Lady GaGaaaaahhh!'s page

Please could my subscriptions end, asap.
If possible, could I cancel upcoming order #7746347?

I'm happy with service over the years, but events are making it difficult to keep up regular payments of those amounts, for a hobby.

Economic instability, and a falling pound has led to more and more parcels falling victim to customs fees, which wipe out the savings made.

Brexit is making a recession likely, whichever version is adopted. Even if it's cancelled, the country's reputation has been damaged, and companies no longer trust the UK as a base of operations.

And my job will be moving to a more distant town at the end of next year. A decision has to be made, if I'm following it (and eating an extra hour's travel per day), or looking for new work.

With all of that, I can't commit to maintaining subscriptions, especially with a product pile that I haven't read yet.

Thank you to everybody at Paizo, for friendly customer service over the years, and all staff who've taken the time to answer our posts.
I'd like to maintain the forum account, to keep in touch with friends I've made.

Bob

I had a message from someone claiming to be 'Emeline Mattis', email address xxfsilasii@outlook.com.

Quoted my Paizo password, and claims to have filmed me through my webcam (which I don't have).

I've changed my Paizo password, and blocked the sender, but I thought you needed to be aware someone is claiming to have hacked the site.

I've replaced the old details of a former debit card, and added a new one, but can't seem to delete the old one, or move my stalled order to be opposite the new card details.

Is that something that's done automatically?

Are these classics a separate line from the ones in the subscriptions?

If one comes up that a poster already has, nothing needs to be done to avoid a potential duplication?

I've received order no 3789428, and it includes all items except for the Flip Mat Winter Forest.

Apologies for not getting in touch sooner, but the parcel had been shoved into a corner to make way for the Christmas tree.

Do these act as overlays to any of the existing ship mats, like the tiles for markets do?

I've just flagged a couple of my own posts in a thread (the last ones in my history), as I want to remove a derailing disagreement.

I reacted more sarcastically than I probably ought, to what I interpreted as an attack on my integrity, and an accusation of misogyny.

I don't want to escalate matters, and I'd like the other posters to be able to carry on their discussion uninterrupted.

I'd rather voluntarily flag myself, and show good faith, than wait for someone else to flag it, and seem uncooperative.

As long as there's a space for a froghemoth to fit through (even if squeezing), I'll be happy as a pig in muck.

I bought a copy of the Rise of the Runelords Base Set, from Spirit Games, the store attending PaizoCon UK.

On examining it, I have found that the cards in the sealed Chapter 1 set are repeated, ie, the two decks are identical, so the set includes two copies of unique NPCs such as Nualia and Gogmurt, and the scenario locations.
The clue that this is not supposed to be the case, is that there is a dogslicer card illustrated on the box, and that does not appear in either of the identical decks, so this (with the duplicated 'uniques' seems likely the two decks should be different.

How should this be handled?
Is this forum only for items purchased through the online store?
Do I need to contact the UK store, for them to contact you?

And if I can't find the receipt, is there a way to order a replacement for the AP1 decks (not the full box set)?

I like the covers combining into one picture. Very effective when done right.

All Pathfinder Online Kickstarter Backers, hear ye! Hear ye!

Come to the Emerald Spire!

If you love the tabletop RPG.
If you love Golarion.
If you love the Pathfinder Society of Golarion..
If you love the Pathfinder Society Organised Play circuit.
If you want to support all of these things, while also taking part in the Pathfinder Online MMO?

Then come to the Emerald Lodge!
Vote for a settlement, to be created in-game, for the express purpose of defending the approach to the fabled spire, for the protection of travellers, the training, feeding, and supply of all who wish to test their mettle in its mysterious chambers!

We are currently one vote away from a place in the top ten leaderboard position, which would ensure our place on the front page of the Goblinworks site.
Help us get that front page position, and this increased exposure should drive further traffic.

All non-evil members welcome.
No-one will be expected to change allegiance, or abandon their friends in an existing guild. Any existing ties you have will be honoured, as a Charter Company within the settlement.
If you joined the Kickstarter with the intention of playing in a Charter Company with a certain group of friends, that will still continue.
If you wish to live outside the Lodge, you will simply have a ready-made home to come back to, until such time as you are able to build your own.

