CDR Derf's page

so you are saying that "The second part" they are refering to is the second part of the part they label "Second" - in other words, "the second part of the second part"

so they split "Protection from Evil" into three sections (paragraphs) each started "First", "Second" and "Third". They then use the term "The second part" to refer to a sub-section of the paragraph headed "second", without refering to the first part of the paragraph headed "Second"? I don't think so.

And the biggest reason I don't think so - is the rest of that paragraph (minus the last line) is word for word from 3.5 rules (I think), and PFS added the line "This second effect only functions against spells and effects created by evil creatures or objects, subject to GM discretion.". I think this line was added to Prot Evil to clear up the fact that people were using the second paragraph to ban control by Non-evil creatures and spells....

Yes, but that is using the current writing of the spell. The last time I had an argument with people about this spell, (BTW Im in the camp of it should only effect spells and abilities from evil people, look back to the original post) I believe the text of this spell was missing the part about evil in the "2nd paragraph". Everything I have currently at hand is identicle to the link. At the time of the last argument I had about this spell we had at hand a first or second printing of the Core book and I dont believe it had the evil line in the second part. And all online text pointed to the same text word for word.

edit- I just went through all the old change errata from the various printings, and found no change adding the line about the evil line being added to the "2nd paragraph". So as best i can tell this has been the argument used by those reading the spell as blocking all possesion.

CDR Derf wrote:

Protection From Evil

I followed your link, and read the second part (as you directed) which ends with the line - " This second effect only functions against spells and effects created by evil creatures or objects, subject to GM discretion."...
and am wondering how you can say "...it has been commonly interprited to affect all spells of the charm/compulsion school regardless of the alignment of the caster" when it clearly says it only funtions vs. spells and effects created by evil creatures or objects.

What am I missing?

The second part has multiple effects that its trying to prevent. The line refer to this full part of the end of the 2nd ability of the spell.

This spell does not expel a controlling life force (such as a ghost or spellcaster using magic jar), but it does prevent them from controlling the target. This second effect only functions against spells and effects created by evil creatures or objects, subject to GM discretion.

Protection From Evil

If you read the second part of the spell it has been commonly interprited to affect all spells of the charm/compulsion school regardless of the alignment of the caster. This interpritation is further granted to the resonate power of the ioun stone. A number of judges have tried their darndest to work around that and insist that it is only against evil casters. But the spell as written doesnt exspresly state that like it does in the first and third part.

So please let it mean what i think it means, that the clear spindles resonate ability no longer protects from all possesion and mental control?

From Seeker of secrets, Clear spindle (resonate power): Protection from possession and mental control (as protection from evil).

From the FAQ, Protection From Evil: Does the "protection against possession and mental control" aspect work against non-evil controlling spells and effects?

—Pathfinder Design Team, 03/01/13

Im pleased that they finaly FAQ'ed this horribly over powered first level spell. And im hopping that it has the additional consequence that it limits the resonate ability of the clear spindle.

As is stated by the title, can the caster of a spell increase the time it takes to cast? ie can a caster purposfully slow down the casting of a swift spell to a standard action incurring all penalties to do so. (ie spell now provokes AoO's as any standard action spell would.)

I can't find a reason why this can't be done? It's just a caster going back to basics of the days they were first learning to cast in the safty of a school.

to the person asking for a rules cite for why they don't stake in the face of all the other evidence. Please refer to page 11 pf the Core Rulebook; Bonus: Bonuses are numerical values that are added to
checks and statistical scores. Most bonuses have a type,
and as a general rule, bonuses of the same type are not
cumulative (do not “stack”)—only the greater bonus
granted applies.

Now while these various things don't call out a specific name bonus it falls to being an un-typed bonus. Since they all read the same, even impact weapon property, they are all the same bonus and only the greater one adds. they would not stack by the rules.

