Carnox's page

Looks to me like it says so right in the first paragraph.

I read right by that. Twice. Thanks.

---------
There are two sorts of stone horses.

Courser: This item has the statistics of a horse with hardness 10.
Destrier: This item has the statistics of a heavy horse with hardness 10.
---------

Neither horse or heavy horse are combat trained by default, but both Courser and Destrier denote war horses.

So if I have a Stone Horse should it be treated as combat trained? Could it be "trained" as such or otherwise via Handle Animal?

Also, as an aside, the Stone Horse is not a Figurine of Wonderous Power, but has it been ruled as eligible for the Companion Figurine feat?

Also, I contend that this is intended to let you take the ranks in Fly to take better advantage of this. However, RAW say you need to be able to fly regularly in order to take ranks--but this isn't flying.

:-(

If I am air stepping and step of a cliff what happens? Do I plummet and land (hard) 1 foot of the ground below? Or do I maintain altitude allowing me to cross a chasm or the like.

--------------------
This spell functions as air walk, except you can rise no higher than 1 foot off the ground, you cannot pass over liquid, and the air you walk on is less stable than solid ground. When walking on air, you ignore difficult terrain that is less than 1 foot high, you do not trigger effects based on weight (such as a pressure plate), and any creature trying to track you through areas you crossed with this spell takes a –10 penalty on its Perception or Survival check to do so. However, because of the instability of the air you walk on, your speed is reduced by 10 feet (to a minimum of 5 feet) and you take a –4 penalty on Acrobatics, Climb, and Ride checks.

If you have 1 rank in Fly, your speed is not reduced when using this spell, and you can cross over liquid at half speed. If you have 5 ranks in Fly, you can cross liquid at full speed and do not take the penalties to your skill checks.
---------------------

Not that anyone probably cares, but I wanted to report back in on this.

I went with a human ranger freebooter/skirmisher with a weapon and shield combat style. I took Fey Foundling, Toughness, and Fast Learner faster learner. On an 18 point I went with pretty flat with a 10 Chr as my "dump." Everything else was 14 and 13. now at 18th I've evened out to all 14s and a 10 and have stat boost of 2/2 and 2 to give me 16/6/14/16/14/10. I've got a lot of useful skills at an effective modifier, good saves, a ton of hp, and super ac relative to the campaign. I don't do a lot of damage, but I hold the center, draw fire, and stay standing.

It all works really well. Now wielding Zul and a +2 spiked, bashing shield with appropriate shield feats so I can dish it out if I need. Usually though I'll fight defensively and maneuver so the heavy hitters (Rage Prophet and Rogue) get flanks, etc.

Gritnarr Halldorr wrote:

That's a thing?

Yes, and they stack with anything except others from the 'same source.'Though what constitutes the same source is a little ambiguous.

I this case same source *should* probably mean only another Ring of Foe Focus.

In general the untyped bonus is probably a design flaw and possibly often only an editorial flaw. System would be cleaner everything were to be specifically typed, even if that included a "general" type that was defined to always stack.

This specific ring is crafted using the "shield" spell which itself grants a "shield" bonus, so...whatever. It is untyped and stacks with everything but another of the same ring.

Decent item, but spending a standard to activate is hard. If it were a free or swift it would be a great ring. As a move action it's a maybe, but as a standard it's sort of meh.

That being said, the Vestigial discoveries are quite "meh". They should do more, but since they don't, I'd stay away. Obviously disregard if it's a character concept that needs it, but I'd find it a little underpowered TBH.

Should be about as powerful as a feat based on how we get them and how we can get more of them. So if this was a feat instead of a discovery would you think it underpowered?

I wouldn't. A feat that let me employ a shield while wielding a two-handed sword would like a good feat to more. This is that and more flexible.

It actually short of a shame that there isn't a matching Vestigial Leg discovery. I imagine a 3rd leg would add a bonus to things like CMD vs bull rush. And a 4th would help vs trip and with max load.

I was original against the Alchemist. But we wanted to experiment with some of some the less traditional classes. And really read the pathfinder fiction that featured alchemists I got a much better feel for how the fit and function.

My MO is to sketch out a short background and have a general idea of personality and how I fit in to a party. Details flesh out as I go and one of the drivers is what the character can do that would be fun to play with.

In this case the high level is an alchemist from kyonin who spent years with the gnomes of Omesta before deciding to travel. In Absalom he fell in with some adventures headed toward Sothis and is know in the Half-Dead City. A mind chemist he fill the roll of trap breaker and lock pick as well as loremaster for certain knowledges. He neither a madbomber nor a hyde, but should be provide plenty value. For flavour the chemicals actual make a him a bearded elf--unless he remembers to shave. First couple magic items will be eyes of eagle and goggles of minute seeing, as he be swapping eye-ware in what feels like a fairly steampunky effect.

