Malle's page

Versatile Channeler

Prerequisites: Channel energy class feature, necromancer or neutrally aligned cleric (see below).

Benefit: You may make a choice whenever you use your channel energy class feature.

If you normally channel positive energy, you may choose to channel negative energy as if your effective cleric level were 2 levels lower than normal.

If you normally channel negative energy, you may choose to channel positive energy as if your effective cleric level were 2 levels lower than normal.

Having this feat means you qualify for feats and abilities that have "channel positive energy" or "channel negative energy" as a prerequisite (for example, you qualify for the Command Undead feat and the Turn Undead feat).

Note: This feat only applies to necromancers, neutral clerics who worship neutral deities, or neutral clerics who do not worship a deity -- characters who have the channel energy class ability and have to make a choice to channel positive or negative energy at 1st level. Clerics whose alignment or deity makes this choice for them cannot select this feat.

Vindicator's Shield

A vindicator can channel energy into his shield as a standard action; when worn, the shield gives the vindicator a sacred bonus (if positive energy) or profane bonus (if negative energy) to his Armor Class equal to the number of dice of the vindicator’s channel energy. This bonus lasts for 24 hours or until the vindicator is struck in combat, whichever comes first. The shield does not provide this bonus to any other wielder, but the vindicator does not need to be holding the shield for it to retain this power.

1) Can a Holy Vindicator with Versatile Channeler choose whether to apply a sacred or profane bonus when using Vindicator's Shield?

2) If a Holy Vindicator can choose whether to apply a sacred or profane bonus as above, can he apply both types to the same shield simultaneously (by two separate uses of Vindicator's Shield)?

I'd like to see this answered. RAW is clear as day, but it could easily be an oversight, so I'm not sure about RAI.

A heavy horse is a large quadruped with 20 strength, having a max load of 1200 lbs.

A pony is a medium quadruped with 13 strength, having a max load of 225 lbs.

A male Dwarf has a weight of 164 - 262 lbs, so the average dwarf (assuming little to no equipment) could conceivably be carried by a pony.

A hill giant weight approximately 1100 lbs, so a heavy horse could carry one.

The largest (physical) difference is noticeable in the height, with an average dwarf standing 4' 4" next to a pony's 3' - 4', while a giant stands 10' next to a horse's 5' - 6'

Anyway, note that in the rules for Ride there's Fast Mount/Dismount, stating:

Fast Mount or Dismount: You can attempt to mount or dismount from a mount of up to one size category larger than yourself as a free action, provided that you still have a move action available that round. If you fail the Ride check, mounting or dismounting is a move action.

Note also that the Cavalier's Mount class feature states

A cavalier gains the service of a loyal and trusty steed to carry him into battle. This mount functions as a druid’s animal companion, using the cavalier’s level as his effective druid level. The creature must be one that he is capable of riding and is suitable as a mount. A Medium cavalier can select a camel or a horse. A Small cavalier can select a pony or wolf, but can also select a boar or a dog if he is at least 4th level. The GM might approve other animals as suitable mounts.

A dog is a small animal, meaning that this implicitly defines at least one small animal (the dog) as a suitable mount for small creatures and explicitly says that the GM may approve other animals as suitable mounts. There's even a cavalier order which focuses on dog and wolf riding halflings (the Order of the Paw).

Sean Hansen wrote:

I have a different question about multiple archetypes. Would it be possible, either in or out of PFS, to combine the Magus's Soul Forger and Spellblade archetypes? The only overlap that I see is that Soul Forger changes spellstrike, while Spellblade takes it away (obviously in this case it would be removed).

No, if there is any overlap you cannot take both.

A rule to which there are, of course, exceptions:

Monk: Can a qinggong monk take a second archetype if the character doesn't swap out abilities the second archetype requires?

