Corren28's page

Well, considering this is a rules forum and this was a rules question...yes, he's wrong. I've been corrected several times for throwing my own perspective in on a RAW discussion. This is no different.

Wes, I think your definition of the word "using" could use a bit of revision.
Using(v):To put into service or apply for a purpose.

If your shield is stowed on your back it isn't put into service. You can't block with a shield that is on your back and you aren't applying it to any kind of purpose, just toting it around. A player MAY end up with an ACP because of encumbrance when his shield is on his back, but that's a different beast. The penalty will still change depending on if the shield is stowed or in your hand.

I agree in that you should play the way you like best. By all means! Fun is the name of the game. It just isn't RAW is all.

Edit: Ninja'd by Seranov. :P

I apply the ACP from shields at all times. Carried, slung, in use...it doesnt matter.

This is, plain and simply, wrong. Of course swimming, jumping, or getting onto a mount is going to be easier when the shield is slung on your back than if it were in your hand. Your hands are free. If the weight of the shield on your back is not enough to encumber you then there is no penalty.

If you're going to impose a penalty then you also have to allow the bonuses, otherwise you're purposefully going out of your way to screw your players over.

+1 caltrops of wounding... :)

Many shot allows the first attack roll of your full-attack to fire two arrows. One attack roll, two damage rolls. Since damage is rolled separately for each arrow I would say the ability's added damage only applies to one arrow.

Nonlethal damage can kill as well. As was already stated, any nonlethal damage sustained beyond the total maximum hp is treated as lethal damage. Suffer enough nonlethal damage and you WILL die. A coup de grace with nonlethal damage is perfectly within the rules.

Perhaps a simplification of the equation would help. The player will get 2 plus int mod (min 1) plus 1 for for being human plus 1 for favored class. His int mod is -3, so he equation would then look like this: (2-3 [minimum 1])+1+1=3. The process within the parentheses is done first, which makes the "two plus the intelligence modifier" a single number. It just happens to be a number that will change from character to character. The intelligence penalty is added to the base skill points before anything else is done.

Honestly, if your casters have a problem with spell resistance and saves they shouldn't be playing a caster. If they're complaining that a monster is immune to all they spells THEY have, not magic in it's entirety, then that's their fault (or yours if you threw the monster at them on a whim and they had no prep time) and it's part of the game.

There are countless solutions for a caster to overcome SR, and many of them have been listed already. Any caster worth their spells is going to have scrolls of uncommonly or rarely cast, but essential, spells as a contingency plan. If the elemental bloodline sorcerer complains that they're centralized around evocation and they've nothing to get around SR or immunity, shrug your shoulders and say "so sorry". They should at least have a few buff spells and a crossbow.

To put things in a bit of perspective for you, I'm running Skull and Shackles right now. One of the group is playing a Wayang Rogue, focused primarily on ranged damage, an 8 str, and no ranks in his swim skill. When they were told they were going to have to fight in flooded underground caverns he exclaimed "But my character is going to be completely useless". *Shrugs* Not my fault. I didn't build the character.

There are tools in the game already for them to overcome these mechanics. Instead of handing them an ezmode game, refer them to such rules. There are feats that give them bonuses when overcoming SR, increase the DCs of their saves, scrolls of spells they don't have on their spell list can be invaluable, and even if all they have are evocation spells against a high SR monster nothing is preventing them from attacking the environment. Drop a tree limb on the monster, or a chandelier, corrode the stairs the enemy is on with acid spells, etc. There are always options...

Edit: It's also fair to point out that, while many people have been making the point that melee have to overcome AC and deal with DR (maybe) and casters have to deal with AC with some spells, Resistances, and then SR on top of it all, you also have to consider the power behind a spellcaster. Melee characters generally just do damage or perform some type of action that facilitates damage (trip, grapple, etc.) As a caster you can change the entire battlefield. Polymorph spells can reduce an opponent to a non-threat, disintegrate can change the terrain of the environment to your advantage, wall spells can both hinder foes and help allies at the same time. Casters need to get out of the "Lol boom headshot" mindset and really take a look at their spell lists. There are SO many things you can do to make fights trivial because of the boon you bring to the party in forms other than damage.

I may have missed this in the thread above, but... I'm in the process of Preparing for "Event 5. Smoldering Revenge" - and looking at the procedures for the Fire. This is going to be HARD! I started doing the math, going to figure out how my (slightly oversized group) will be handling this - when I noticed something. I will have 5 PCs for this session. There are 5 fires - each setting an additional square on fire each turn... So...