So after a couple sessions, I think extra arms fit pretty well, but I do need to make decent use of them.

I wonder if I'll have to pay for custom armor...

@Dannorn:

Tentacle (Ex)

Benefit: The alchemist gains a prehensile, arm-length tentacle on his body. The tentacle is fully under his control and cannot be concealed except with magic or bulky clothing. The tentacle does not give the alchemist any extra attacks or actions per round, though he can use it to make a tentacle attack (1d4 damage for a Medium alchemist, 1d3 damage for a Small one) with the grab ability. The tentacle can manipulate or hold items as well as the alchemist’s original arms can (for example, allowing the alchemist to use one hand to wield a weapon, the tentacle to hold a potion, and the third hand to throw a bomb). Unlike an arm, the tentacle has no magic item slots.

Basically it's a slotless arm that grants a lethal unarmed attack and Grab(Ex) which allows grapple on a an attack without allowing am AoO.

I'm playing an eleven alchemist and am leaning toward piling up the extra appendages, 2 x Vestigial Arm and a Tentacle. Seems like there are just lots of random things to do with extra hands. Obvious is just toting around a shield for extra AC.

Looking for idea, stories, tricks, or whatever for extra appendages.

If it matters I've got a Mind Chemist with the Trapfinder trait.

Bill, I'm not so sure. Swarms can't be a "target" and selective channeling let "target" excludes. Channel is area affect, so they would get the heal and not be selectively excluded. Now, how healing works on dead bugs? Well, it is *diving*magic*.

I've got a player wanting to play a an elf with the Desert Runner alt racial trait. I posted the following in another thread, but got no love, so thought I would try here.

Elves don't seem to be native to Osirion in any significant numbers. Are they more storied populations in any of the other dessert areas of Golarion that would be more appropriate for a Desert Runner Elf?

Elves don't seem to be native to Osirion in any significant numbers. Are they more storied populations in any of the other dessert areas of Golarion that would be more appropriate for a Desert Runner Elf?

The rule text isn't as clear as I would like. It says "both attack" not both "threaten."

1. I agree you don't get the flank until someone threatens in any case. Combat Reflexes would solve this.

2. RAW this should only work on one opponent at a time, but I think it is probably simplest to treat them as flanking anyone they both threaten. [Well, okay, RAW if they both have multiple attacks and both split them they would count as flanking for all overlapping targets.]

3. Otherwise there are silly sequencing games that have to be played. The first attacker doesn't flank, but the second does now that you are both attacking the same opponent. If that foe flees or falls we have t start over on the next guy still standing right there.

4. If I wanted a more complicated rules to reflect RAI I might try:

You are considered flanking against any mutually threatened opponent that your swarming buddy attacked since the start of your last turn. If no such opponents exist, you instead are consider flanking against any single mutually threatened opponent.

To me that smooths the transition between foes that flee or fall while not always applying to everything.

You're also misinterpreting the second line.

"A creature can squeeze past a creature while moving."

This is no different than when an ally normally wants to move through your square.

Actually, I think that is talking about a large creature being able to squeeze past a medium creature in a 10' hallway or some such. The large creature has to squeeze for 10' of movement. An ally would not have to squeeze since he can just move through.

That is, if every spellcasting PrC's prereq says "spells", and your interpretation of that word means that an SLA won't fulfill that prereq, then the result is that SLAs won't actually get you into any PrCs early. But the design team says they will. Ergo, you must change the part of your interpretation that produces the conflict.

Did you follow that time?

I follow. And the logic is sound. But not every spellcasting prereq says "spells".

Arcane Archer is the first one I come to that doesn't. "Ability to cast mage hand and at least one arcane spell of 2nd level or higher." Now, whether I can get a mage hand AND an 2nd arcane as an SLA, I dunno.

However, your previous fish* link is, again, exactly the specific clarification for which I was looking. So thanks.

And folks, my group tends to look at the English of the rules and parse it more than one way. So for me it is easiest if I can find a ruling that clarifies which way to parse it. The fish from the design team does that for me here.

*The design team does not consider a prerequisite or requirement of "ability to cast 1st-level arcane spells" to literally mean "ability to cast at least two or more 1st-level arcane spells."

Being able to cast one spell of that type and level meets the prerequisite or requirement (if the prerequisite or requirement was intended to mean "two or more," it would say that, or use language like "at least two").

