Graylight's page

I noticed an (admittedly, incredibly minor) editing issue within the Gimmerling stat-block on page 170. The effect text for the Sly Disarm action states the following:

The gimmerling attempts to Disarm (page 359)...

However, the details of the Disarm action are NOT reprinted on page 359 of Monster Core. You folks might just want to nix that page reference in future printing runs. :)

I also have another minor quibble concerning the Incorporeal trait (on pages 362-363). The second paragraph of this trait reads as thus:

An incorporeal creature can’t attempt Strength-based checks against physical creatures or objects—only against incorporeal ones—unless those objects have the ghost touch property rune. Likewise, a corporeal creature can’t attempt Strength-based checks against incorporeal creatures or objects.

I think the wording of the above paragraph dates back to the older Bestiary books, and it always kinda bothered me. Because attack rolls are, by definition, checks. Interpreted literally, this text implies that a corporeal character CANNOT make a Strength-based attack roll against an ghost. Yet if they wield a FINESSE weapon, it's suddenly possible. :P

However, I always assumed that "Strength-based checks" was meant to be read as "Athletics checks" in this particular context. If at all feasible, it would be nice to see this formalized/clarified in future printing runs, or forthcoming Monster Core books.

Ehhhh... All due respect to the artist (they have far more skill than I'll ever possess), but this interpretation of the Oliphaunt strikes me as being far too CUDDLY.

But then, I still remember the ominous, awe-inspiring rendition of the same creature from Pathfinder #5. Now THERE was a pachyderm that would prompt mortals to empty their bowels! :D

I noticed a typo on page 56. The second sentence under the paragraph heading of "Party Size".

This sentence includes a page reference to the rules for building encounters, but erroneously suggests that the full rules can be found on page 57.

The full rules for building encounters start on page 75. More specifically, the rules for adjusting for different party sizes are found on page 76, which is what the aforementioned paragraph is ostensibly concerned with.

Just got my PDF, and I stumbled over a minor error/oversight on page 28.

As printed, the Aesra currently has a weakness to "Evil", rather than "Unholy".

I stumbled over a possible grammatical/editing error on page 254. The final sentence for the Dubious Knowledge feat currently reads as:

"This can occur as not knowing something is significant, but not whether it’s good or bad."

After spending a great deal of time mentally wrestling with this particular sentence, I came to the conclusion that the very first "not" simply shouldn't be there.

Maybe its a Orc with versatile Half-Elf heritage

One interesting side note is that if you look back at some of the formative setting material for Golarion (specifically page 54 of "Pathfinder Chronicles: Classic Monsters Revisited"), one will uncover a line that states that Golarion's elven population has historically taken GREAT PRIDE in the fact that their own bloodlines have remained completely incompatible with those of orcs.

Unless Paizo decides to slap down a sidebar enforcing this old lore, I genuinely look forward to the crestfallen expressions of elven nobles when the news of Dromaar-elf babies starts to filter back to Kyonin. :P

The answer you're going to get, but that you're not going to like, is "Severe", because that's as high as the mechanics of the core book go.

Well, that'll be good enough for me.

If nothing else, 20 points of HP damage (and a practically unwinnable Fortitude save) per-round should give the PCs the kind of immediate feedback that pushes them to find other options.

As the title suggests, I'm looking for canonical sources that might detail (or infer) the exact solar radiation levels on Aballon. Specifically while in high-orbit.

I'm assuming it's either High or Severe in intensity. But I'd like to avoid such imprecise guess-work, if this topic has ever been specifically detailed in an AP or SFS module.

... Now, as a GM, I plan on taking every reasonable measure to discourage my PCs from embarking on any extra-vehicular activity while they are in such close proximity to the Sun. But I'd REALLY like to have the exact numbers handy if they choose to ignore the mechanic's Geiger-counter.

Personally, I'd like to see combat maneuvers adapted to be more tactically viable, and usable in general. Investing in the varied feat-tax-trees required to get AoO-less maneuvers seems a ridiculously wasteful use of feats, given the alternatives.

Even when building a fighter, I tend to look sideways at the option of investing in those feat trees. But maybe that's just my perspective.