Thank you Paz for the response. Still would like to know if a character can negate the penalty using the method listed in the adventure path? Taking the information listed in the Chronicle for Shards of Sin, The first Items penalty is easy to adjudicate and negate.

the second one as it reads is extraordinarily a pain to deal with.

This is why I ask if the penalty can be negated by use of the secondary item.

Now the chronicles have been out for a month and I'm looking for feedback as to the handling of the 2 items listed on the chronicle and all future instances of said items.

Each of these things has a related curse and a subsequent way to remove the curse in each of the mods. When the players receive these items on the chronicle, are these Items missing the object that negates the curse? If it is missing, can players install said item in the future to negate the curse?

Thank you for any info people are able to give, but would like a definitive word from the powers that be. Thank you!

Bane Baldric: This ornate sash of embroidered velvet stretches across the chest from shoulder to waist. If the wearer is an inquisitor,
she is treated as five levels higher when using her bane
and greater bane abilities. If the wearer is not an inquisitor,
she gains the bane ability of a 5th-level inquisitor, but
must first attune a light or one-handed melee weapon to
the baldric by hanging it from the cloth for 24 hours, and
can only use the bane ability with the attuned weapon.
Attuning a new weapon to the baldric ends the attunement
for the previous weapon. (Direct cut and paste of item description apearing in the Ultimate equipment guide)

BasiclyI just want to make sure it would RAW usable with an unarmed strike(US).

And Like i said before I suspect it would be for one US, but if you can give me a valid reason why it would apply to all attacks of a FoB or TWF I'm all ears.

So my question is can Monk attune his unarmed strike to the Bane Baldric even if they don't have an Inquistor level? ie (puns intended) can a Monk hang them selves on the baldric to attune to it?

I don't see any viable reason this cannot happen. But, I do see how it could be limited to say one hand and not all attacks made by a flury of blows or TWF.

One problem I can see is your trying to operate at night where hummans suck and your enemy excels. With that said the moment your rogue starts dumping oil on the battlements he will be quickly discovered. While maybe not physicly seen he will be noticed and since there are Hobs around that oil will be seen as aprelude to an attack.

They may go ahead and ignite it in hopes to make the dumper appear.

This will put a kink in your plan as you will have to shift to accomidate the new issues. A very alert enemy.

I like the idea of trying to poison/ disease them ahead of the attack. But again your tipping your hand that you know about your enemy, Hobs are smart and will protect the stupid goblins and orcs in the camp from such a thing working very well. And I would be willing to bet that they may discover your poisned goods idea and send it into the city if given a moments chance.

Poison and disease are siege and gorilla tacticts, aka things you use when the enemy already knows your attacking. And in this instance your trying to ambush to make up ground against their precieved advantages. A quick strike to end this threat once and for all.

As for time of attack I would go with daylight. Either just after sunrise or in the light of the noonday sun. both these times they should be at their mental lazyness. either due to low gaurd numbers or just before they call it a night for them.

What makes this whole exercise even funnier is that paralized character Combat casting the SPA.

I will hide in the dark corners of my mind behind the low wall of my ego so as not to provoke from that troll standing next to me... Ala peanut butter sandwiches!. *Poof* the paralyzed mage disappears.

Charge: "If any line from your starting space to the ending space passes through a square that blocks movement, slows movement, or contains a creature (even an ally), you can't charge."

Agreed I talked it out with some peole over the weekend and that was the same conclusion that it doesn't override the last part of the or statement.

But, Paizo understands that dragon style shouldn't be the only means to charge through allies, especialy for mounted characters, so they gave us wheeling charge and the team work feat of Cavalry Formation.

Though this feat is still really good, just not as OP as i originaly thought.

In pathfinder, there are basically 3 combat roles.