First, let's try logic:

The FAQ acknowledges that treating SLAs as spells for prereqs will get some characters into PrCs early. What races/classes are able to do so? If the design team says the ruling allows early entry, what's an example? I'm not aware of any ways to do so under your interpretation. And if you can't come up with a way that your interpretation allows enough early-entry situations for that FAQ to be meaningful, then your interpretation is wrong.

I'll own not doing an exhaustive comparison of all PrC prereq to find the cases that that SLA would meet. But wait, the linked fact already gave an example of the SLA replacing a single spell requirement. What it didn't give was an indication that a single SLA counted as spells. Is the single example enough for the FAQ to be meaningful? Subjective, but beside the point.

That's how to fish. Alternatively, here's a ready-to-eat fish.

Thanks for the fish. That's exactly what I was looking for, a clear statement that a "spell" counted as "spells" for the prereq.

Thanks for the responses.

This faq says it works.

Not if read exactly. The example given is for meeting a specific spell. If MT said able to cast a "2nd-level divine spell and 2nd-level arcane spell" then it would clearly apply. Fact say an SLA can counts as a spell. So if I have 2 SLAs, again, no problem.

Yes, it is. You can cast it multiple times on different days, so it is plural.

That doesn't seem like a good argument. By that logic the req for Harrower "Special: Ability to cast 3rd-level spells. Must be able to cast at least three divination spells" could be fulfilled by being able to cast detect magic once a day for three days.

I know this is an old thread. And my question is possiply covered elsewhere, but...

The MT reqs say, "Able to cast 2nd-level divine spells and 2nd-level arcane spells." That is "spells" plural. Is it official anywhere that a single SLA counts as "spells."

I noticed the same thing today (I know--years late). Specifically the rogue option being complete overlapped by the base option. I can't figure out what sort of misprint it would have been though.

I'm considering playing a "reformed" Goblin sneak thief. My goblin is vegetarian as he finds it "easier to forswear meat entirely than pik'n'choose."

He is quite possibly a slave to another PC or a former slave, maybe to a hobgoblin.

Details a sketchy, but likey the alt racial traits of Over-size Ears and Cave Climber as well as the racial trait* of Ugly Swine.

Rogue choices are TBD, but focused on lok-pik'n and deviss disabl'n.

*Boy it would have been great if "traits" had been termed something else, so not to overload with racial traits. Maybe background properties or story details or whatever.

Use Retrieve Item on a potion of Enlarge.

Typically when you do things for a full round it means that you are doing it between the span of time between one initiative count to the same initiative count in the next round (Core Rulebook 178). This is definitely the case for running, since it has rules that explain what happen if you do it for multiple consecutive rounds.

I think there maybe a relevant distinction between things that take a full round and a full-round action.

When the rules refer to a "full round", they usually mean a span of time from a particular initiative count in one round to the same initiative count in the next round. Effects that last a certain number of rounds end just before the same initiative count that they began on.

I would have assumed that the penalty lingered because you had run, like with a charge, but I can't find anything to contradict BuzzardB.

Interestingly, if you are running without the Run feat you lose Dex so you lose the Mobility feat bonus.

Does this not cause anyone to one to rethink what the adaptive quality actually does?

Not me.

This strikes me as a rule of convenience. The +1000 is not "adding" damage, rather the extra damage it letting you apply the bonus you have earned/paid for some other way. It lets players build a bow and not worry that it becomes obsolete if they tick up strength along the way. You don't have that problem with and other type of weapon, so this doesn't appear to upset balance much at all.

Hmm. I took a gander at the "second charter" as provided by google. Either my GM choose to modify or withhold or I'm just no remembering it well. By that text, you are right that I can bloody well do what I choose to a large extent and making a couple new lords would be nothing.

Maybe I was just operating under the incorrect assumption that the Barony/Duchy was being created as an extension of Brevoy, rather than a separate Kingdom. My character a minor noble started as a paladin* and while...flexible...would be respectful of the fealty.

*if your curious
Baron Xavier Ulfstander
Paldin 2 of Erastil (Divine Hunter)
Bard 3 (Archaeologist)
Dragon Disciple 2 (Bronze)

I'll sort this out with my GM, but I'm curious about the community take.

My PC is now Duke of Elkstar. Most of my party began as minor Brevoy noblity.

At what point would would I have the authority to ennoble those commoners who have been of great service to me and therefore Elkstar and Brevoy?

As a Duke of Brevoy would I have the authority? Would I need to clear it with the Regent first? Or would I have to petition the regent to have him do it himself. Or it simpy not done--elevate commoner to noble status.

Thanks.

Maybe I missed the in the myriad other threads about shield spikes, but...