This voting system is purely for the purposes of the Land Rush process, to determine the settlements to be provided in the early stages of the game. Once the game has begun, we would hope you find even more friends within our walls, and be better able to enjoy the the game with the support of like-minded players, who wish to build a settlement, tame the nearby monster lairs, and explore The Spire!

I want the Sihedron to pop out the front cover, and be usable as a shuriken.

Special 'Sin Effect' on the target, dependent on which blade hits first...

Come on by the Emerald Lodge!

Join the Pathfinders!

One of us! One of Us!

I'm re-posting a comment I made in one of the class-specific threads, as I believe it has more universal relevance:

brad2411's post brings up a valid point.

Will there be new mythic abilities in the Advanced Class Guide, to support these new classes?
Or would such potential new mythic abilities be more appropriate to a 'Mythic Handbook 2'?

Having them be included in the ACG could be confusing, or wasted pages, to those who don't own Mythic rules, or aren't including them in their campaign.
But I can't see there being a new Mythic book, so close to the first.

Some of the new classes possess abilities that are named or worded slightly differently to their core counterparts.
Language may be needed, to clarify that any mythic ability that alters one class' feature should be considered to also affect features on their hybrid cousins. (e.g. abilities affecting domains may also apply to a Warpriest's Blessings.)

This also ties into general question, of whether a hybrid class is qualified to choose feats or mythic abilities currently ring-fenced for one of their two associated classes.

I believe they should be able to, and can see little reason to forbid access to feats such as Weapon Specialisation, or the advanced Critial feats, but I accept I'm no expert on the more recent material.

So, does anyone know of any combinations, whether class-only feats, or Mythic abilities, which are balanced for the classes they were originally designed for, but would break the game asunder, if opened to the new classes?

Will this new print edition be identical to the one that originally saw print for convention-goers and contributors? Or will it be an expanded edition?
The reason I ask, is that the pdf included some supplementary articles (including my own), so I already own a pdf with, and a print without.

If I can get a print with my article added, I'll get this and pass my other on.

Apologies if this has been asked, but I can't find a matching thread.

Given that the pdf of the PF Core Rulebook, and Guide to the RIver Kingdoms, are products I already own, would it be possible for me to gift them to another member of the boards, who hasn't subscribed to those product lines?

The option exists when purchasing pdfs via the normal online store, and I wondered if the same option were available for the duplicates.

If this were available for any of the third-party contents of the pdf pack from the Goblinworks Kickstarter, I would be grateful, as there are a couple of items I recognise as already owning.

This isn't a complaint at all, since they are bonus materials after all, and intended as an advertisement for the publishers.
I simply think it could be good to spread the word on these products to people who I believe could use them (without compromising my own watermark).

There's a long thread kicking off about 'should the crafter charge for what he makes for others', which I don't expect to be resolved any time soon.

Rather than lose myself in that thread, I thought I'd ask a question which usually gets drowned out by the income question, or not asked in the first place.

Should a crafter have any right to insist on what items he prioritises, or even refuse to craft some items altogether?

I'm not just talking about profane items, which violate their core beliefs (though that is a good example), but where the crafter believes the commissioning PC doesn't have a clue what they or the party actually want or need.

A prime example would be, a martial PC requesting an upgrade to his weapon, and the crafter responding with "No, because you always get yourself dominated, and come after my blood. I waste half of every fight trying to avoid you, instead of focussing on the enemy."

"I am spending this weekend crafting wands of protection from chaos, and evil, to be used on you, and you can like it or lump it."

"If you insist on still scouting ahead, I will start work on a headband of owls wisdom, which will count toward your share of the next treasure."

"You will not receive any increase in your killing power, unless and until you have proven that power will no longer be used against the rest of us."

(Where the rest of the party are in agreement, I can anticipate the following being added...)
"In addition to the above, we expect you to take advantage of this downtime, to visit the Temple of Irori, and build up your mental fortitude." (i.e. take Iron Will as this level's feat).

So; is this unbearable influence on another character? Cramping another player's style? Responsible resource management? Tactical genius by an expert in his field?

Take it away, everyone.
Usual rules apply, messageboard etiquette to be maintained, no punching below the belt, no eye-gouging, break off when the referee calls time.

Ding! Ding!