1) Damage Dealer- kill enemies (e.g., barbarian and fighter)
2) Controller- Make enemies uneffective (e.g., Wizard or Witch)
3) Support- Support the party (e.g., Bard and some clerics)

Your right, when it comes to killing things with out right damage, monks are a bit lacking ( zen archer aside)

As for being a pure controller I think they fill this role rather well. But truly think they fill an inbetween role of damge/controller.

Your right having Greater Trip would be fabulous but isnt necessary to do the controler thing, when you can also have Imp Disarm and imp/Greater Grapple. The monk can add all 3 of these things to their tool belt for dealing with enemies. Now will this win in all situations? No as there is a creature out there that are designed to thwart what players can throw at the judge.

And ultimatly I think the streanght monk is a failed idea, in that you scrifice points in your 2 primary damage avoidence abilities (Dex/Wis) to be able to hit and do damge or pull off a menuver.

A Human Dex/Wis monk would make a far better Controller and with a AoMF Agile can even bring the damage in a flurry.

Yeah Looked at treant's guid, and your still not convincing me on the idea of wasting 2 feats on a less then ideal attack option. With your two feats you just reduced the penalty to attack with a shirkn from -2 to -1 for an attack that you should have spent a Ki point on to close the distance on in the first place to do more damage or even take the target out of the next round of actions.

Im not saying dont take them or something else asa ranged weapon. Im just saying the feats are better spent on anything else.

I can't for the life of me figure out why you wasted 2 feats on throwing a shuriken?

I play a core monk myself, and I think I have thrown all of about 8 shurikens in the time span of 8 levels. The monk has so many tools to get up to the target in a range situation that needing to throw a shuriken is less then ideal. If your so hell bent on having a thrown weapon, pick up something that would net you some form of benifit. A javelin or a crossbow. Both have a range increment that wont hinder you, and in the Javelins case can still do damage if it hits.

Also why bother with vital strike? Again, in a situation where your only making one attack, you would be better served by using Imp. Trip to put the target on the ground and taking Combat Reflexes(in place of Vital)to punish the target for taking a provoking action.

I think people get too hung up on this idea that the monk has to be a damage monkey, and forget they are really good for doing wierd and off the wall things to achieve the goal of nullifing the enemy.

As the title says, would an ally continue to block a charge if the charging charachter has friendly switch?

If this feat would work with a charge attack, could a animal companion mount take this feat for use in charge/ ride-by attacks?

I can see both pro and con arguments but would like a general understanding that confirms either one.

Thanks for your time.

As I understand it, the adopted trait forces you to instantly take a racial trait, giving you three traits, one social, one racial, and one whatever the other trait you pick.

OK that basicly confirms what i was leaning towards, ie the conservative understanding of the trait.

For PFS, how is the Adopted Social trait and subsequent racial trait fall into the traits scheme of the PFS guide.

Are the two traits just one social trait? Or, do they count cumulatively as a social and a racial trait?

I want to know so I can figure out what has been Xed off my list of available options for my latest character.

Ahh... since it is a standard action to maintain and do damage, you would not get to attack with an off hand weapon.

So now we posit this, does Double Slice (i think is the feat that lets you attack with 2 wpns as a standard attack) now allow this?

And, does a Monk with

** spoiler omitted **
now get to take advantage of this feat?

Yes he would. And a lot of the problems of if you would take an additional penalty to your grapple for not having 2 hands free incure the additionl penalty would be a non issue for an all unarmed strike attack monk.

So summing up, it sounds like yes you can use this feat with two-weapon fighting.
If you grappel off the first hit you can finish out the rest of the attacks of a full attack.
If you are making grapple attempts off iterative attacks the grapple attempt will suffer the interative penalties.
You can't maintain the grapple (as of this point) with a full attack action, but you can release the graple as a free action and start an new Full attack actions with subsequant grapple checks on hits.

Does this sound about right?

Stupid question as it is late and im sure im not thinking this through clearly, but...

1. can you use it with two-weapon fighting?
2. If you successfuly grapple with the first hit can you finish out your full attack?
3. In subsequent rounds would you be able to maintain the grapple by performing a full attack?
4. would grapple suffer a penalty from iterative attacks?