[Edit]if i was spelling mithral right I might have found this old thread.
I'll leave this up since it covers darkwood and reflect the bit in UE about having shield spike be masterwork in addition to the shield such that they get a +1 to hit.

Heavy wooden shield 10 lbs, 7 gp
Heavy steel shield 15 lbs, 20 gp
Shield spikes +5 lbs, +10 gp

Base:

Heavy wooden spiked shield 15 lbs, 17 gp
Heavy steel spiked shield 20 lbs, 30 gp

Masterwork:

Per UC you can apply masterwork to both the shield as armor and the shield spikes. It unclear that having the spikes created as masterwork weapons is RAW necessary to have the shield enchanted as a weapon.

However, assuming I want the masterwork benefits of both the armor and weapon aspects of the shield.

Heavy wooden spiked shield 15 lbs, 17+150+300=467 gp
Heavy steel spiked shield 20 lbs, 30+150+300=480 gp

Special Materials:

And now it starts to become unclear.
First assume that the shield and spikes are the same material.

Heavy Darkwood spiked shield 7.5 lbs, 17+150+300+(15*10)=617 gp (weight halved and price adjusted based on original weight.)

Heavy mithral spiked shield 10 lbs, 30+?
And here’s the first breakdown. A mithralshield simply has a surcharge of 1000 and that includes the masterwork so 1030. Or since normally spikes need extra craftsman ship maybe +300 to make them masterwork for weapon purposes, so 1330. Since that same +1000 would cover the anything from 5# buckler to a 45# tower shield, I’m not sure it makes sense to apply the 2500gp upcharge to the spikes as if they were a separate weapon that weighed 5lbs—that would make it 3530, btw.

Second assume instead that the shield spike can be a different material.

While wooden spike on a metal shield seems silly, steel spike on a wooden shield make sense, as would mixing mithral or adamantine spikes on a steel shield.
So a darkwood shield with mithral spikes might be:

7 base+
150 mw+
100 darkwood+
10 spikes+
2500+mithral by weight
--------
2767 total (weight 7.5 lbs btw)

Questions:
1. Price of mithral spiked heavy shield?
2. Is it worth even bothering with mixed materials between shield and spikes?
3. Would you allow spikes to be added later to an existing shield or require that a spiked shield be created as such from the get go.

Thanks

+1 for a faq.

I suspect the intention and fair ruling would be that these work.
Otherwise freebooters bane should clearly say it replaces all 4 class features. If you go by way it just replaces one and, oh btw, these other three including your capstone are invalidated.

Zul is powerful but I don't think its a game breaker for my group. It'll give them a scare when its used against them and then they'll probably sell it because it doesn't fit any of their fighting styles.

In a campaign with a pole-arm fighter I'd be concerned though.

Why the concern with the trident and a pole-arm fighter. Trident is in the spear weapon group and does not have reach. Or were you talking about the boarding pike?

I'm moving this from another forum in hopes that it get more traction on this thread.

Road

Highway

RAW: If I have 8 roads and upgrade 1 to a highway I now have 7 roads and 1 highway my economy and stability each reduce by 1.

This should be clarified, I can think of three reasonable clarifcation depending on the intent:

1. Roads upgrade to highways and the only benefit is increased overland travel speed. Highway should be changed to "Highway hexes stack with Road hexes for determining the Economy and Stability bonuses; further improves overland travel speed."

2. Roads upgrade to highways and all benefits increase. "Economy +1 for every 4 hexes of Highway, Stability +1 for every 8 hexes of Highway; Highway hexes stack with Road hexes for determining the Road Economy and Stability bonuses; further improves overland travel speed."

3. Highways are not an upgrade to roads in the the building rules sense of an upgrade, rather they are an additional improvement to the hex. That road represent a network of unpaved roads and highways supplement with paved major arterials. Highway text should be changed to, "A highway is a paved and well-maintained type of a road allowing for speedier travel between settlements." Road text should be changed to, "A Road speeds travel through your kingdom and promotes trade. You can add a Highway to your Road." This leads to the idea that the improvement is real a system of roads not a road.

1) Can you irrigate a farm on a settlement hex from an aqueduct?

No. Allows settlement to build water dependent buildings, but that does not effect terrain improvement like farms.

Sadly no buildings are, mechanically speaking, exactly water dependent. The water gate is the closest as it specifically references aqueduct.

2) Can you make a district border as 'water' from an aqueduct?

No. Same as above.

3) What is the use of the aqueduct if it doesn't add a water border to a district? To my knowledge all the buildings requiring water require water district border

I think the only useful reading is that "requires water district border" means "water dependent." The problem with that is it begins to mix Aqueduct with Canal in game terms. The distinction becomes at best that a canal allows a water border whereas an aqueduct eliminate the needs need for one. Technically that allows a pier/water front, but I wouldn't.