Apologies for being away. In the UK, there's been a big change to the tax rules, and it's caught a lot of people unawares. I've been pulling a lot of late nights, fielding the inevitable calls, and not wanting to do much when I get home. I've been able to get the odd post on here, but most of the free time I've grabbed has been to write up a pair of articles for Wayfinder 7.
I'm drawing the map, from Orik's pov, and should upload it tonight. Trying to figure out what he knows is half the job.

Thanks to everyone who looks in. Let's keep this game alive.

I joined a pbp some months ago, for which the GM disappeared.

Since we were enjoying ourselves (and I was using the opportunity to playtest one of the APG classes), I asked the others if they wanted to carry on, with me stepping into the GM shoes, and they said yes.

We've been going several months, and the players have remained stable throughout. We now have more posts under me GMing than the previous GM.

I feel rather odd posting in a thread named after someone else, and wonder, is it possible to alter the original title, once you're 30 pages in? Are there any practical reasons why this wouldn't work? Would the change be reflected in the current players' post history?
People who dropped out a long time ago may not be able to find the thread again, but I'm not going to lose sleep over that.

The thread in question is the one under my 'GM Snorter' alias.

I've picked some items from the sale, and I want to use my store credit to cover the cost, but when I request the credit value and 'apply', nothing happens.

Is this because I asked for the items to ship with my Dec subscription?
IE, trying to use store credit that could theoretically not be there, when the subscriptions are ready to go?

Also, does delaying the shipping, to match the subscription, still allow me to buy at the current sale price? Or would the prices revert back to their normal level, mid December?

I also don't appear to have benefitted from PF Advantage, or if I have, it's not apparent in the checkout.

I'm happy to pay for the items in my cart early, to secure their availability, and sale price. I'm just trying to reduce the total no of parcels, and resultant shipping.

I sent a reply to customer services on 21:41 Friday evening GMT (so roughly lunchtime, PST).

I wanted to cancel my rules subscription for the duration of the Beginners Box.

Content of message as follows;
----- Original Message -----
From: Robert Feather
To: customer.service@paizo.com
Sent: Friday, October 14, 2011 9:41 PM
Subject: Re: Paizo Order # 1834317

Hello,

Please may I unsubscribe from the Rules subcription, for this order, and the remainder of the month?

Like several other posters, I am wary of being hit with import taxes for the Beginners Box, which would likely double the cost of the shipping.

I do think it looks a great product, and I may well buy a copy from my local games store at some point, but I can't justify that cost right now.

I still look forward to the other contents in the order.

Robert Feather ('Snorter')

I haven't received a reply to that mail, and today, I've had a further mail, telling me the same products are being shipped.
A further mail has been sent a few minutes ago.

Please can that order be intercepted? Every other product is still fine, just not the Beginners Box.

I do think it's a worthwhile product, and I may get it from my games shop in the future, but I can't face the increased shipping and possible duties.

I sent a reply via e-mail rather than create a thread on the boards, as I didn't want to add to the (IMO) frankly silly negativity I was seeing.
I've commented on those threads, that customers are given an easy way to opt out of any product they don't want.
Please don't let me have egg on my face.

Thanks
Bob

An issue cropped up in game, regarding Life Link.

As written, it takes a free action to siphon damage from the eidolon to the summoner, at the precise moment that damage occurs.

First; I present the text for free actions;

Free Actions

Free actions don't take any time at all, though there may be limits to the number of free actions you can perform in a turn. Free actions rarely incur attacks of opportunity. Some common free actions are described below.

Cease Concentration on Spell
You can stop concentrating on a spell as a free action.

Drop an Item
Dropping an item in your space or into an adjacent square is a free action.

Drop Prone
Dropping to a prone position in your space is a free action.

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.

The GM's Position:

Given the above, it was ruled that my life link could not be used to protect the eidolon, unless I had a standard action readied for that specific purpose.

My Position:
It never occured to me that free actions were limited to one's own turn; the fact that they are actions that take virtually no time at all, I take to mean they require less thought or effort than even a swift or immediate action (which would interrupt).
I can think of several free actions that are not called out as explicit examples, such as falling down when reduced to negative hp, and dropping items carried when panicked.

I maintain that requiring a readied action goes against the intent of the ability, which is to be an interrupt, and that a designation of a free action was chosen, so as not to limit the uses per round (as would be the case for an immediate action).