1st turn - 5+5=10 sq. on fire, and the PCs get to act. It's a DC12 to put out a square - so say my PCs just fight fires and have a few bonuses and get 3 fire sq. put out. now...

2nd turn - 7+5=12 sq. on fire, and the PCs do the same... and roll well and put out 4, only missing one. and now we go to...

3rd turn - 8+5=13. Wow... the PCs are doing GREAT and still losing ground.

In fact - there seems to be NO WAY to get ahead of this.... Unless the PCs "gang up" on one source early and get it out, and then switch to the next and work on it till it's out and so on.

Does anyone see something I'm missing? How do 4 PC groups do this? Thanks for your advice!

It does seem a bit undoable at first but if the PCs gang up on one fire and let the others spread you will have one fire completely put out and the others will most likely grow and merge into one. Per the rules, 2 fires spreading into 2 squares will become 1 fire spreading into 1 square. If the PCs should put the now larger fire out in such a manner that they break it into 2 fires again, it will start spreading at a rate of 2 squares a round again.

If you touch yourself with this ability you are treated as undead. If a rival cleric says "I'm going to channel negative energy to harm living creatures", you aren't targeted because you're treated as undead. Yes, you are still a living creature. You breathe, sleep, eat, laugh, cry, and create great works of art, but as far as positive and negative energy effects go you're undead. If someone is targeting living creatures then you're not a valid target for the effect.

To be fair, I don't think you're going to get a definite ruling on this because it doesn't exist. Ultimately it's going to be your call. My advice: No, it does not freeze anything. I say that for the very reason you felt the need to start this thread. Is casting ray of frost over and over to freeze a five foot area solid overpowered? Probably not, but you have to maintain continuity. What happens when a higher level sorcerer with the elemental bloodline casts fireball and changes it to ice? Flash freeze? I really don't think so...

I house rule things very very rarely because it's a very fine line to unbalancing the game ridiculously (with some players) because decisions you make innocently enough early on can come back to haunt you.

You beat me to it! I was just looking for that. Damn you Cheapy. :)

On a related note, Spell-like abilities have no verbal, somatic, or material components and require no focus, yet in their description it clearly states they can be countered just like a regular spell which requires a spellcraft check to identify the effect so it can be countered. With that in mind there is no reason you cannot use spellcraft to identify a silent and still spell cast by a mage with eschew materials, albeit at a penalty as was stated above.

*Blasts Some Random Player* Pew pew!

The costs are the same as in the regular game and the +1 enhancements are on the always available list as well if I'm not mistaken. The PFS restriction comes into play when you start looking into multiple enhancements or +2 or higher enhancements. If you don't have the fame or chronicle sheet making it available then you cannot take advantage of the enchantment.

Even heavy fortification only provides a 75% chance of receiving normal damage. It in no way makes you immune to critical hits, so no it would not protect you against stunning fist.

@ Happler, I love it. I can see my character now...

*Hunkers down* Kaaaaameeeeeeehhh...haaaaaameeeeeee...

*Throws fists* HAAAAA!

And couldn't he gnaw his second arm off and chuck it at his opponents with his mouth? :P lol

If he wants answers, his job is to question. "Does this work"... Nope, because of that. "I have reasons A, B, and C to suggest and support this works and it works this way." Oh, well it doesn't because blah blah blah...and we go back and forth. It's called discussion and debate and it's how we come to intelligent and, more importantly, correct conclusions.

If he wanted a "It's this way because I said so" answer I would direct him to his local pastor...

Sneak attack damage would apply only if the target did not perceive the rogue as an enemy. If they do not perceive the rogue as an enemy they are not going to be concerned with defending themselves against the rogue and would therefor be flatfooted. Having the weapons concealed may cause the target to think the rogue is harmless, but the sneak attack damage would be granted because the target isn't reacting properly to the rogue, not because the weapons are concealed.

Edit: Ninja'd. :P

Ryric makes a very good point. To that effect, if your PCs ever fall into this type of mechanic I submit to you what is good for the goose is good for the gander. If the PCs can do it, so can you... :)

They're on a time crunch to save a little girl

I disagree. It's all about efficiency if they're on such a time frame. How big is this bridge they need access to? If you allowed them to freeze water with RoF, even large quantities instantaneously, how are they going to use it as a bridge? Obviously you can't throw water over a ravine and freeze it into a bridge. You'd have a bunch of pieces of ice falling to the bottom. If you freeze the ice on the ground and try to maneuver it into place you have one of two problems. Either the ice is light enough to move but too weak to support your weight or it's sturdy enough to support your weight but too heavy to move.