3) Can your build a canal from a settlement where an aqueduct ends?

See 4 below.

4) It doesn't says anywhere you need water to create a Canal for that matter, so could you start it anywhere and expend it where you want?

As written yes. I don't recall errata for it. There should be. Perhaps this is one of those point things that made so little sense it is specified. Sort of like not have to say, "you cannot relocate a settlement."

5) If you build a road on an hex, then on the next turn a canal, do you need to "upgrade your roads so they have the "If the hex contains any rivers, double the listed cost to reflect the need to build bridges" requirement?

No. *Settlements* in a hex with a Canal treat the hex as if it had a river. Basically same as 1 and 2 above.

So basically, his plan works with RAW, though the aqueduct isn't strictly necessary it makes sense. You get water to the canal and can irrigate from it. This rules isn't with the Farm text, but is buried in the foot notes on a table:

"a Farm must be within or adjacent to a hex containing a river, lake, swamp, or Canal, or adjacent to at least 2 hexes that already contain Farms."

Road
Highway

RAW: If I have 8 roads and upgrade 1 to a highway I now have 7 roads and 1 highway my economy and stability each reduce by 1.

This should be clarified, I can think of three reasonable clarifcation depending on the intent:

1. Roads upgrade to highways and the only benefit is increased overland travel speed. Highway should be changed to "Highway hexes stack with Road hexes for determining the Economy and Stability bonuses; further improves overland travel speed."

2. Roads upgrade to highways and all benefits increase. "Economy +1 for every 4 hexes of Highway, Stability +1 for every 8 hexes of Highway; Highway hexes stack with Road hexes for determining the Road Economy and Stability bonuses; further improves overland travel speed."

3. Highways are not an upgrade to roads in the the building rules sense of an upgrade, rather they are an additional improvement to the hex. That road represent a network of unpaved roads and highways supplement with paved major arterials. Highway text should be changed to, "A highway is a paved and well-maintained type of a road allowing for speedier travel between settlements." Road text should be changed to, "A Road speeds travel through your kingdom and promotes trade. You can add a Highway to your Road." This leads to the idea that the improvement is real a system of roads not a road.

>Carnox: I feel ya, though I'm not quite there with you. I think of the garrison less as a defensive structure and more of a place to house a ton of dudes with swords.

TheDailyLunatic: Yes, but:

1. Your point would be doubly true for a Barracks, but the barracks Defense +2. When you *upgrade* to the Garrison you *lose* that defensive value. It's nonsensical

Barracks 6 BP, 1 Lot
Kingdom Unrest –1
Upgrade to Garrison
Special Defense +2
Settlement Law +1
A building to house conscripts, guards, militia, soldiers, or similar military forces.

Garrison 28 BP, 2 Lots
Kingdom Loyalty +2, Stability +2, Unrest –2
Discount City Wall, Granary, Jail
Upgrade From Barracks
A large building to house armies, train guards, and recruit militia.

2. In this context both imply the presence of troops your other point about them note coming with "armies" notwithstanding. Some defensive building mean a fortification and other mean defenders.

3. In common usage a barrack really is the structure whereas a garrison is a unit of troops or its headquarters.

Unless I've got it backwards and the fix is to remove the Defense +2 from Barracks, but that would make it one of the worst building in the list.
Barracks 6 BP, 1 Lot,Kingdom Unrest –1,Upgrade to Garrison,Settlement Law +1

*shrug*

Buildings can, it seems, go in concurrently like a house and inn in an example. Building discount would seem to apply immediately.

When I claim I think I can clearly claim 1 and then the after that and then build roads in both on the same turn.

It probably just simplest to say everything happens right always. The aren't enough places to break anything that it would matter.

Barracks
Upgrade to Garrison
Defense +2

Garrison
Upgrade from Barracks
[No defense]

I've omitted the other stats, but a garrison should give at least the same defensive bonus as a barracks. Probably should be Defense 3 or 4.

First a simple example:

My Kingdom has 24 hexes so I can claim 2 per month.
I claim 2 hexes so I have 26 which means I can can now claim 3.

Can I take a third hex now to get to 27 or was my "size" locked in at the start of the month?

That is when does the size change apply?

1) Immediately
2) End of Step
3) End of Phase
4) End of Month

Per RAW I'd say 1, but it isn't explicit. The other various improvement and building bonuses and penalties seem to start counting immediately.

The ruling here might impact the timing of some other stuff, such as the timing of building discounts.