Yes. However, the other archetype takes priority over the various abilities granted at each level, and the character can't delay taking an ability that the other archetype replaces—he must allow the second archetype to replace the standard ability at the standard class level.
For example, the monk of the healing hand archetype (APG) replaces
wholeness of body (7th level)
diamond body (11th level)
quivering palm (15th level)
perfect self (20th level).
A qinggong monk who also wants to take the monk of the healing hand archetype has to let the healing hand archetype replace all four of those abilities at those specific class levels. The qinggong monk is still free to replace any standard monk abilities at the other class levels listed in the qinggong monk archetype (slow fall at 4th, high jump at 5th, and so on), so long as selecting those abilities doesn't interfere with acquiring the healing hand abilities at the correct levels.
Note that if the second archetype replaces a standard monk ability, the character cannot select that replaced ability at a later monk level. For example, the qinggong/healing hand monk can never select wholeness of body, even at a level higher than 7th. In effect, the character has selected wholeness of body at 7th and immediately replaced it with a healing hand ability; as the qinggong archetype only lets you select an ability later if the character "selects a different ki power in place of a standard monk ability" (which didn't occur), that option is not available for the character.
—Pathfinder Design Team, 05/23/13

Friend of the Dork:

Overall the initiative mechanic combined with becoming unconscious or unable to take actions has always been odd with me - why does what you rolled before have any effect on whether you can act when you get healed or have to wait a turn? A potential fix is:

"A creature who becomes unconscious or prevented from taking physical actions has his initiative score set to 0, and can not use the Ready or Delay action."

It would be a house rule, but I think it would clear things up and prevent cheesiness.

Setting the initiative to 0 would be even weirder, as it could allow a player to get two actions in the same round. Without much thought, I think it would be more reasonable to:

Malag:

Then why are you even mentioning full-round actions and what can person do during them? What does this have to do with delaying an action?

Because you stated the following

Delaying your action while being paralyzed by Hold Person in the above example would provide you no benefit, because you gain a new Saving Throw at the end of your turn. Similar with other effects, if you do not waste a round on being paralyzed, your paralyzed condition continues.

This is at least how I would interpret the rules.

Malag

which is wrong on the issue of getting a saving throw at the end of your turn. When under the effect of Hold Person you must take a full-round action to get a saving throw. If you cannot or choose not to take that full-round action, you do not get a saving throw. This means that if you do not delay, take a full-round action to get a save and manage to do so, you would have some (limited) opportunity left to act. On the other hand, if you delayed until the spell was over, you would act later, but you would be able to take your standard allotment of actions (barring other debilitating effects).

fretgod99:

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. In the scenario you set up, NPC1 goes on a higher initiative count than PC. So, from the outset of the encounter, NPC1 should have two opportunities to act before PC's action in the second round.

What I'm getting at is that Delaying while debilitated is a rule which, as far as I can tell, there is nothing in the RAW against, just like there is nothing against using Ready Action in general.

Your arguments are based on what's "supposed" to happen, but your idea of what's supposed to happen may be flawed. Say that people had not been using Ready Action because it was vague and obscurely written. However, a player realizes the possibility of readying an attack for when an opponent closes in on him from more than one movement away, meaning that instead of charging to both close the gap and get an attack, the player can use a move action for something else, attack the opponent before the opponent attacks him and still even stay before the opponent in the initiative, by using Ready Action.

This would be a situation similar to the current situation with Delay (there seems to be no RAW against it and it's at least explainable for conscious people) and would likely feel as much as cheese or gaming the system had we not been used to people being allowed to do that, but it is clearly okay, because the rules are written more explicitly and more obviously than for Delay.

The PC has not lost an action to this NPC who was set to act before the PC.

This seems to be what is at the heart of the disagreement. I believe the argument is irrelevant to the legality and feasibility of Delaying while debilitated, and I strongly disagree that "actions lost against another participant" is the most important criteria.

To argue this, let's move on from Hold Person. Let's take another spell with debilitating effects. Let's look at Slow.

Slow still affects your possibility of taking actions, but you are still allowed to take a standard action or a move action. Clearly you should at the very least be allowed to use Ready Action, but there is no reason why you should not be able to Delay either (unless you are going to argue that you cannot Delay if you have any negative effect affecting you, which is silly).

Let's say that PC has been targeted by W's Slow. A number of rounds have passed and PC thinks the spell is likely to end soon (in fact, it will end on the initiative count of W's next turn). PC chooses to Delay. The spell ends and W gets her turn (let's not argue about acting on the same initiative, for now). After W is done, PC says he wants to take his turn.

The effect here is the same as you so vehemently oppose in Hold Person: the PC chooses to act later for the rest of the combat (by using Delay) to pick a more opportune moment to act. This allows him to act slightly later, as the spell has ended, instead of earlier, when the spell was still in effect.