Also, see the above mentioned note about achieving higher level spell effects with cantrips. If they state they're willing to spend whatever time it takes to make this "Wall of Ice" remind them of their time crunch.

Without actually being in the game and knowing the circumstances, environment, resources available, dimensions of said obstacle they're trying to bridge, etc., I can't really offer up potential solutions for them, but cantrips aren't really designed for this kind of utility. They just aren't strong enough.

So you go to being a jerk instead of trying to talk things out when you aren't playing?

Yeah, I can see how fine the group dynamic is working. Oh wait, it seems like there isn't one.

I assure you, this was not started in jest. I have a player who is very rules lawyery and not very good at accepting, "I'm the GM, and so the final arbiter of the rules" who wants to use this combo with a Tetori monk to grapple enemies at range. I started this thread as a way to detail exactly why this would not work for him.

Sounds to me like it's already been discussed and they guy won't accept "no" as an answer. So, yea, we go to being a jerk.

Thin walls of ice aren't going to offer very good cover. It would take a LOT of casting to get any kind of substantial effects in the terms you're talking about, and there are other spells which will do it better and more efficiently.

Also, as someone else has already stated, the environment needs to be taken into consideration. If you're someplace rather warm ray of frost isn't going to do anything. It doesn't produce an effect great enough or fast enough to really freeze anything for any amount of time in a warm climate.

Honestly, your player is overthinking things. It's great he's trying to think outside the box but he's also reinventing the wheel. A sheet of slippery ice on the floor to force acrobatics checks? Why not just cast grease? Frozen water? Prestidigitation. (And use them before they melt) Drench + RoF for vision limitations? Just cast darkness (Level 2 spell, I know, but you get them fairly soon off).

I'd tell them there are ways to achieve what they want already in the game and you're not going to allow RoF to be used outside it's official text because of balance issues. If they want to achieve these other effects they can use the appropriate spells.

I assure you, this was not started in jest. I have a player who is very rules lawyery and not very good at accepting, "I'm the GM, and so the final arbiter of the rules" who wants to use this combo with a Tetori monk to grapple enemies at range. I started this thread as a way to detail exactly why this would not work for him.

He was even trying to say that he could headbutt someone and then carry his head around just fine. :/

Let him do it. Let him enchant his amulet and headbutt someone at ranged by firing his head across the map like a rocket.

As soon as he does collect his character sheet and inform him of his suicide. His character is now decapitated and is dead. Imho, if he tries to pull the whole "It doesn't say I'm dead when I'm decapitated anywhere in the rules. I'm only dead when I hit -x hit points" crap, you should kick him out of the group. It sounds like he's one of those players who spends more time finding technical loopholes within the rules than actually playing the game. Most of the time those types turn out to be @#$holes.

Makes sense. I guess I was just hoping I was missing something. Thanks for the heads up guys! :)

I would say the enchantment is unable to be used for the very reason you're rationalizing. You can't just rip your arms off and throw them at someone. The enchantment simply doesn't apply.

Dot?

Picked up a few of these with the PDF versions of the AP and I really like them. They would actually solve a lot of hassle we go through with drawing full blown maps, fold-out maps, dry erase markers, trying to hide certain parts of the map, etc. I had the brilliant idea to put them on my tablet (Asus Transformer with Android Ice Cream Sandwich) and take it with me and project the maps onto a larger screen with a mini-HDMI cable.

As it turns out though the interactive features will not work on the tablet in any PDF viewer I've used so far, Adobe viewer included, and I was wondering if anyone else has successfully attempted this or knows of a solution to make this a possibility without going out and picking up a full blown laptop.

Any help everyone can offer is greatly appreciated! Thanks. :)

So, I'm running for a new group with a new adventure path and they're doing really well through the first book so far. I picked up the second book so I'd be ready for when they complete the first and the first encounter I see is a phase spider.

The tactics section basically says it moves to the Ethereal Plane to prepare an ambush, jumps to the material plane (free action), attacks (standard action), and jumps back to the Ethereal Plane (move action) to wait for the poison to take effect.

How are you ever supposed to fight this at level 4? Dimensional anchor is a level 4 cleric/wizard/sorcerer spell and thus unavailable. I suppose grouping up and readying actions to attack it when it jumps back in would work to an extent, but the spider would maneuver itself about to minimize the danger it's in when it jumps back and forth. Allowing the spider to jump back to the ethereal as a move instead of a standard seems a touch overpowered for a CR5 to me, unless I'm missing something?