Is there any place in RAW that explicitly states that free action can only be taking during you turn? It appears to be implied in several places, but I don't see a place that just says, "Free action may only be taken during your turn or while you acting out of turn with an immediate action. Short speech is a common exception to this."

Do the straight crafting rules work out for ship building?

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/skills/craft

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/equipment---final/vehicles

Not sure how a ship yard with appropriate mix of skilled and unskilled laborers would be counted. Lots of ships construction can happen in parallel, but some pieces not so much.

I have done all the math, but it seems like commissioning a new would take very long time in game. Longer than building a castle in King Maker.

We're at the leadership level. Just finishing chapter 2 I think. Baron Xavier Ulfstander is Paladin of Erastil though morally flexible as Paladin sgo. I'm considering using my cohort to fill the role of treasurer in part for the benefit of upgrading Oleg.

My thought is a Paladin of Abadar who really never cut it in the field so to speak, but is wiz-bang with the monies and can really get behind the idea of developing a right-minded economic powerhouse that can be a force of enlightenment in the region.

But that a Paladin build with high mental stats and low physical ones. It looks odd, but the cohorts here won't generally be adventurers, but more helping run the kingdom?

And better ideas?

Thanks

There used to be language saying a shield's attack was an off-hand weapon because they assumed you would just use your weapon as the primary attack. It may or may not still be in the book somewhere, but it is not a rule that you have to use it in your off-hand, but the rules assume certain things when they are written.

Got it. Checked my 1st printing book and it's there. Checked the errata 1.4 and its gone:

Page 152—In the Armor Descriptions, in the Shield, Heavy; Wooden or Steel entry, in the Shield Bash Attacks section, in the first sentence, delete “using it as an off-hand weapon.” Repeat this change to the Shield, Light; Wooden or Steel entry.[/QUOTE}

You can't use a shield as a main hand weapon.

From prd:
shield-bash-attacks

So what am I missing in your reference:

Shield Bash Attacks: You can bash an opponent with a heavy shield. See “shield, heavy” on Table: Weapons for the damage dealt by a shield bash. Used this way, a heavy shield is a martial bludgeoning weapon. For the purpose of penalties on attack rolls, treat a heavy shield as a one-handed weapon. If you use your shield as a weapon, you lose its AC bonus until your next turn. An enhancement bonus on a shield does not improve the effectiveness of a shield bash made with it, but the shield can be made into a magic weapon in its own right.

Where does that say you cannot use the shield as primary?

This isn't necessarily a need based decision, but I'll give you some colour on the party makeup, etc. In any build he probably fills one of the kingdom slots better than an existing npc,

Baron is Paladin (Divine Hunter) 2/Bard (Arcivist) 3/Dragon Disciple 1 so far.

Rest of party:

Paladin (Sacred Light or something)
Sorc [creating a full cleric of Desna cohort]
2 x Rogue
Cleric (mostly)/Ranger (1 or 2 level dip)

A non-spontaneous Arcanist give us the most flexibility. "Merlin" will natural be off camera much of the time. He will probably "justify" a caster tower build from a story stand point.

And thanks darkwarriorkarg, you got to it before I did. I don't need my GM to waive the rule. Character has not walked the straight and narrow of a typical paladin so I'm happy to play up an LG cohort to help keep him grounded.

There are good arguments to go with Bard, Druid, Oracle, Sorcerer, Witch, or Wizard.

What's most important to you, being accurate to the oldest "original" literature, being accurate to a particular vision of Merlin, or making a useful Pathfinder character who is Merlinesque?

useful Melrinesque.

I'd probably go with Druid for accuracy, since the oldest and most consistent power attributed to Merlin is the ability to change is shape. It also has the advantage of using wisdom (Merlin's primary attribute in the stories) and access to spells of healing & weather.

PC is Paldin (Erastil, btw) so druid is out.

Constraint: PC is a Paladin so cohort must be LG.

I'm not sure if a Merlin would be arcane, divine, or a mix.

On the leader board:

Collegiate Arcanist
Mystic Theurge

Thoughts?

Thanks!

Make at least some suggestions on crafting by cohorts. One leadership feat can effectively be turned into many creation feats,

Btw, anyone got a link to a thread on that topic?

So it looks as though my original assessment was correct. An AoO is an immediate action and not a full round action so, AoO is main-hand only. That's my final interpretation on this.

AoO

AoO is NOT an "immediate action." In fact, I don't think it technically fits into any of the action types.

Action Types

It probably should be explicitly defined in free actions

Free Actions

like "Speak":

In general, speaking is a free action that you can perform even when it isn't your turn. Speaking more than a few sentences is generally beyond the limit of a free action.

Something like:

Attack of Opportunity: An AoO is a special type free action that you can perform even when it isn't your turn. See the rules for AoAs.