Making it an action, only usable on the owner's turn, would force the summoner to spend all his actions readying, or else only allow it to affect such damage as 'falling during one's own move', or
reflective damage (such as punching a barbed devil, or an opponent wearing Fire Shield).

So the question is in two parts;

Is it the intent of the designers, that Life Link should work as an interrupt, versus damage dealt, regardless of whether it is the Summoner or Eidolon's turn? (in which case, a clause to that effect is required in the ability write-up).

And/or;

Is it the intent that free actions are generally only performed during the active character's turn (except in explicit specific cases, such as speech)? Or is it left vague to allow individual GM interpretation on a case by case basis?

Please refrain from any sarcastic remarks regarding the GM or player. The purpose of this thread is not to point fingers, or overturn a ruling.
It was conducted as a gentlemanly discussion at the time, books were referenced, chins were stroked, a ruling was made, which I complied with, and it was suggested it needed clarification later.
No-one lost gold or PA, and it made no difference to the outcome of the scenario, as it would merely have delayed the inevitable by one or two rounds.

While reading more deeply in the Bestiary, and building some creatures in my head, I came across something I thought was strange.

The Zombie template assigns a natural armor bonus based on the creature's size. Fair enough, for soft-skinned humanoids like the typical PC race. But what about those races that start with natural armor?

I find it hard to believe the intent is to have Large, or larger creatures, become less tough via zombification.
Eg Hill Giant goes from +9 to +3.

I admit, the CR calculation could be skewed, where the base creature already had high AC, but there will always be more viable base creatures, such as those that made one attack/round, vs those that had multiple attacks that they lose when staggered.

As is the case with any template, the CR has to be eyeballed.
This seems more of a gamist rule than one with verisimilitude.

Should the template read 'a zombie gains an increase in natural armor, as listed in the following table...'?
Though, I admit this may require a reduction in the table values, it would be worth it, if the bonus stacked with the existing base creature.

Is it really the intent that a human zombie, a zombie riding dog, or a troglodyte zombie have the same AC?

While statting up a creature of my own, I came to the part where I check the DC for the various special abilities.

One of those abilities involved tightly wrapping its helpless victims in webs, and I was soon aware of the vast difference in DC between the rules for bindings and those for webs.

Escape Artist

Ropes/Bindings: The DC of your Escape Artist check is equal to the binder’s combat maneuver bonus +20.

Web

An entangled creature can escape with a successful Escape Artist check or burst the web with a Strength check. Both are standard actions with a DC equal to 10 + 1/2 the creature’s HD + the creature’s Con modifier. Attempts to burst a web by those caught in it take a –4 penalty.

As can be seen, the first case has a DC that scales with BAB and Strength. The second case has a DC that scales with half Hit Dice and Con.

As BAB is always at least half HD, it is clear that the first half of each equation will scale faster in the first instance than the second, and will continue to improve as the attacker gains class levels, whereas the second situation would (I assume) be capped at the racial HD, ignoring further HD from classes.

Strength also appears to rise further and more often than Con, according to the size advancement chart, giving a further advantage to formula number one.

The specific creature I was working on was an 8HD outsider, with Str 16 and Con 14. That results in DCs of 31 for the first formula, and 16 for the second (20 if using Strength).

Those DCs vary considerably, so my question is in several parts;

• is it the intent that the first, higher DC represents a more secure bond? That of an attacker taking the time to really test his handiwork? With the DC reflecting increased skill (BAB)?
• is it the intent that the second, lower DC represents a more easily achievable, hit and run snaring, with the DC representing increased 'stickyness' from increased physical vigor (HD and Con)?
• if a creature is taking the time to wrap a helpless victim, is it therefore more appropriate to use the first formula rather than the second (once the victim regains movement)?
• if the victim has poor Dex, and/or insufficient ranks in Escape Artist, is it fair to allow them to attempt to break the bindings, using a Strength check at formula one?
• if a Strength check is allowed to escape the higher DC bindings, would it be reasonable to apply the same minus 4 penalty, quoted in the second formula? I.e. is trying to force tight bindings always an inefficient tactic?
• or would you set the DC for wrapping in webstrands at something else entirely? Scale with Con over Strength (for stickyness over tight knotwork)? Or Dex (for skilled weaving)?