Also, with a rogue and invisibility, a rogue gets their sneak attack damage on their first attack because the attack is what triggers the fall of the invisibility. Enemy is flat footed because rogue is invisible -> Rogue sneak attacks -> sneak attack triggers the end of the spell. In the case of the phase spider, it is attacking against the PC's full AC because it shifts into the material and THEN attacks, correct? Phase spider is "invisible" -> shifts into the material plane and becomes visible -> attacks.

At that very moment, he is being attacked by an angry, normal, lizard on the opposite side -- perhaps the Geico Gecko. It can do damage, so you move in to the opposite side. By rule, you are "flanking."

Therefore, by ridiculous rule, you are "sneaking."

An opponent that small doesn't threaten the spaces around it and therefor provides no flank bonus for someone on the opposite side. Also, flanking =/= sneaking. They're two very different mechanics with two very different effects.

You are nude carrying no weapons, so you attack with one fingernail.

You scratch him for one HP of damage.

That's one heck of a fingernail but I'll run with it anyway. Improved unarmed strike? If not then there is no sneak attack damage. In fact the target would get an attack of opportunity against you because you're provoking by making an attack with a "weapon" you aren't proficient with.

NO OTHER CLASS can do 6x extra damage at first level with ANY weapon, but every single "rogue" can do it (even one in a wheelchair with only one hand) just because someone writing rules didn't know what they were doing.

It sounds great when you say it like that. 6x extra damage...except you're applying that multiplier to a single point of damage. When you look at the hard numbers any two-handed weapon character with a decent strength puts a rogue to shame at level 1, and usually with a better attack modifier to boot.

Honestly, it sounds like you've allowed some PCs to abuse their rogue abilities inappropriately somewhere along the line and now have a jaded view of how they work. Kinda makes me wonder what you'd do with a rogue who threw stealth to the wind and walked into combat with a greatsword and started flanking.

I'm not sure a winged race can carry enough heavy projectiles to really get past the hardness of even a wooden deck.

Yea, that was the first wrench I threw in their gears. At first they wanted to use Feather Token: Anchors and tie bottles of alchemist's fire to them. I can't even begin to say how many problems there are with that idea.

Next up was a bag of holding with anchors in it. Then I pointed out the weight restriction on the bag.

I just wanted to make sure I had the mechanics correct in case they do figure a way to try this.

One of the players in my group is a winged race and has this idea of sinking ships by dropping objects onto the ship from up high in an attempt to damage and punch holes in the hull.

Basically, I'd like to ask you guys to double check my thought process here and make sure I'm doing this right and make sure I'm not overlooking a feat or combat rule somewhere.

Whatever they're dropping is going to be an improvised weapon so, without the proper feat(s), it's a -4 to their attack roll right off. Then there's the cumulative -2 for every range increment beyond 10 feet. Thrown improvised weapons have a max range of up to 5 additional increments and fired improvised weapons have a max range of up to 10 additional increments. Since dropping an object obviously isn't firing it in any way I'm going with the thrown ruling.

Whatever they drop isn't going to just stop falling after 60 feet though, it's going to continue to fall no matter the range. I'm of two schools of thought here. Either a) the object simply splashes down somewhere in the water and is an automatic miss because they are too far away to be any kind of accurate, or b) since the object will eventually make it the necessary distance, just not necessarily to the correct position, we just keep adding -2 penalties for every 10 feet. So if they're 100 feet up they can make a ranged touch attack with a -22 to their roll.

Thoughts?

The question is about the caster level check when trying to use a scroll when your not high enough level to cast the spell yourself.

Quite right. The thing is, when you use a scroll you aren't "casting" anything. That was my whole point. The casting of the spell is part of the scroll creation process and the caster level is set at the time of creation.

The feats you've listed all affect the casting of spells. When you use a scroll you aren't casting anything at all. You're using a spell completion item. The spell has already been cast and the effect determined before you ever got your hands on the scroll.

In short; +1 vs DC6.

Isn't the caster level set when the scroll is made? If the wizard were the one making the scroll then the wizard is also the one casting the spell as part of the creation process so the increased caster level would be a part of the scroll. If the wizard is not the one creating the scroll then the statistics would be dependent upon whomever made the scroll to begin with I would think.

Someone jump in here if I'm mistaken...

