order of the Sword because his requirement to Act with Honor has already been required by another class?

Regardless, we can all agree that the wording is very poor, since the initial sentence claims that:

"This section introduces monk vows, which any user of ki can take to increase his ki pool."

The devs seem to have put themselves in the uncomfortable position of answering the following question:

"Are you going to penalize ki users who don't gain the still mind class feature (by either class or archetype) by prohibiting them from taking Vows, or are you going to allow them to take vows without having to 'trade' any other abilities to be able to take them?"

In this gamers opinion, it might be a wise decision to simply delete the line about 'never gaining the still mind class feature' from the rules entirely, thereby keeping everything in balance and avoiding answering the lose-lose scenario question above.

That's perfect, Sara Marie. Could you do that, please?

Paizo CS,

My wife and I will not be able to attend PaizoCon this year, unfortunately. We were hoping to have the ticket prices refunded, but would enjoy store credit more than a direct refund to our credit card, as we intend on buying books. :) Is this possible?

Thanks,
Ausp.

Any update on this? Has anyone developed software to make rolling for random treasure the snap it should be?

Yes... you can be put off your guard even by unwilling means. On the other hand if you're not willing and you save against the spell, then this doesn't apply.

If the spell specifies willing targets only than you can't be an unwilling target.

Teleportation circle grants no saving throw.

My read is that it is the process of being teleported that is the trigger, not the source from which it comes.

Very interesting. So it could be quite a potent trap to have a teleportation circle in a hallway, a fighter in the 5' square behind it, and the destination of the teleport effect immediately behind him. A fighter with a high dexterity and teleport tactician would get two AoO's on anyone who attempted to get into non-reach melee with him, and could theoretically do this for as many PCs as attempted to face him in melee.

This question is a bit off-topic: could you set a teleportation circle's destination to the triggering point of another teleportation circle, and have the destination of *that* teleportation circle the original teleportation circle's triggering point? If so, this would seem to create an infinite teleportation loop that would allow a fighter as described above the entirety of their AoO's every round? More importantly, would the effect ever end, or would the subject be in permanent limbo until something like dispel magic or an antimagic field were brought to bear?

Thanks, Ciretose. So you are 'using' a teleportation effect even if you are unwilling, and the effect is basically being 'used' upon you?

The benefit for Teleport Tactician reads:

Any creature using a teleportation effect to enter or leave a square threatened by you provokes an attack of opportunity, even if casting defensively or using a supernatural ability.

In the effect of this feat, how is the word 'use' defined? Put another way, in the following situations, would the 'teleporter' provoke an AoO from the holder of a teleport tactician feat who is threatening them?

1: The teleporter casts teleport.
2: The teleporter activates boots of teleport.
3: The teleporter activates the dimensional steps ability.
4: The teleporter steps into a teleportation circle he was aware of.
5: The teleporter steps into a teleportation circle he was *not* aware of.
6: A contingency teleportation effect created by the teleporter activates upon them.
7: The teleporter's allies cast a teleport spell upon them.
8: The teleporter's enemies cast a teleport spell upon them (to which they are willing).
9: The teleporter's allies activate dimensional steps upon them.
10: The teleporter's enemies activate dimensional steps upon them (to which they are willing).

You can see the need for a definition of 'use' - is use defined here as 'make use of' a teleport effect? Does it still apply if the subject is not willing (as in case 5)? Or does is 'use' defined as 'personally make it happen', meaning that in cases 4-10 (other than possibly 6) their teleportation does not provoke an AoO?

Some clarification would be nice here . . . thanks!

An unusual situation came up in a game I'm playing in that hopefully the community might be able to offer some insight on.

If a caster is grappled and they wish to attempt to cast a spell without somatic components (such as a stilled scorching ray) they obviously need to roll the requisite concentration check of 10+Grappler's CMB+Spell Level to successfully cast the spell.

However, assuming the concentration check is successful, the caster gains a number of rays (ranged touch attacks) against the grappler.

Would these ranged touch attacks be against the grappler's lower touch AC (-4 to Dexterity due to grappling)?

Does the grappler's CMD somehow come into play against this touch attack?

Can you even target a creature occupying your same square with a ranged attack? A ranged touch attack?

Could you target this ranged touch attack against another creature who is not grappling you, assuming you take the dexterity penalty to your ranged attack roll?

Rules citations and blatant speculation is appreciated!

Does that mean I can go to an every 10 minutes refresh rate? ;)

Not if you want the best seats, tickets signed by the entire Paizo staff(past, present *and* future), and a candlelight dinner at Seattle's finest restaurant with your favorite Paizonian!