Typing all that has served to focus my thoughts somewhat, but I'd still like to hear what others think.
I want to be fair to both sides, by not setting a DC that is pitiful, while not creating a situation in which 'only halfling rogues with Skill Focus need apply'.

OK, I'm toying with converting some of these beasties to the current ruleset.

The following is the weaker of the five subspecies, first introduced in the 2nd-Edition boxed set TROSP.
I have changed them from their listed race (tanar'ri) to qlippoth, as I believe it fits their written background better (The Battle of Pesh taking place during pre-mortal history), and because we have more than enough tanar'ri already.

Can anyone see any issues with the statblock below?
What CR would you set?

Obviously, any of my players keep out.

Dimension Door
.....You instantly transfer yourself from your current location to any other spot within range. You always arrive at exactly the spot desired—whether by simply visualizing the area or by stating direction. After using this spell, you can't take any other actions until your next turn.

Can anyone confirm if the phrase 'after using this spell' refers only to the caster of the spell, or to anyone else he brings along? Both could be said to have benefitted from the effects, thus 'using' the spell, no?

Our group (especially me) has certainly used it to deliver full-attacking melee-types to base contact with their target, but I've never been sure if we were abusing it.

A situation came up in last night's session; the PCs surprised by a Gargantuan Black Pudding. Needless to say, its attack bonus, damage, CMB and acid saves were considerable, and more than a match for them, causing them to make a fighting retreat, deeper into their destination.

The point came, early on, when it was hit by slashing weapons, and split into two halves. After being freaked by this, and the discovery they now had an attack and an AoO each, one player stated what I thought was a valid point.

"At least they'll be weaker, and less able to grapple us."

Which caused me to double-check the Bestiary and see that, apart from hp, there is no mention of the mini-puddings' stats being affected at all.

...the creature splits into two identical puddings, each with half of the original's current hit points (round down). A pudding with 10 hit points or less cannot be further split and dies if reduced to 0 hit points.

When I relayed that information to them (via the mini puddings dealing the same hurt as before), I got a chorus of "No Way!", among some other responses I can't repeat on a public board (!).

I continued with the RAW for the remainder of the encounter, 2 more rounds, until the PCs regrouped and D-Doored out of reach, but I admitted I saw their point and would think it over before next session.

So, the question is:
Should split oozes have other stats reduced, as well as hp? Strength (with obvious knock-on effects to CMB/CMD)? Damage Die? Reach? Constitution (I'd think not, as this would create strange math with the hp)? Acid saves DC? Or anything else?

No-one died, but some came close; several good spells were expended, and two shields and a very fine bow ended up as sludge.
I believe the end result would have been the same with weaker mini-puddings, except for less hp lost. Ooze attack rolls were high, the failed Reflex saves were well below DR.

If the consensus is that the smaller oozes should lose Str and slam dice size, I'll give the PCs some hp back at the beginning of next session as they catch their breath. I still don't think any of them will be rushing back for a rematch.

Deeds: Gunslingers spend grit points to accomplish deeds. Most deeds grant the gunslinger some momentary

bonus or effect, but there are some that provide longerlasting
effects. Some deeds stay in effect as long as a gunslinger has at least 1 grit point. The following is the list of base gunslinger deeds. A gunslinger can only perform deeds of her level or lower. Unless otherwise noted, a deed can be performed multiple successive times, as long as any appropriate grit is spent to perform the deed.

Is it the intent, that;

A) a level 1 gunslinger knows one, single deed? With a maximum of six known at level 19? or,

B) Do they know all deeds of their level or less?

If so, there should be extra text that states either;

A)"At level 1, the gunslinger chooses one deed from the list below to learn. At level 3, and each 4 levels thereafter, the gunslinger learns another deed from the list. Some deeds require a minimum class level to learn. Further deeds may be learned via feats." or,

B)"At level 1, the gunslinger learns all level 1 deeds from the list below. At level 3, and each 4 levels thereafter, the gunslinger learns all level-appropriate deeds from the list. Further deeds may be learned via feats."

At first reading of the original text, it looked as though the character could spend a grit point (groint?) and freely choose any effect from the list, of his level or lower.

Only the repeated listing of 'Deeds', in the table gives any hint of the designers' intent. Or does it? I can see it being argued either way, dependent on how amenable the speaker is to the concept of firearms in the game (ie; just another weapon, vs highly exotic, dangerous and difficult to use).