I've encountered a bit of confusion regarding the spell "Animate Dead". I've searched through a few related threads, but there seem to be differing opinions of how to interpret the rules regarding natural armor.

So my question is, how do you apply the Natural Armor Bonuses to a newly created zombie or skeleton? Do the "Natural Armor Bonuses" (as listed by base-creature size, on p.250 & p.288 of the Bestiary) REPLACE the natural armor statistic of the base creature entirely, or do I ADD the listed values on top of the base creature's natural armor?*

*Eg. If the base creature had 5 natural armor, and was of medium size, the new undead creature would have a natural armor value of 7

I see a lot of big, complex ideas for rule changes being thrown up this thread. While some of these may have particular value, I'm of the opinion that the simplest solution is often the best... After all, the Pathfinder RPG evolved out of a collective desire to RESIST dramatic change, (that change being 4e). If the rules could be further optimized with only minimal changes to the way we play, then I suspect that the community as a whole would be happier for it.

A few examples in particular that immediately grabbed my attention:

The suggestion of allowing a monk to Flurry as a standard action here is an interesting one, allowing you to get your extra attack on the move without going full-on Pounce-mode.

I'd be VERY tempted to see how this would work when applied to TWF in general. But then, I probably only think this way because I recently had to witness one of my players trying to use/build a dual-wielding character... It truly was painful to watch, during combat. >_<

How to alter combat maneuvers so that they can actually get some use;

There's 2 ways to go about this. 1, consolidate the Combat Maneuver feats into fewer feats. 2, they do not provoke AoOs. I prefer the 2nd because I think the AoO causes lots of tactic movement in combat, which really slows down the game.

I too wondered if consolidating all the "Improved" maneuver feats into a single low-level feat would be a good move. I'd personally hesitate to remove maneuver-based AoOs entirely, but that's personal preference.

Charisma-based feats

(Luck of Heroes/Paragons/Kings)

I really do like the idea of feats that allow the mechanical development of extraordinary lucky (ie, NOT supernaturally/magically lucky) characters. I've had a player who has been making inquiries in this direction, and I think these feats might act as a suitable option to help him scratch that itch. My only concern is that they might infringe on the territory of the current Hero-Point system...

Oh, and everything that's been said so far on the splitting of Will saves into two different saves is pure gold, IMO.

SUSPICION & DEFIANCE FOR PRESIDENT!!1!

...okay, I'm done now.

I want one for my witches Improved Familiar, with some sort of Selective Jink power so that it doesn't affect my allies.

My suggestion? Repeatedly use the Forced Reincarnation Hex on each of your allies until they all come back as Gnolls.

BOOM! Problem solved! :D

Scott, the link you posted appears to contain information specifically for a home-brew setting called "Thule". So, the information therein is not actually intended to be used in a Golarion campaign. Hope this clears things up! :)

In regards to holidays, there are a whole slew of 'em listed in the Inner Sea World Guide, at the start of chapter 4. I don't know for certain if this represents a complete list, or if there are some minor dates that have been omitted, though. *shrugs*

I've actually been using this calendar for a while now to keep track of events in my own RotRL campaign (awesome work by the original creators by the way!). But while I was perusing my own brand-spanking-new copy of the aforementioned 'World Guide, I noticed that there seems to have been some changes to the number of days present in each month. While I was tempted to spend some time updating this calendar with the changes (and holidays) myself, the cost of the required Adobe Writer software soon quashed my enthusiasm. :(

So... Uhh... I don't suppose there would be any kind souls that already have access to Adobe Writer, who would be inclined towards updating this calendar PDF for us nit-picking fans?

*Coughs*

...Well? Anyone?

*Listens to crickets*

Something I noticed a few days back:

Droskar is listed under "Other Gods" on page 228, but he lacks an entry on the "Other Deities" crunch-table on page 229. Is this intentional? It is mentioned that Droskar is thought to be dead, but... Well, if he truly IS dead, and unable to grant spells/domains to clerics, shouldn't he be listed with all the other corpse-gods (The Fallen, False and Forgotten) on page 235?

Think about it this way, bad guys with AK 47s cant see, but youve got night vision goggles, are you gonna grab the guys wallet he dropped by his feet (needing to move up to get it and grab it and then move away) or just plain run?