I ask this cause of the odd mixology of this feat and standard grapple rules.

This may sound critical of what you are suggesting Mosaic, but please understand it's my opinion and I see things a different way. I don't want GMs doing their job for any other reason than they have a sense of community and a desire to share the game with their peers. If GMs are enticed to do their job for a greater reward, there are people who will only GM for that reason and not care about the quality of the experience. The main reason I decided to become a GM was from bad experiences as a player. The worst GMs I ever played under were at Origins and GenCon. Some of these people were only GMing because they wanted swag and a free hotel room. They had little care for the experience that the players walked away with. They went through the motions and dropped everything when it was time for swag. I don't want PFS GMs running scenarios for any reason other than they love the Pathfinder RPG and they want to share it with other people. I really admire the GMs who eat scenario after scenario each month for their players. Although it would be nice if more players would take a turn behind the screen and give their GM a break, I want them to do it for the right reasons and not for a bribe. What I'm saying is certainly not the norm,...

Doug, While agree with you that judging for SWAG tends to taint the judging pool, I think you miss the point of rewarding judges that eat Mods. I ate nearly all the season zero mods. I did this cause I wanted to see that Pathfinder would succeed in my area by ensuring the judging pool that wants to/only plays pathfinder didnt have to eat a scenario if they truly didnt want to. I would happily continue doing this, sometime even to my detriment. I also happily offer to run even at my local game days and cons to which the only benefit I see from the con is a free badge so i can judge more games. Now, Im not an all trustic person, sure I do get the added benefit of potentially playing in zeros of other game systems for which zeroing truly is moot now.

Now when Josh put in the first rule set for rewarding judges who ate mods, I was like, sweet I might actually get to play one of these mods. So yes the few games I ate went towards a character that I played once at a con just to help make sure a table went off. So its kind of fun now to play that character once in a while. its even better when My character can keep pace with my group of friends and thats what rewarding the judges by giving half credit for an unplayed mod does. I just think he over corrected when he revised the rule in v2.1

while yes its great when your doctors, teachers and judges do things for free. The reality is they would like a little something back that will allow them to enjoy some of the other flavored fruits that their labors may produce.

Fred Golightly 227 wrote:

Reading your clarification for Game Master rewards pg28. Why not change the rule and create Sub tier gold amounts for all sub tiers that are a roughly 50% of average gp expectaion for that level. That way judges who lack characters that can play that scenario are still being rewarded for "eating" a mod.

It's entirely possible I'm not understanding your post, but what you're suggesting seems to indicate that a GM with a level 1 PC could run a Tier 7-11 scenario in sub-Tier 10-11 and get 50% of the gold for that tier, which would be roughly 7 times what a level 1 PC should have at that point.

Clarification on my post...

example: Judge runs and eats a tier 7-11 mod but only has a level 2 character to give the Judge reward towards.

Under the current rules this judge would not be able to give the rewards to this character.

The proposed resolution to this problem would be to create generic gold options for each sub-tier so judges can claim the rewards for their character. The amount of this gold reward would be 50% of the typical gold for mods with the relevant sub tier, as listed in a table for this purpose.

So for this example the judge eats the mod and would claim a special judge reward only for the relevant tier of his character. In this case tier 1-2, even though the mod doesn't have this tier. The judge would note on the log sheet that they are receiving the reward just for eating the module and give themselves the gold per the pre-defined table (e.g., 200g for sub-tier 1-2).

This way you're still rewarding judges for taking the initiative to run a mod that they will no longer have the ability to play.

Reading your clarification for Game Master rewards pg28. Why not change the rule and create Sub tier gold amounts for all sub tiers that are a roughly 50% of average gp expectaion for that level. That way judges who lack characters that can play that scenario are still being rewarded for "eating" a mod.