Mrs Snorter will be glad to see more of that hot, sexy rake, Lem.

Thank goodness for the pdf, so we don't have to fight over it!

OK, in another thread, we got the following suggestion;

Just for fun i think i'd make a list of embarassing items to be pulled out if the halfling rolls a 1 on the check :)

Ooh! Ooh! I got one!

d%.....Result

01.....Kender wedgies himself (1d3 non-lethal, plus 25% nauseated).
02.....Kender pulls hard, and pulls out his own skiddy undercrackers.
03.....A pair of an ally's skiddy undercrackers ("Hey! I was looking for those!")
04.....A stranger's pair of skiddy undercrackers.
05.....A portrait of the kender as a child, with gappy teeth, pudding bowl haircut (think Dwayne Dibbley from Red Dwarf...).

Help me get to 00!

Does anyone know of a feat, or trait, to allow a multi-classed cleric to improve his effective class level, re domain abilities?

I'm thinking in terms of Practiced Spellcaster, from 3.5 (Complete Arcane), which did the same for caster level.

Also, can someone confirm if the bonus domain spells/day, and domain spell list, are capped at cleric level, or if they increase with caster level from other sources?
If they are capped, I'd like a way for them to also improve.

Going through the class abilities, in order;

Earth Blood: (Sp) Once per day, as a standard action, the ability to heal 1d8+(class level) hit points.

I find this very underwhelming.
There are folk out there, who will swear that this is an amazing ability, since it lets a martial character cast actual, honest-to-goodness <hushed tones> magic </end hushed tones>, but that doesn't wash with me.
If anything, it highlights the Martial/Caster divide, that such an effect is expected to elicit gasps of awe, when it is, to all intents and purposes, a situational Cure Light Wounds, granted at character level 6+.

By level 4, five of the eleven core classes have this on their spell lists, and are able to trigger wands, or complete scrolls. Three of those classes are able to do so from level 1.
Add in the APG classes, and five of seventeen base classes are able to do this out of the gate, seven by level 4.
Add the availability of potions, which can be crafted from level 3, or bought prior to that, and it is clear that the ability to regain 1d8+X hp per day is simply not exciting, nor class-defining.
Indeed, given that allied casters will be channeling, casting 3d8 cures, or breaking out the wands after each fight, it is an ability that the owner may even forget they have.

Add to this, the fact that it relies on a material component, which may not always be available (on ship, in flight, on flagged roads, in gelatinous-cube-swept dungeons), it has less utility than the equivalent spell.

Verdict: this needs work.

Very interesting concept, here.

The notion of 0-level PCs has rarely been done; there were rules in the 1st-Edition Greyhawk hardcover, where you were able to pick'n'mix from any class during your apprenticeship, but once a class was chosen, you had to drop any superfluous abilities unless you paid an xp tax (a foretaste of 3.0 multiclassing?).

During the '80s, I flirted with the rules from Imagine magazine (RIP), where the classes were reverse engineered, to give the abilities of a half-trained level 0 character, and further back, to the implied baseline abilities of the 0-level peasant (0LP).
Using these, I toyed with a system for what were, in hindsight, gestalt characters, though the term gestalt was never used. Every PC would be a Fritz Leiber-style, hybrid Fighter/Magic-User/Thief, xp being allocated (unequally) between the three classes by the GM according to the challenges faced. Xp to unlock Clerical abilities were at the discretion of the higher (or lower) powers, in reward for advancing their goals.

This product write-up takes me back to that.

Anyone got this already?

Being Fantasy Flight, I expect high-quality physical components.
How many cards?
Are there tokens or chits to keep track of status effects (overwatch, jams, reloads, etc)?
How do the Stealers activate? Does each player draw cards to represent the view ahead?
Is progress through the ship abstract, or do the cards line up like dominoes to form a map?

Enquiring Space Hulk nuts need to know!

I have a Paladin player, whose horse was killed several sessions ago, and is set on obtaining a flying mount (griffon or hippogriff) to replace it, even if it means finding a chick and raising it.
In theory, I'm not opposed to this being feasible in-game.
The PCs have made a name for themselves far in excess of a normal group of their level, many VIPs owe them for crushing a spy ring, and they have made themselves public figures by entering and (so far) winning all their matches in the annual Arena.
And if things go as they are, there'll soon be a bunch of redundant beast-wranglers looking for a new boss.

