Belerlas's page

Please could you provide me with a code, thank you.

Reading through this thread I would like to throw the following Inquisitor class features in to the mix:

At 2nd level, an inquisitor adds her Wisdom modifier on initiative checks, in addition to her Dexterity modifier.

and

At 8th level, you and all allies within 30 feet may add your Wisdom bonus to your initiative checks.

Do people think that the Inquisitor should gain his Widom bonus twice to initiative in this case.

PS. FAQd as well

Congratulations!!!

Is this what you were looking for, Scharlata?

Edit: Spoliered, just in case anyone looks here that shouldn't know what type of creatue Helgraval is.

I don't think you can take 10 on Day Job Rolls. Its not a skill roll after all.

According to the latest version of the Guide to Pathfinder Society Organised Play

You may take 10 on a Day Job check, but you may not take 20 nor can you aid another.

I'm not sure about having the next GM sign off on it though this may help

In the Pathfinder Society campaign, you may make one Day Job check after the end of each adventure.

Depends when "after the end of each adventure" is considered to be I suppose.

EDIT: Ninja'd by BNW on the Take 10

I'm confused as to why people are saying that a Paladin does not need to worship a god when...

Divine Bond (Sp): Upon reaching 5th level, a paladin forms a divine bond with her god.

This, and other wording within the PRD Paladin details would suggest that worshipping a god is required.

If I've missed something somewhere in the Guide or FAQ can someone point me to it please.

(Edit: corrected spelling]

Exactly: no change for a month, but three days from the time of infection to cure it.

Just quoting Doram ob'Han for the relevant part. Does the same three day limit apply to eating wolfsbane to receive another Fortitude save as well?

Thanks Vic, duly purchased.

Is there no proper map folio besides those 3 posters for this AP?

I'm just about to start running the Jade Regent and having maps of the areas would be very useful. I can't find the 3 posters that you mention; are they separate to the AP? I've received all six parts of my subscription and there weren't any poster maps included.

As a GM in this situation I would have ruled that the player could not walk up the waterfall.

The way I explain how this spell works to my players is to get them to imagine that the river is actually not a liquid but is solid for purposes of walking over it. This means that if the river is flowing smoothly then they can walk, run or charge across it but if there are any waves (or eddies as found where a waterfall hits the bottom) then this would impede charging and running just like normal ground would that had such rises and falls on it. Therefore trying to walk up a vertical surface just isn't going to work, the same way as the player can't walk up the walls of a room (unless they have magics that allow them to, of course).

As to walking into the waterfall, I wouldn't let the player enter the water of the fall as it would be repelling him just like it would if he were fully or partially underwater. This also means that if the player drops something into the water he cannot retrieve it whilst under the effects this spell has the water would repel him.

Hopefully, what I've written provokes discussion rather than argument as I prefer discussions to arguments :)

Congratulations Rob, well done!!

Your DM is almost correct.

It's an amazing spell. I'm really surprised it's legal in PFS since it's Evil and repeated use of it should turn the character evil in the future.

I absolutely would use it if you can. And I do :)

I see this stated by people all of the time, but why would casting a spell with the Evil descriptor change any characters alignment to evil any more than casting spells with the Law/Chaos/Good descriptors would alter their alignment.

Back on topic, I like idea of the wand, especially the guaranteed 10 points of healing. Not a wand for use during combat though.

wraithstrike wrote:

I say we just post both of these opposing entries to the errata thread, and let them sort it out.

For now I will just use the 3.5 version to keep things simple.

yeah, sounds like a good plan.

+1

Belerlas wrote:

The PRD also says this

PRD wrote:

Spell-like abilities cannot be used to counterspell, nor can they be counterspelled.

PF SRD for abilities

The PF SRD has that spell-like abilities can be counterspelled and dispelled normally.

I was looking at the bottom of this page in the Paizo PRD.

The PRD also says this

Spell-like abilities cannot be used to counterspell, nor can they be counterspelled.

The really good thing happening in my life right now is that my fiancee and I are planning for our wedding in September this year

Reading these boards when I should be doing ... (one of many other things).

This. For instance, right now I'm supposed to be writing a scenario for an upcoming convention but.........

We seem to have a general problem with the Gen Con UK 2008 entries and we're looking in to it. Stay tuned.

Hi Josh,

Have you made any progress with the Gen Con UK entries yet? Looking at my Sessions I see that all of them have been reported apart from one at Gen Con which seems to be pointing at 1919- (without a trailing number) and a character of Mastin Willis: this ought to be against 1919-1 Mastin and there should be 2 prestige points as well.

regards
Mark

So say we all

Thanks a bunch.

How about my second question? Is someone who is only proficient with light armor, and not medium armor, proficient with a Mithril Breastplate?

Most mithral armors are one category lighter than normal for purposes of movement and other limitations. Heavy armors are treated as medium, and medium armors are treated as light, but light armors are still treated as light.

I take this to be that the limitation from lack of medium armour proficiency is removed.

