Guppy7's page

The problem with your descriptions for me is you're not describing a place - except, arguably (maybe?) the first one - you're describing a thing inside of that place. I'm not sure I'd let either of the latter two fly, but I might give you the first "complete but vague" description, unless there's more than one such location in the world.

That was exactly my intention with the descriptions. The second was meant to describe a small part of the place, though not necessarily a specific thing inside the place. The last one only describes the altar and the question sort of becomes "what is the difference between a place and a thing?".

Your travelogue example seems like a good guideline. Perhaps a reliable description is a description from somebody who has actually been there, in your case the author of the book.

The distinction between place and thing seems arbitrary though. Mobility may be a factor. Or maybe size?

During our last gaming session some questions about greater teleport came up. One player asserted this could mean greater teleport could teleport to a person by describing the place as "the place with X in it." and perhaps describing X in some detail. Would this work?

Greater teleport states you can teleport to a place of which you have a reliable description. What exactly does that mean? Does reliable simple mean it can contain no false information?

I guess my actual question is can greater teleport work by describing an aspect of a place or does the place have to be described in its entirety?

Assuming the descriptions below are correct which would actually work?

A complete but vague description:

"The temple of Omhetevenwie in Weetikveelwaar is made of black obsidian, each side has three pillars with arches and behind the altar is hangs the banner of Omhetevenwie"

or a more detailed description of a smaller area:

"There is an altar and behind it hangs a banner Omhetevenwie. On the artar is a ritual leetter opener, and the holy spoon of Omhetevenwie. The floor is made of tiled dark marble and the banner hangs over a black obsidian wall and is held up by glass lobsters"

or a very detailed description of a single aspect:

"Picture an altar made of dark granite, with an overlay of black glass on top. The four corners have been carved outwards as arms reaching to the floor. The front contains a mosaic in dark Jade, picturing the holy lobster. On the backside of the altar there is a small scratch as if someone took a chisel to the otherwise perfect piece."

Any suggestions?

I believe you are misinterpreting things. Using the diagram above, assuming F does not have flexible flanker but is wield a reach weapon that threates, he only flanks with the rogue if the rogue is in position X. This is because his flanking is determined from his square through position 5.

Possibly, I'm quite new at pathfinder. I always assumed flanking was determined by drawing a line from the center of square F to the center of of the other player square. Your way certainly seems easier as it is never in doubt which edge the line enter and leaves even with sloppy drawing.

The flexible flanker ability gives him more options. Using the same diagram above, now if the rogue is in position Y or Z he is also considered flanking because you can declare yourself to be determining flank from position 3 or 8. The ability does not change where you are attacking from, merely where you determine flanking from.

Does that raise the question as to when you designate the location you are flanking from? I mean if both square Y and Z contain a rogue could you change de designated location between their turns?

Our gm decided that he wanted to continue our 3.5 campaign in pathfinder so I'm converting my 3.5 polearm fighter to a pathfinder fighter.

While reading the polearm master archtype so questions arose about how flexible flanker works.

FF states:

a polearm master may choose any square adjacent to him and treat that square as his location for determining who he is flanking

If I consider the following sketch

123 R
4F5M
678

Where F is the polearm master, M is a monster, R is the party rogue and 1 to 8 are the possible squares for FF.

If the pm attacks the monster what a valid squares to determine flanking?

If the reach of the polearm is figured only 2 and 7 would be valid a the pm could not attack M if he was standing on the other squares. This seems to be what FF states. It also would make FF of severely limited applicability as there is now no way for F to flank with R. So am I interpreting this correctly?

Also does the position only count for the pm's attack or also for others? Or can R benefit from F's FF as wel?