If it was a 5 round Slow, then all other creatures (barring other changes in initiative) have had 5 turns to act while the PC was slowed (except W, who had 5 turns but PC was only slowed during 4).

We could go even further, with effects that may be both good and bad, such as Reduce Person. Would you disallow PC to delay as long as he's affected by it, because it could potentially end while he is Delaying?

No, your point is moot. You cannot hinder a character from using Delay just because an effect on them may end while they delay.

Just to clarify; here's the difference between allowing someone to Delay while under a debilitating effect. The turn order goes from left to right, with an x below marking the duration of the debilitating effect and | mark a round transition.

Standard order of initiative, no effect:
W - NPC1 - PC - NPC2 | W - NPC1 - PC - NPC2 | W - NPC1 - PC - NPC2

Effect, no delay:
W - NPC1 - PC - NPC2 | W - NPC1 - PC - NPC2 | W - NPC1 - PC - NPC2
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Effect, delay
W - NPC1 - NPC2 | W - PC - NPC1 - NPC2 | W - PC - NPC1 - NPC2
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

First, notice how the PC doesn't get to act in the round that he chose to delay in. As you can never have more than one turn per round (at least what I am aware), this means that he does indeed lose a turn, if not "an action against every other participant".

Second, notice also how in the delay case, all participants (except PC and W), regardless of initiative, get a turn each during which PC is debilitated, before it is PC's turn (as noted before, W also gets a turn, PC is just not debilitated). This means that the duration of the debilitating effect (1 round) is still in full effect (as it should be, as Delaying does not affect how long the effect lasts).

Third, notice that should W debilitate PC again, PC will lose a full round if he chooses to Delay, as he is already in the optimal place for when the spell will end.

Thanks for the input everyone. I was a bit confused before I read through the scattered rules, but after doing that and posting here I agree that RAI is clear enough. Thanks for reminding me about the rules on AoO as well because I had completely forgot that.

Will reply in full tonight (9 hours or so) but i just want to comment that i disagree with

in the scenario you set up, NPC1 goes on a higher initiative count than PC. So, from the outset of the encounter, NPC1 should have two opportunities to act before PC's action in the second round

and that i think it would be more appropriate to state that he should be able to take 2 turns before the PC's second turn.

On my phone so I'll preemptively excuse that I won't format this post nicely.

Malag: it appears as if I wasn't clear enough. I didn't mean that you could attempt to save and then delay, just clarifying that it's not a save you make at the end of your round. As it is a full-round action, if you manage to save you could conceivably make a 5-foot-step and take a swift action on your turn after saving.

Also, I'm glad to hear that we now have a way in real life to drtect insanity with no false positives. Every true scotsman will be glad to hear this.

Fretgod99: npc1 was "supposed" to? That may be how it has been played, but it doesn't mean it's correct. If players hadn't been using the ready action, would you argue against it when they tried to use it so that the enemy had to spend their movement instead to close the gap between them?

Let me ask you this then: Hold Person explicitly allows purely mental actions. What would you allow someone to do while being held? Stilled silent spells? Spell-like abilities? Supernatural abilities? Telepathy? Perception? Planning based on the perception?

Anguish wrote:

Under no specific circumstances would I allow a PC to simply delay their initiative in order to circumvent a condition. Period. Full stop.

I don't see need to parse terminology and scenarios. This way lies a field of cheese.

If you're to be paralyzed for a round, you're not going to reduce that to "wait a bit then act normally" by delaying part of a round. Not at my table.

This is precisely how I felt when the scenario was first presented. Still feel this way. It just seems wrong.

And the only point to delaying here is if you initially went before the Witch in the first round. If you were set to go after the Witch, the spell would have already worn off by that initiative count in round 4.

Let's forget a moment about trying to act before the Witch on the same Initiative (I'm not likely to allow that, even if I can see how one could explain it) and let's focus on allowing Delay to take an action right after the Witch (assuming, of course, that the Witch hasn't delayed).

I will use the Shorthand Rx-Iy for round x, initiative y. I'll also call the people W (the Witch), PC (the target) and NPC (other creatures). I will also assume that we're using Sleep instead of Hold Person, as it allows no save after the first, and for some reason it only lasts one round.