EDIT: The entire entry can be found here within the SRD.

I managed to play all four scheduled slots and also to GM a slot for Mists of Mwangi - I had great fun on both sides of the screen. My thanks to the GMs, Players and of course those that take the time to write so creatively.

Edit: As Paz said above, I could not complete my mission in the Slave Pits due to another PC completing theirs and pocketing that which I needed...ah well I still had fun which is what's important

Another thing is that gets weird with cohorts is encounter design. For example, my AoW/PFRPG group has four PCs, two of whom each have a cohort. They are all level 13, and the cohorts are level 11. So how do I calculate the APL?

If I figure in the cohorts I get (4*13+2*11) / 6 = 12,33 which gets rounded down to 12. Then 1 is added because they are 6, so the APL is 13, exactly the same as without the cohorts. That doesn't seem right. I could leave out the cohorts, then I get APL 14, but leaving them out of the equation doesn't really seem right either...

Do you leave out animal companions, familiars and paladins special mounts when you calculate the APL? If so then leaving out the cohorts seems to be consistent to me.

I think so far what I like most is having the DM choose for the cohort when it comes to loot time.

Likewise, where does the loot come from when equipping animal companions, familiars and paladins special mounts (assuming that this is allowed in your campaigns)? If it comes from the PC who 'controls' the animal companion etc. then the PC that attracted the cohort is the one who equips the cohort. If animal companions etc. gain a share of the loot in your campaign then the same should be true for a cohort.

That is my 2 cp, oh, and even though I have quoted two posters, I am not just replying to them I am speaking to everyone to gain their opinions.

EDIT: Sorry, I ought to have said, I treat cohorts exactly like animal companions etc. in that they are equipped by their 'masters' (for want of a better word) and do not count when calculating APL.

Joshua J. Frost wrote:

We seem to have a general problem with the Gen Con UK 2008 entries and we're looking in to it. Stay tuned.

Yeah, I've noticed some things missing from GenCon UK 08. Thanks for getting on to it Josh.

Belerlas, hopefully see you at Conception. I'm running Pathfinder at that.

I'll be there, I'm running Lihr and hopefully playing Mastin in Pathfinder.

I have just looked at my PFS profile for Mastin and noticed that the two prestige points awarded for the Silken Caravan at Gen Con UK 2008. I've got the Chronicle but can't quite make out who the GM was (his PFS number is available).

Oops, I ought to have said that I've noticed they are missing, thanks for the bump Wintergreen, and for the great adventure.

How do I go about getting them added to the profile?

I have just looked at my PFS profile for Mastin and noticed that the two prestige points awarded for the Silken Caravan at Gen Con UK 2008. I've got the Chronicle but can't quite make out who the GM was (his PFS number is available).

No, you absolutely cannot. Both Take 10 and Take 20 require that no ill effects befall if you rolled normally and failed, and in the case of Fabricate a failed craft check would ruin the spell. Thus you must actually roll the craft check.

Actually Straybow the SRD definition of Take 10 is:

When your character is not being threatened or distracted, you may choose to take 10. Instead of rolling 1d20 for the skill check, calculate your result as if you had rolled a 10.

I can't find any definition for Take 10 in the Beta rules so I'm using the SRD in my game.

*****

And back on subject - some effects do less damage against objects. Maybe we can add a note that unless the weapon is designed for mining (like picks), the damaged caused to stone walls and the like are halved?

Or are we over-complicating this? Is this is KISS situation?

Within the Smashing an Object section on hit points it refers to ineffective weapons.

Certain weapons just can’t effectively deal damage to certain objects

This is all it says though so it still leaves it up to DMs as to what is an ineffective weapon, though all miners I've encountered as a Player (and used as a DM) have been using picks as opposed to...oh, I don't know...greatswords.

In 3.x creatures moved by bull rush did provoke attacks of opportunity.

As per the feat greater bullrush, Jason seems to want to make it so in Pathfinder RPG they don't provoke attacks of opportunity through this movement. (Breaking the convention of movement provokes attacks of oppotunity.)

Removing this from the normal way bull rush opperates opens the door for you to bullrush allies into places so they can avoid taking attacks of opportunity. Tack on the fact that they haven't used up any of their own movement, and we have a potential full attack without taking an attack of opportunity delivery system.

Please revert to the 3.5 model, and keep with the convention that movement provokes attacks of opportunity.

Neither the Beta rules nor the 3.x rules allow you to bull rush an ally - both descriptions specifically state that bull rush applies to opponents. Is my interpretation wrong?

Another action that would be good to explicitly state would be administering a potion to an unconscious character. Is this the same standard action as drinking it yourself, or should it take a full round action?

Page 351 of the Beta Campaign rules states "A character can carefully administer a potion to an unconscious creature as a full-round action, trickling the liquid down the creature’s throat. Likewise, it takes a full-round action to apply an oil to an unconscious creature."

3.5 (or variants thereof) for me.