Agreed, it is definitely a foolhardy course of action. But then, Darkstalkers DO have a racial tendency towards chaotic alignments... And in my mind, nothing says "chaotic" like a dangerous and reckless venture! :P

In regards to the OP, I don't think it's too mean. The player who lost his rapier may feel initially resentful, but as long as they have a chance to recover the weapon, either by force, diplomacy, or simply by buying it back, I think your players will likely all leave with fond memories of the encounter.

It is excellent artwork and all, but the JPEG compression artifacts make my eyes cry with tears. :'(

I'm not completely sure I understand why you felt compelled to write this here, but a part of me is glad you did. After reading your post, I ran a brief web search on the girl's name, and was quickly bombarded by journal articles and YouTube videos concerning this tragic event. But all of it was in Italian, a language which I am not fluent in. It reminds me that we all live in our own protective bubbles, be they social or cultural, ignorant of many important matters going on in the wider world...

I know that the man responsible for this will likely be regarded henceforth as a psychopath and a vile deviant, and perhaps rightly so. But I wonder if there could have been a way for his family, friends, or his community to guide him clear of this event, and the psychology/mentality that drove him to it. Is it possible for us all, as individuals, to play a part in cultivating a psychologically healthy society?

I do not personally wish to start any form of debate over the answer to this question. It is merely a concept that I felt the need to express, to share, after stumbling onto this tread. I hope it is well-received.

Hmm. Well, for the last few months I've been GMing a fortnightly "Rise of the Runelords" Pathfinder game, for a small group of three friends.

Ahh, that would explain it.

Hold on. I've seen the cover artwork for a number of these Rite products inside some of the Super Genius Guide PDFs I've purchased... While I hate to throw around the "P" word, I can't help but wonder if there's some blatant plagarisin' goin' on here. :(

Or have Rite Publishing and SGG come to some sort of mutually beneficial agreement regarding each other's commissioned art pieces?

The spell resistance thing for that particular spell may well be an editorial oversight, although even if it's not, there's always this...

A creature can voluntarily lower its spell resistance. Doing so is a standard action that does not provoke an attack of opportunity.

Ehh... Now, if memory serves, an intelligence score of 6 should give the mount the ability to understand all verbal commands of a given language (although I'm not sure if that language would be Common or Celestial in this case), so if a paladin just asked his pony nicely, he wouldn't have to worry about the spell resistance.

Nevertheless, this course of action would still be inconvenient if performed in the thick of combat, since you'd lose a standard action for the mount, and leave it vulnerable to other magical effects for a round...

Armor to be made into magic armor must be masterwork armor, and the masterwork cost is added to the base price to determine final market value.

Ah! Right, how embarrassing! For some reason, my mind always interpreted that passage more along the lines of "masterwork cost is assumed to make up the base price". Although now that that has been highlighted for me, that interpretation does seem more than a little silly... >_>

Anyway, thanks for the swift correction! ^_^

Greetings and salutations, esteemed forum-jockeys!

I've recently run into a bit of personal confusion regarding the pricing of enchanted full plate mail, and after re-reading over the relevant sections of the core rulebook a few more times, I've decided to throw in the towel and submit my understanding to the mercy of the forum-going public.

As I currently understand it, unless the armor is constructed of certain special materials, the market price for an enchanted armor is wholly reliant on the level and nature of the protective magic imbued into it. Thus, a suit of +1 Studded Leather costs the same as a suit of +1 Scale Mail, which is to say 1000gp.

Cue the dramatic entrance of the sparkly full plate mail! This beauty has a base cost of 1500gp for standard quality, and 1650gp for a masterwork quality set. Yet the rules for magic item generation seem to state that an enchanted, +1 version of full plate should have a market price of 1000gp.

...Wait, what?

Even with the additional costs inherent in refitting a suit of full-plate to a new body (2d4 * 100gp), the cost of purchasing +1 full plate for a character is likely to be less than purchasing a plain ol' set of masterwork full-plate. So what gives? Have I been ruling incorrectly on the price of magical items/armor? Should I actually be adding the cost of a masterwork set of the relevant armor type to the base cost of any enchanted armor? Or is there something else that I am missing, here? :(

So, yeah. Uhm... Help? o_o