Let's say we have a combat with only the W (initiative 9) and the PC (initiative 5). If the PC is not allowed to delay, we have
R1-I9 W sleep PC
R1-I5 PC sleeps (missed turn)
R2-I9 PC awakes, W acts
R2-I5 PC acts

Result: 1 round PC did not act in, the W gets one action in between; PC acts on R2-I5.

If the PC gets to Delay:
R1-I9 W sleep PC
R1-I5 PC delays (missed turn)
R2-I9 PC awakes, W acts
R2-I8 PC acts

Result: 1 round PC did not act in, the W gets one action in between, but the PC is awake for it; PC acts on R2-I8.

Now add more people into the fray. W at init 9, PC at init 5, NPC1 at 7 and NPC2 at 3.

R1-I9 W sleep PC
R1-I7 NPC1 acts (PC asleep)
R1-I5 PC sleeps (missed turn)
R1-I3 NPC2 acts (PC asleep)
R2-I9 PC awakes, W acts
R2-I7 NPC1 acts
R2-I5 PC acts

Result: 1 round PC did not act in, NPC1 gets 2 turns to act before PC (asleep for 1), NPC2 gets 1 turn (asleep for 1) and W gets 1 turn (asleep for 0). PC acts at R2-I5

Now, if we let the PC Delay:

R1-I9 W sleep PC
R1-I7 NPC1 acts (PC asleep)
R1-I5 PC delays (missed turn)
R1-I3 NPC2 acts (PC asleep)
R2-I9 PC awakes, W acts
R2-I8 PC acts

Result: 1 round PC did not act in, NPC1 gets 1 turn to act before PC (asleep for 1), NPC2 gets 1 turn (asleep for 1) and W gets 1 turn (asleep for 0). PC acts at R2-I8.

The difference? No opponent gets the possibility of acting twice before its the PC's turn again. Is this so unreasonable for a 1 round disable? Is that not exactly what a 1 round disable should do?

At the very least though, the BBEG would have had to gone after anyone who shared the same initiative count 10.

It's not what the rules say, but you're free to present your opinion on RAI.

Komoda wrote:

I don't like the idea that the witch knows that just because the spell landed, she knows she is safe from him for a round. That is also metagaming, isn't it?

The witch, who just got surprised by a spell from the holy man (cleric; he won initiative) realizes that the heavily armored man (the fighter) is a bit slow on his feet and that she can get the drop on him (her initiative beat his) before he tries to gut her if she can JUST stick this spell.

If the spell lands, the heavily armored man will be significantly delayed in getting to her (he loses a turn) and she buys her self some time to put distance between herself and the fighter, plus time to deal with the holy man.

Edit: Also, what Xaratherus said about being aware of whether the spell sticks or not.

The holy man tells her that she's outnumbered; come willingly and she will be given a fair trial for her misuse of forbidden magic. The witch cackles and denies the holy man thrice, after which he, saddened, shares the blessings of his god with his ally. (speak, free action. Bless, standard action)

The witch was caught by surprise a few seconds later, however, when she noticed she had severely misjudged the speed of the armored man. When the spell ended, he quickly closed the gap between them and shouted "Try another of your curses, witch, and it will be the last thing you do!" (Fighter delayed his turn, his initiative modifier was better than the Witch so he still had to act 1 turn later than before, but as there was only 1 other creature, the Cleric, it did not matter much; move, ready action to strike)

Komoda wrote:

This is where the turn based part gets a little screwy.

Imagine this round:
Witch paralyzes you.
You miss your turn.
Friend dispels paralyze.
You still miss your turn.

Or this round:

Witch paralyzes you.
You delay your turn.
Friend dispels paralyze.
You beat down witch.

I think the second round flows better and is more dramatic. I don't like the idea that the witch knows that just because the spell landed, she knows she is safe from him for a round. That is also metagaming, isn't it?

I hear you, but still don't accept the second scenario.

Imagine this:
Barbarian clubs you.
You fall unconscious and then miss your turn.
Cleric heals you and you wake up.
You still miss your turn.

Or this round:
Barbarian clubs you.
You fall unconscious and delay your turn.
Cleric heals you and you wake up.
You full attack the barbarian (from the ground).

Same thing, only... it reeks (to me) of cheese. Someone did something to you. You failed your save or your armor class was insufficient, or, or, or, but you failed. You are entitled to suffer the penalty intended.