As far as reach goes, think of it this way. A medium character with a ranseur doesn't threaten adjacent squares because the ranseur is too long and doesn't bend to fit in the five foot space.

Your arm, however, has a ball joint at the shoulder and a hinge half way down and so can bend and maneuver as necessary to reach into the adjacent square.

You can make one attack of opportunity per round unless you have the combat reflexes feat, in which case you can make a number of attacks of opportunity per round equal to your dexterity modifier.

With the enlarge person spell you still threaten the squares adjacent to you because your reach is due to the length of your arms and not your weapon so yes, the reach applies to your long sword as well.

Edit: Sorry, you asked for the AoO ruling. Core Rule Book, page 180, bottom left side.

Making an Attack of Opportunity: An attack of opportunity is a single melee attack, and most characters can only make one per round. (...) Combat Reflexes and Additional Attacks of Opportunity: If you have the Combat Reflexes feat, you can add your Dexterity modifier to the number of attacks of opportunity you can make in a round.

Step up affects movement on your next turn. You can take a move action to be adjacent to someone, ready an action to attack when they cast / fire a bow, use the step up and strike feat when they 5-foot step away from you and attack, then use your AoO for when they cast / fire.

The 5-foot step in the step up feat line counts against your action economy in your next turn, not the present.

You can ready one action. You can not ready an action to attack and 5 foot step. You can ready an action to follow him if he steps and then he provokes.

You can ready a standard action, a move action, a swift action, or a free action. (...)

You can take a 5-foot step as part of your readied action, but only if you don't otherwise move any distance during the round.

Also, Blue, may I direct you to the Step Up and Step Up and Strike feats. Really really useful for situations exactly like what you're describing here.

I see no reason why not. Archer five foots away and commits to a ranged attack triggering your readied action. You interrupt the archer, five foot step and attack (normal attack). He continues with his turn and the ranged attack triggering an attack of opportunity from anyone threatening him (you). You interrupt again with a second attack (Attack of Opportunity).

As for the archer changing his mind about the attack, I would rule no he cannot. His action of firing the bow is what triggered your readied action. Cause and effect. Without the cause there is no effect. The effect has been resolved the cause must remain else there never should have been an effect in the first place.

or is he simply turning his 5 foot step into a normal move action to get out of range.

I'll be perfectly honest, I've not gone digging to find RAW to support that this is not allowed, but this is not allowed. Especially after so many other actions have been resolved. If he changes his initial movement from a 5-foot to a normal movement then he would have provoked as soon as he moved from your square. It requires "rewinding" and redoing combat.

Again I've not gone digging to support, nor am I even certain RAW does support, this ruling but barring some kind of gross combat-changing mistake I don't rewind or redo decisions. It's messy.

An individual Gm is gong to be able to gauge, for his players, what is an appropriately challenging encounter far better then any formulaic table.

It isn't about challenging encounters. It's about the obstacles the PCs need to overcome. You can throw the exact same encounter at two different groups, one very experienced as yourself and the other relatively new. The experienced group will have a much easier time of it because they have a better understanding of the rules and feat selections, skill allocations, and gear that work well in tandem. The newer group can still overcome the encounter but probably not without a few injuries. This doesn't change the CR or the experience awarded, both groups get the same reward. Just because you, as a GM, know the capabilities of your players doesn't mean you get to throw tougher fights at them without better rewards. It has nothing to do with dice rolls or player choices.

This notion that the DM had better hand out every last xp point or the players will walk is disgusting. How self entitled can a player get?

A lot more entitled actually. Expecting the rewards you've rightly earned isn't entitlement. After playing for so long you start to get a feel for how much experience you should be gaining in relation to the difficulty in encounters. When you send your players up against something that nearly kills the party and you hand out what amounts to a drop of water in the ocean, players are going to start calling their GM out.

Besides you don't adjust encounter rewards for how easy or difficult the player's choices or dice rolls might have made them.

Nobody is suggesting encounter rewards should be adjusted based on dice rolls or player choices. The encounter rewards are set before the players ever sit down to play. The discussion here is if environmental hazards alter the CR of an encounter and the answer is "It depends".

Fighting a red dragon in a cave where it's restricted and can't fly about is CR X-1. Fighting the same dragon on an open field where everyone can move, cast, see, etc. is CR X. Fighting the same red dragon at the peak of a volcano while it's flying around breathing fire and the PCs have to stay on a ledge and can't move freely and they're taking heat damage every round because of the lava, it's more of a CR X+2 or 3.

