Caspain's page

I don't understand how this spell came with the CRB, is hottly debated, is PFS legal, and yet has no FAQ nor errata.

Willuwontu - Full sentence context matters, as the one you clipped down also has the exception clause.

LordKailas - That's roughly what I came up with. That you could assume the form, but as it's an unlisted ex, you don't gain the ability.

Zollqir - You also have the impression PAO is limited to the form spells listed within Greater Poly, ignoring the exception clause.

With input from both sides of interpretation, it's made even more starkly clear that this is in need of an FAQ/errata/PFS ruling. I'd rather not debate the spell, but request bumps for FAQ marks so we can end the debate.

PAO Says you lose all ex abilities dependent on form. It does not say you gain any. Invisible Stalker has no non-invisible form. What happens if I turn something into one?

Please be as RAW as possible, and I don't need any vague 'I think...' answers nor 'Ask your DM' answers.

I appreciate the feedback all!

I'm definitely in the 'You have control unless it says otherwise, or gives specifics of control' camp. It's the only logical narrative. It all lines up with how D&D has developed. I honestly blame Constructs being the new type rather than Golems. I think that is where the schism came from.

So, I've poured over the Craft Construct feat, the modifying constructs rules, the construct subtype and various spells.

I can't find anything that specifies that a created construct is under the control of it's creator. Golems make mention, but thats specific.

Am I correct in assuming if I craft a construct, that it is under my control?

Battling some unfun pedantry players.

Please keep side chatter to a minimum. I'm only looking for a ruling, dev comment, or faq regarding Throwing being applied to unarmed strike.

If Claxon is correct that no such information exists, please feel free to flag for an FAQ.

Typical "You can't" "Yes I can" argument. Couldn't care less about its efficacy. Looking for legality.

Okay, so, the question is, "Can Throwing be applied to Unarmed Strike?"

Contextually, Clockwork Prosthesis says it can be enchanted by things that can be applied to unarmed strike.

RAW, Unarmed Strike is a melee weapon, so is a legal target. However, this very obviously makes little to zero sense. (How would one throw their arm?)

I did a bit of forum crawling and I'm definitely not the first to have this dilemma. Are there any official comments or rulings about this?

Okay, so unlike the usual White Haired Witch questions, my premise goes as follows.

A 4th level White Haired Witch has 10' of reach with their hair.

They attack with their hair, hit, deal damage, and succeed on their free grapple check.

The target is moved adjacent to the White Haired Witch per grapple rules.

White Haired Witch states that when grappling with their hair, they are not considered grappled.

Can the White Haired Witch then take a five foot step away from their grappled foe, as they are not prohibited from doing so? (They are not grappled. The foe will still be within the White Haired Witch's reach.)

So, I recently noticed that the Pathfinder rendition of the Reincarnate spell says that it CAN bring someone back from the dead who has died of old age. This is starkly in contrast with every other Reincarnate I know.

Per Pathfinder
"The spell can bring back a creature that has died of old age."

Per 3.5
"The spell cannot bring back a creature who has died of old age."

My question is simple: Is this change intentional, or an oversight?