But someone did something to me to stop that. They healed me, and they had enough spells and caster levels or abilities to bring me back to positive HP. I have had the penalty of taking the damage. I have had the penalty of having to act later. I have had the penalty of falling prone and dropping my weapons (or likely to, anyway). Who is to say that this is not enough penalty for the fail?

*Irrelevant full disclosure. Last week a ran an encounter where an NPC used an ability on a bad guy, thought it worked, only the bad guy was immune and faked being paralyzed for two initiative counts, for dramatic effect. She knew what he was doing and deliberately failed her save, then Bluffed to make it seem his ability had worked. Again, this was done to impress upon the PCs that she was SMART and DANGEROUS. There was no in-game effect beyond the not-being-paralyzed that would have happened regardless.

This feels much more like cheese to me.

Likewise, if a creature's saving throw succeeds against a targeted spell, you sense that the spell has failed.

I assume you also let casters use Bluff to make people not sense that they succeeded on a saving throw then?

A creature that successfully saves against a spell that has no obvious physical effects feels a hostile force or a tingle, but cannot deduce the exact nature of the attack.

Malle wrote:

You only have to delay to that initiative, you don't need to know how long the spell lasts. So you could delay to that initiative on your first round, then if you fail all your saves you could start acting just before the Witch, on the initiative count when the Hold Person ends.

That's a fair point about the duration, but how are you delaying AND spending a full round action to make the saves? If you delay, you don't even get a save!

Which is why I said just that

Yes, this does have other drawbacks: unless the saves can be made whenever you like as no action, you would voluntarily delay your saves from your initial initiative to the initiative just before the Witch.

That should of course be "whenever you like during your turn as no action".

Hendelbolaf:

Edit: It looks like Malle's post changed so that my response looks a little out of place, especially now that it looks like we are in agreement.

Yeah. I was never arguing for that the Witch is allowed to delay to increase the duration, but I had missed that DM_Blake had mentioned Delay and Ready Action, so I was making an argument for why just the statement "it lasts until the beginning of the Witch's turn" was wrong.

Malag:

Delaying your action while being paralyzed by Hold Person in the above example would provide you no benefit, because you gain a new Saving Throw at the end of your turn. Similar with other effects, if you do not waste a round on being paralyzed, your paralyzed condition continues.

This is at least how I would interpret the rules.

Malag

No, they can take a full-round action to attempt a Saving Throw, as per the spell description:

Hold Person

Each round on its turn, the subject may attempt a new saving throw to end the effect. This is a full-round action that does not provoke attacks of opportunity.

Making that save should allow them to take a 5-foot step and a swift action on the turn they saved.

Ravingdork:

How could you possibly know which round is the "last one?" Is that not metagaming? Not even the caster knows the duration of some of his spells.

You only have to delay to that initiative, you don't need to know how long the spell lasts. So you could delay to that initiative on your first round, then if you fail all your saves you could start acting just before the Witch, on the initiative count when the Hold Person ends.

Yes, this does have other drawbacks: unless the saves can be made whenever you like as no action, you would voluntarily delay your saves from your initial initiative to the initiative just before the Witch. It's likely more feasible if you're hit by, say, Sleep instead, as it doesn't allow you to make any saves, and you could act just after you were awoken, with some coordination.

Anguish:

Under no specific circumstances would I allow a PC to simply delay their initiative in order to circumvent a condition. Period. Full stop.

I don't see need to parse terminology and scenarios. This way lies a field of cheese.

If you're to be paralyzed for a round, you're not going to reduce that to "wait a bit then act normally" by delaying part of a round. Not at my table.

If you're hit with a 3 round disable, you're still disabled for 3 rounds. In the scenario above, you would be disabled from Round 1, Initiative 13 to and including Round 4, Initiative 14. The question is how soon after the disable ends can you act?

Bizbag:

Quote:

Look at the OP's scenario. The witch paralyzes the guy on round 1. He loses his actions on round 1, 2, and 3, but the paralysis ends on round 4 before his initiative count. Three actions lost, he gets to act in round 4.

It ends on the witch's turn, not his, so delaying would "allow" him to act on round 3, and still before the witch, because it's on her count but you can choose to act before her. It's a dumb technicality, but that's the big deal.