So, having a flying mount of some kind will not be a problem.
Imbuing such a mount with the divine bond (or simply having a new divine bonded mount turn up as a flying creature) is more tricky.
I want it to be a fair trade in powers, for the increased utility of flight.

APL is 9, his character is Paladin 7/Pious Templar 2 (3.5 Complete Divine).

In the 3.5 rules, there was the option (for Druid and Ranger, at least) of taking a better base creature, but counting as lower class level for the purposes of improvements (Eg; a Druid 13 could take a black bear (mod -3) with 10 levels of improvements, a brown bear (mod -6) with 7 levels of improvements, a polar bear with 4 levels of improvements, or dire bear with only the base 1st level of abilities (link + share spells).

Would such a system be workable in PF?

Obviously there are fundamental differences to the way the two systems operate. 3.5 took the base stats from the Monster Manual, and added HD, stat boosts and special abilities from there.
PF uses a unified table, to keep creatures at a similar power level, by tweaking the starting statlines (so a Druid 1 starts with effectively, a bear cub, which grows into its abilities).

I'd like to do this without reference to the Leadership feat, or treating the creature as a cohort. Partly as I simply don't like the Leadership rules anyway, and since this is supposed to fit an existing class feature.

However, none of the creatures on the base list are flyers large enough to carry a PC.
There are no stats for a hippogriff, and no guidance on taking a griffon as a Companion.
How much of an effective level-drop should 'flying mount' be worth?

I've tried searching this section, but I can't find the thread I was looking for, even though I'm sure it exists.

1) Is there a way to purchase products (physical or pdf) for another person, and have them personalized with their details?

2) If that person is another poster, is it possible to pay for items that they (or, say, their spouse) puts in their own cart?

If this has been explained before, please link.

If we do find, or create a thread, please could it be stickied at the top of this sub-forum, since I'm sure I'm not the only one who'll wonder about this, and it will save having to answer the same question all the time.

Thanks.

I've a few queries re the evolutions, as I'm building several to test if certain concepts can be workable.

Can anyone confirm if it's been stated whether;

• the default bipedal claw limbs are capable of holding objects, like hands? (if not, it seems the only way to get the ability would be to somehow lose the arms, and re-grow them with hands, which isn't an option)
• the wings evolution implies that they are an additional pair of limbs, rather than replacements, which then implies the only way to build a bird-like eidolon, is to start with a snake, but that effectively uses up most of its free evolutions on irrelevancies, such as tail, tailslap and constrict. Should the wings be reworded, to replace an existing pair of limbs?
• the bite evolution states 'If the eidolon already has a bite attack, this evolution allows it to deal 1-1/2 times its Strength modifier on damage rolls made with its bite.'. Does this mean that a creature without a default bite attack (ie a biped) can take the evolution twice (once to gain a bite attack, and again to improve it)?
• taking the Climb evolution grants the eidolon a climb speed. Does this also grant the +8 bonus to Climb checks, mentioned in the Skills entry?

Of course, if any of the above have been addressed in the upcoming APG, feel free to let me know!

So, what format are we talking here?

Are these A4 size?
What's the largest continuous area they cover?
What different terrain are included?
Are they gridded, and if so, to what scale?

I could not find an answer to the following, except for a thread with one post, which got locked at the end of the playtest...I also have two related questions, which follow from the first.

Can you change the base form of the eidolon whenever you change the evolution points?

While it specifically says you can change small/medium size choices each time, it doesn't mention whether you can choose a different base form. I'd been assuming you could because of the very fluid nature of the other evolution choices, but if that isn't the case, I'd like to know.

Are all the forms ridable, assuming the eidolon is at least one size larger than the summoner?

If all forms are ridable, do quadrupeds gain any advantage in carrying capacity for their gait?

The reason I ask, is that I was aiming to make a Small summoner, mounted on his eidolon for speed, and sharing spells, and need to know if I have to pick quadruped base form or not.
Having picked that base form, is it fixed, or can it be morphed into a more agile form, once the party no longer relies on pack animals?

Is anyone else experiencing a lack of avatar pictures to choose from, when creating or editing an account or alias?