Winter is right. If the hazard hinders both your opponent and you then there may be no CR alteration. If the hazard is a hindrance to your party and a boon to your enemy you'd best be awarding heightened experience to your players. If you start holding out on your party there's a good possibility they'll start looking up the monsters they've fought and they'll realize they're being shortchanged. Best case scenario they'll bring it up and call you out on it. Most likely they'll say screw it and won't play anymore.

It's really a GM call. I've tried throwing "hazards" in encounters before to make things more difficult for the party and they end up turning it to their advantage, making the encounter easier.

Typically, yes, it adds to the CR. Especially if the hazards are part of the natural environment of whatever you have the party fighting and the enemy can use the terrain against the party. E.g., Fighting a black dragon in it's acidic swamps instead of defending a town against a black dragon.

Yes, you can use acrobatics to move out of a threatened square and move at 1/2 speed or normal speed if you increase the DC by 10. Also, you can use the withdrawal full-round action to move in a straight line and not provoke attacks of opportunity from the square you started in.

Acrobatics does not allow you to avoid attacks of opportunity from casting and ranged attacks. Casting defensively will prevent attacks of opportunity while casting and I think there's a feat you can take to prevent attacks of opportunity from ranged attacks as well, but don't quote me on that.

You're right. There's nothing in there saying you can save feats for later. It also doesn't specifically say you can't. It tells you "Finally, add new skills and feats." What if you don't add a feat? Then what? Do you lose it? It doesn't say you lose it. Do you just not finish leveling? It doesn't say that. Anywhere.

The RAW is just vague enough to start a discussion on this repeatedly and we can argue what is RAW and what is RAI all you want. It doesn't change anything. We've all agreed it isn't allowed and it'd be an absolutely terrible idea for any GM to allow it.

What Bltz said basically. There's a lot of things can be done in the fiction which you can't really pull off in-game because of the mechanics. This is one of them. Pinning requires multiple successful grapple checks. With greater grapple you could do it in one round but it would still require grapple checks and would still require the use of your hands.

Now, you could speak to your GM about called shots and if he would allow this tactic to work if you make a called shot to completely miss his throat or arm and pin him to the ground. The downside to this is 1) if you mess up your called shot you just killed your potential prisoner and 2) once you start making called shots your GM starts making called shots. You don't want your GM making called shots...

Yep. In the case of an enemy making a full-attack and hitting you three times...

Enemy attacks successfully -> Fort save -> Poisoned for 4 rounds (I just picked a number. You use what is in the poison entry)

Enemy attacks successfully -> Fort save +2 -> Poisoned for 6 rounds (+ 1/2 normal duration)

Enemy attacks successfully -> Fort save +4 -> Poisoned for 8 rounds

Your turn -> You do stuff

Next round

Poison affects enemy -> 7 rounds left

Enemy attacks successfully -> Fort save +6 -> Poisoned for 9 rounds

Once the enemy satisfies the cure conditions, though, all instances of the poison are cured.

The amount of gravity on the other planet would come into play too, as well as atmospheric pressure. Even on a smaller scale, teleporting from sea level to the peak of Mt. Everest would have serious physical consequences on the body. Kinda like a diver coming to the surface too quickly.

Do a search on the forums for "save feat" and pick any of the seeming hundreds that have asked this very same question. They all boil down to the same thing: The wording is just vague enough to start a discussion but no, absolutely not allowed.

No, it's a step by step guide to make sure you don't miss anything vital. There's nothing there stating you absolutely have to take the feat right there and then. Like I said, been over it and over it in another thread.

RAW, yes you can. RAI, absolutely not. Terrible idea. Don't do it. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. If you start saving feats for later the GM can roll up NPCs that have done the same. It won't be pretty...

[Edit] I should also add that this is what I've come to consider an oversight. I'm in your guys' camp 100%. Feats are not meant to be saved and the wording here is just vague enough to be open to interpretation. There are a lot of rules like this in PF. As I said, RAI, absolutely not!

We've been over all this already in another thread. Same exact argument. There's nothing in the RAW stating you must take the feats as soon as they're available.

If your logic is correct, you could save all of the features you get when leveling up until later. This would have implications for creating characters above first level (amongst other things).

If you look at the implications of saving feat selections, however, it becomes clear they are intended to be taken immediately

Believe me, I know. I ran this idea past my own group, who are phenomenally adept at pushing that limit of bending the rules but not breaking them, and some of the builds they came up with are downright scary for a GM.