No, that's wrong. Delaying, he would be able to act on Round 4, Initiative 13. If he's not allowed to delay, he would act on Round 4, Initiative 5.

Komoda:

Bizbag wrote:

Quote:

Look at the OP's scenario. The witch paralyzes the guy on round 1. He loses his actions on round 1, 2, and 3, but the paralysis ends on round 4 before his initiative count. Three actions lost, he gets to act in round 4.

It ends on the witch's turn, not his, so delaying would "allow" him to act on round 3, and still before the witch, because it's on her count but you can choose to act before her. It's a dumb technicality, but that's the big deal.

Why would it end? It ends when she goes. You delayed until just before she goes. While I don't have a problem delaying until you are freed by some means, I don't see a way for you to delay to the exact point between the spell ending normally and the witch going.

Technically, it ends at the beginning of that initiative count, as quoted above. If the creature can act at the same initiative, then RAW the spell should be over.

And if we're arguing what feels right, why should the creature not be able to act before the Witch? Is the Witch's timing so utterly precise that she goes exactly every 6th second, or is there a possibility that the creature breaking free from the hold would be able to act before her (same initiative count, but a higher initiative modifier, so act before the witch as that is the tie-breaker)?

This is the part you got wrong.

Malle wrote:

The paralysis effect will end at the beginning of Round 4, Initiative 13.

The paralysis effect will end at the beginning of the witch's turn on that round. So if the paralyzed guy delays until then and goes before the witch, he is still paralyzed.

No, I'm afraid you're wrong.

Effects that last a certain number of rounds end just before the same initiative count that they began on

How Combat Works

Malle wrote:

Does it get to choose to act before the Witch, or is the tie-breaker system used?

I don't think so, as there is no exception referenced in the rules for delay.

The relevant passage I'm thinking of is this

You can specify this new initiative result or just wait until some time later in the round and act then, thus fixing your new initiative count at that point.

where it says you can choose when to act. If initiative had not been limited to integers, this would not been an issue at all, which is why I'm personally inclined to play it as the Delaying creature being able to choose before each other creature's turn whether or not to act before them.

Where are pureley mental actions defines in the rules or mentioned anywhere?

The paralyzed condition mentions mental actions:

A paralyzed character has effective Dexterity and Strength scores of 0 and is helpless, but can take purely mental actions.

Note however that

There are six types of actions:

1. Standard
2. Move
3. Full-round
4. Swift
5. Immediate
6. Free

and delay is neither of these so it is no action; thus, being hindered from taking actions should (by RAW, anyway) not hinder you from delaying your turn.

Is it possible for a paralyzed creature to delay its actions until the paralysis stops? (or during other, similar effects, such as being hit by the Sleep spell)

If I Delay on my turn and choose to act on the same Initiative count as another creature, can I choose whether I act before them or after them?

Example: on Round 1, Initiative 13 a level 2 Witch (Caster Level 3) casts Hold Person on a humanoid creature, with initiative 5, which fails its save. The paralysis effect will end at the beginning of Round 4, Initiative 13. The humanoid creature wants to act as soon as possible, so each time it is its turn, it attempts to save at the beginning of its turn, but fails in this case. Can it then Delay so that it gets to act on Round 4, Initiative 13, when the paralysis stops? Does it get to choose to act before the Witch, or is the tie-breaker system used?

For that matter, should the tie-breaker system be used every round, or just at the point two creatures attain the same initiative?

When do you stop being flat-footed in a combat that includes a surprise round?

(Or: what is a "regular turn"?)

There are three sections I can find which deals with being flat-footed:

Both the surprise section and the flat-footed condition indicate that you are flat-footed until you have acted, but the initiative section specifically states that you are flat-footed "before your first regular turn in the initiative order". An important question then is what a "regular turn" is.

The description of how combat works makes no mention of "regular turns", only "turn", "normal rounds" and "surprise rounds". In fact, I've only been able to find two other references to regular turns, both in the section of special initiative actions, on Delay and Ready Action

To me, this seems to imply that "regular turn" refers to your turn without taking special initiative actions into account. However, the section on surprise mentions "regular rounds" and defines them as separate from surprise rounds. In that context it is not unreasonable to interpret a "regular turn" as a turn in a "regular round", which is still compatible with the definitions of the special initiative actions, as you cannot have more than one turn in the surprise round.