In another thread (relating more specifically to whether a golem can volunteer to drop its immunity) the following point was made:

The main issue is the fact that the golems don't have spell resistance, they have complete immunity to magic that allows spell resistance (except for a few specific cases for each golem which are detailed out in that golem's description).

(bolding mine)

This brings up something that has bothered me for some time.

The fire/cold/electric spells have never really been listed as an exception to the spell immunity. Rather, a more vague phrasing suggests that certain effects are 'in addition', a phrasing which doesn't imply any sort of bypassing of the normal situation of immunity.

So, are all fire/cold/electric spells an exception to the blanket rule of 'if it allows SR, the golem is immune'?

The reason I ask, is that in 3.5, the SRD text was worded as follows:

A flesh golem is immune to any spell or spell-like ability that allows spell resistance. In addition, certain spells and effects function differently against the creature, as noted below.

A magical attack that deals cold or fire damage slows a flesh golem (as the slow spell) for 2d6 rounds, with no saving throw.

A magical attack that deals electricity damage breaks any slow effect on the golem and heals 1 point of damage for every 3 points of damage the attack would otherwise deal. If the amount of healing would cause the golem to exceed its full normal hit points, it gains any excess as temporary hit points. For example, a flesh golem hit by a lightning bolt heals 3 points of damage if the attack would have dealt 11 points of damage. A flesh golem golem gets no saving throw against attacks that deal electricity damage.

The problem for me comes with the specific phrase 'in addition'.

Otherwise, the phrase 'in addition' simply means 'IF you can find some way round the immunity, to deal energy damage, THEN the following additional effects apply'.

The reason I suspect there was always a bad wording, is because otherwise, there's nothing that can deal magical fire/cold/elecricity damage, except weapon enhancements.
(I'm ignoring the orb spells in the 3.5 Spell Compendium, since they a) aren't core content, so wouldn't have been in the minds of the MM writers, and b) those spells drive so many players to anger by being a loophole which makes evocation pointless, which is a topic I'd rather not have clogging up this thread, thank you very much.)

It also doesn't follow how one can affect the golem with electricity, since virtually all such spells (including the specific example of lightning bolt) would be ignored, leaving an allied caster to run behind it and jab it with a shock blade, if he wanted to heal it.

The fact that the 3.5 SRD specifically mentioned Lightning Bolt gave weight to the proposal that there was a sentence missing in the spell immunity ability, otherwise, why use that specifically-SR-vulnerable spell as an example?

But, in the PF srd, the specific reference to lightning bolt has been removed, and replaced with a more general reference to 'spells that deal electricity damage'.

Is this deliberate? IE, did someone spot that LB was an ineffectual spell, and had been a typo for the last 10 years?
That the only way to affect a flesh golem with an energy rider effect, one has to strike it with an energy weapon?
(Yes, I'm still ignoring the orb spells....)

Or is the intention, that all fire/cold/electrical spells actually bypass the golem's spell immunity, then, in addition,deal additional or alternate effects?
Has that been the case for the last 35 years?
And if so, please can that be erattaed?

Does this creature come with a wipe-clean surface?

(That sounds so wrong, I know...)

Hi,

I picked up the above order from the mail depot today, and everything else is fine (Bestiary, Seekers of Secrets, and Book of the Damned), but no Map Pack: Extradimensional Spaces (PZO4022).

(I'm thinking my PCs might be needing their Rope Trick very soon!)

As the title says, one of my players has decided that a ghoul they fought four levels ago (though not too long in real time, maybe two weeks) might have had some useful info, and so has gone back into the hills to drag its body back to town, and get the clergy of the death goddess to Speak with Dead on his behalf.
(The PC cleric is away getting another PC raised, and our corpse-retriever doesn't know if the others will like what he hears).

I made him track the pieces, which I ruled had been dragged around by the crows, and he's got enough bits of it to satisfy the material focus.

Question is: the spell says it cannot be cast on remains that have been turned into an undead creature.

Fair enough, if the ghoul were active, the spell would do nothing. Not to mention, it would try to gnaw your arm of during the ten-minute casting time...

But what about a creature that was human, killed, rose as a corporeal undead, then got killed again?

Are these twice-killed bones considered viable remains for the spell?

Next game in three hours, don't know how long I can stall him!