In any case, off-hand is really only defined in the context of making multiple attacks. If youa re only making a single attack--regardless of the action used--you can make it with any available weapon.

Carnox, a common writing mistake is to forget that "but" negates. Try replacing "but some" with "and some" and see how it reads. I think you'll find that it suddenly makes perfect sense.

That helps, but some more editing would help further. Either making the flavor text perfectly match the mechanic or match the mechanic to existing flavor text.

Consider either:

While all humans are skillful, some truly excel in a handful of skills. At 1st, 8th, and 16th level, such humans gain Skill Focus in a skill of their choice as a bonus feat. This racial trait replaces the bonus feat trait.

or

All humans are skillful, but some, rather than being generalists, tend to specialize in a handful of skills. At 1st, 8th, and 16th level, such humans gain Skill Focus in a skill of their choice as a bonus feat. This racial trait replaces the skilled trait.

With the mechanic as written I love this trait especial for fighters who get lots of feats and few skills.

I haven't read a good near-future technothriller since Red Storm Rising, but I'd like to get back into the genre if there is something really good there. Any recommendations for new, modern-day or near-future military thrillers with cool weaponry and smart geopolitics?

I've just started playing this game and I'm enjoying the fantasy world quite a lot. It seems coarse, unpleasant and very medieval, but still spiced up with some exotic monsters and arcane magics. I'm just not impressed with the countless cutscenes filled with mediocre acting (though this the Enhanced Edition and is considered better in that regard). Love the high isometric mode, though, it's just like a 1990s CRPG should be.

Has anyone here completed the game? Worth playing to the end? How does it stack up against Baldur's Gate, Oblivion, Neverwinter Nights, etc.?

Looks like Mercenaries 2 will let you play as either Obama or Palin to go to war with assault rifles, rocket launchers, the works! This is too funny, especially the grenade-wrestling:

http://blog.wired.com/games/2008/10/obama-palin-com.html

Partisan jab:

I haven't had time to keep up with all the 4E announcements, but has a 4E version of Planescape been confirmed, any date given or any other tidbits/rumours released?

I always loved his crazy ink style, and he had some really whacked out ideas for technology and human relationships. THB especially had so much neat stuff inside it that it blew my mind. It's a weird mixture of Burroughs, Kafka, and David Lynch. Or something. And his take on Batman was just beautiful. There's a languid grace and compressed energy in all his drawings that I would love to emulate.

Someone started a very interesting discussion on rpg.net about whether 4E is "Mike Mearls' Heartbreaker RPG". What makes it interesting is that Mike himself showed up and added some fuel to the fire; specifically, he listed 13 things that were wrong with 3.x:

Many of the changes we've implemented have been asked for by gamers, or at least are changes to features that people don't like about 3e:

1. Generating numbers for NPCs is like doing (really boring) homework.
2. The game seems to function best at about levels 5 to 12.
3. High level games are cumbersome and difficult to run.
4. Low level games are swingy.
5. The CR system is confusing and produces wonky results.
6. Spellcasters outclass everyone else.
7. Multiclassing works for only certain combinations. Classic tropes (warrior-wizards) need new core classes because the core system doesn't work.
8. Characters have too few skill points.
9. Monsters are unnecessarily complicated.
10. You don't get enough feats.
11. Attacks of opportunity are confusing.
12. Magic items are really important, but it isn't equal. Some items are critical, others are complete chaff.
13. There are a number of weird little subsystems that introduce unnecessary complexity, like grappling.

There's more, but I'm tired, and I have more weird analogies to dream up.

I'd have to agree with the majority of things listed, but notice that none of them seem to touch on the drastic meta-setting changes that were also implemented. The thread is long (60+ pages) but worth checking out.

Got this from rpg.net, but I figure I'd post it here since there seem to be many fans of Dr. Who on these boards. Release scheduled for Summer 2008.

"From the doctor who news page
http://www.gallifreyone.com/news.php...VuZAyFvqnqLfnC
Angus Abranson, head of Cubicle 7 Entertainment Ltd, announced today that Cubicle Seven have been awarded the license to produce an official Doctor Who role-playing game based on the new series. The announcement was made at Dragonmeet, London's premier role-playing convention. Full confirmation, and further details will be made available, though a press release, which is to be issued at the beginning of next week.

[...]

The following was revealed:

The game will be released as a boxed set, and will contain a Players Guide, a GM's Guide, an Adventures Book, a GM screen and some funky Who-themed dice. Everything will be full colour and glossy, with plenty of photos from the new show. Scheduled for a 'Summer 2008' release it will sell for £25-£30.