Under the first interpretation, you are flat-footed until you take your first turn (whether or not it is in a surprise round) while under the latter interpretation you are flat-footed until you take your first turn after the surprise round.

Comments?

For the record, as I read it, there are three possible interpretations of the "other feats" in Spell Perfection:

1) feats other than Spell Perfection
2) feats other than the metamagic feats applied to the spell
3) feats other than the metamagic feat Spell Perfection removes the level increase of

How does Spell Perfection work with Spell Specialization, Varisian Tattoo or Intensified Spell?

Normally a Fireball does 1d6 damage per caster level up to a maximum of 10d6 damage. An Intensified Fireball can do up to 15d6 damage. If I have Spell Perfection (Fireball), would my Intensified Fireballs have a maximum damage of 15d6 or 20d6? That is, does Spell Perfection apply to the bonus applied by Intensified Spell?

Now, say that I've multiclassed and I'm a 5th level caster with Spell Specialization (Fireball) and Spell Perfection (Fireball). Would my Fireballs do 7d6 or 9d6 damage? That is, does Spell Perfection apply to the caster level bonus given by Spell Specialization?

Same example as last time, but with a Varisian Tattoo (Evocation) instead of Spell Specialization (Fireball). Would my Fireballs do 6d6 or 7d6 damage? That is, does Spell Perfection apply to the caster level bonus given by Varisian Tattoo?

Benefit: Pick one spell which you have the ability to cast. Whenever you cast that spell you may apply any one metamagic feat you have to that spell without affecting its level or casting time, as long as the total modified level of the spell does not use a spell slot above 9th level. In addition, if you have other feats which allow you to apply a set numerical bonus to any aspect of this spell (such as Spell Focus, Spell Penetration, Weapon Focus [ray], and so on), double the bonus granted by that feat when applied to this spell.

Benefit: An intensified spell increases the maximum number of damage dice by 5 levels. You must actually have sufficient caster levels to surpass the maximum in order to benefit from this feat. No other variables of the spell are affected, and spells that inflict damage that is not modified by caster level are not affected by this feat.

Benefit: Select one spell of a school for which you have taken the Spell Focus feat. Treat your caster level as being two higher for all level-variable effects of the spell.

Benefit: Select a school of magic (other than divination) in which you have Spell Focus—you cast spells from this school at +1 caster level. Additionally, you gain a single spell-like ability usable up to three times per day.

Just registered to ask a question on Spell Perfection and various feats.

Normally a Fireball does 1d6 damage per caster level up to a maximum of 10d6 damage. An Intensified Fireball can do up to 15d6 damage. If I have Spell Perfection (Fireball), would my Intensified Fireballs have a maximum damage of 15d6 or 20d6? That is, does Spell Perfection apply to the bonus applied by Intensified Spell?

Now, say that I've multiclassed and I'm a 5th level caster with Spell Specialization (Fireball) and Spell Perfection (Fireball). Would my Fireballs do 7d6 or 9d6 damage? That is, does Spell Perfection apply to the caster level bonus given by Spell Specialization?

Same example as last time, but with a Varisian Tattoo (Evocation) instead of Spell Specialization (Fireball). Would my Fireballs do 6d6 or 7d6 damage? That is, does Spell Perfection apply to the caster level bonus given by Varisian Tattoo?

Benefit: Pick one spell which you have the ability to cast. Whenever you cast that spell you may apply any one metamagic feat you have to that spell without affecting its level or casting time, as long as the total modified level of the spell does not use a spell slot above 9th level. In addition, if you have other feats which allow you to apply a set numerical bonus to any aspect of this spell (such as Spell Focus, Spell Penetration, Weapon Focus [ray], and so on), double the bonus granted by that feat when applied to this spell.

Benefit: An intensified spell increases the maximum number of damage dice by 5 levels. You must actually have sufficient caster levels to surpass the maximum in order to benefit from this feat. No other variables of the spell are affected, and spells that inflict damage that is not modified by caster level are not affected by this feat.

Benefit: Select one spell of a school for which you have taken the Spell Focus feat. Treat your caster level as being two higher for all level-variable effects of the spell.

Benefit: Select a school of magic (other than divination) in which you have Spell Focus—you cast spells from this school at +1 caster level. Additionally, you gain a single spell-like ability usable up to three times per day.