It will be possible to play Time Lords, Companions, UNIT soldiers or anyone else you can think of. The competence disparity between characters will be mitigated in a similar way to the Buffy RPG. Dave Chapman has great fondness for Blink, and wants to include the option of playing a Sparrow & Nightingale type of campaign. Playing the Doctor will also be an option.

The system will be based off a single conflict resoloution mechanic that can be applied to anything, from hypnotism to fisticuffs. The GM and players will narrate the specifics, tailoring it to the situation at hand. It sounded like a crunchier version of Risus to my ears. And yes, your characters can die if they lose a critically dangerous conflict.

Characters will earn 'Story Points' during play, which can be used to effect the outcome of events. From the sound of it these effects will range from the minor (a bonus to a single di roll) to the truly mind-boggling (Rose absorbing the Time Vortex and blowing up the Dalek fleet). The system is desigend to mimic stuff like the Doctor suddenly coming up with an arcane and convoluted soloution to a problem that actually works. Think Adventure's dramatic editing mechanic, although with a much wider potential scope. The players are encouraged to be as creative as possible when spending Story Points, and the game will ideally run as a fast-paced dialogue over the screen.

Devices will be created in the same way as PC's, and will possess unique characteristics, including a Story Point pool that allows them to behave in unusual ways. Thus the Sonic Screwdriver could be used to open mundane doors whenever you fancied, but to to use it as a weapon you'd need to spend SP's."

Has this title been delayed?

I'm eagerly looking forward to this compilation as I've had a fractured picture of the story since I jumped into the middle of it with Dungeon #118. Downer's art is great and added a huge amount of character and charm to Dungeon over the years. Kyle has brought the Underdark to life in a much more interesting and convincing way than any 5 dry supplements from WotC. Three cheers for Downer!

I'm still really confused as to which of these card sets are random and which are 'complete' (for lack of a better word).

Item Pack 1 is complete, right? It includes all 54 cards, 1-54?

Booster Packs are random? You get 12 random cards out of a possible 54 in the set?

Dragon's Hoard is complete and includes all 110 cards?

The product description needs to be clarified because even some of the buyers seem confused as to what they got.

Thanks.

Ryan Dancey, a former D&D brand manager and guru of the OGL, has updated his blog in regards to the death of Dragon and Dungeon.

More speculation about what WotC's digital initiative might look like in this ENWorld thread.

He's not happy:

"What I see happening is the exact opposite of what I would do if I were running the business. What Wizards is doing is implementation without a public roadmap. They have not sought to educate their customers -- they’re acting like TSR of old did, doing what they think is right, and assuming that their customers will be dragged along with them because they don’t have any viable alternatives."

My group is playing the excellent Chimes at Midnight adventure and I was wondering what new Eberron adventures are planned for upcoming issues of Dungeon. Will there be more higher-level Eb adventures, Dragon magazine tie-ins, more place articles ala the Ring of Storms (which was great, btw)?

Thanks.

Asking as a player in the Age of Worms campaign, what can my character do to protect himself against these vile worms that almost killed him three times? As a party we know these things are some sort of zombie-worms, but we're not sure how to protect ourselves given that armour doesn't seem to help. Would it be worthwhile to research some sort of oil/balm/tar that could be applied to the body to repel them? My berserker character seems especially vulnerable, being front-line and unclothed except for a loincloth.

Does anyone have any spoiler-free hints or tips, including rules (I'm not very familiar with d20) that might help us?

Thanks.

"From the people that brought you the Graveyard of the Dead and the Castle of the King, comes a harrowing tale of creepy dungeoneering called... THE DUNGEON OF THE CRYPT!!!"

I'm sorry to be so harsh, but did the word-naming-thingie machine break down on a Friday afternoon or something? That's got to be the most generic name for an adventuring location that I've ever seen in gaming. Perhaps I'm not up on my Waterdeep lore, but does this lame excuse for a dungeon name have some sort of FR historical precedent or something? I'm at loss for how this could be the name of a real dungeon.

I would be grateful if someone could tell me which Dungeon
issue contains the Khazefryn adventure. I searched the site
and googled it but came up with nothing. Thanks.

Hi Paizo,

Just to clarify, after having reading the FAQ, that if I
subscribed to dungeon on Oct 15, I will NOT be receiving
issue #117? And since it will take 3 weeks to ship the
next issue (on Nov 21), I can expect to receive my first
issue of dungeon (#118) on Dec 7th?

If that's correct, that blows. Sorry to say it, but there's
something seriously wrong with your shipping company/contract
if it takes 3 weeks for a magazine to get from the Midwest
to southern Ontario in Canada. I get periodicals from EUROPE
in less than a week.