Rayan's page

First off, I love this guy. ^^^^^^(making baseless assumptions)

Secondly, It's not only for the Undead that I want to be a Juju Oracle, I'd be lying if i said it wasn't a major reason and that I don't love it, but it's not the only reason. I generally like the feel of the Juju Oracle. They have a lot of cool mystery abilities besides the controlling of undead. Their Reminder of Death ability? Beast Tongue? Path of the Snake? Some sweet stuff that is.

Their Final Revelation is pretty much you gain the ability to make Freaky Friday happen. Which sounds hilarious. Not to mention that i've already cooped up a whole background for this guy. Just letting that die would peeve me. I would be quite peeved. Peeves would be my nickname for a while so peeved would I be.

Also, the new Juju Mystery never technically replaced the old one. As I've already mentioned to specktrevk. It was stated in the forum where everyone was unhappy about it by the guy who closed it. I would link it, but I am not a usual forum poster and don't know how. So here's the not blue link.

http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2q63q&page=last?Wait-They-revised-the-Juju- Oracle-WHY

It's also worth mentioning that the talk of this character started about 6 months ago, so we're already half way there. I'm willing to wait, because I reeeeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaalllly want to play him. Like alot.

Sounds fun to me.

I've read it and sadly it does not specify where they go. Which is why I'm curious and thus my post.

So you don't think they are spirits of the dead? Then what happens to those who worship the wendo after they die? I always thought they would become part of the wendo themselves.

Having a discussion with my GM about playing A Juju Oracle outside of the Mwangi Expanse. I believe that the Wendo are pretty much everywhere and are just spirits around the world.

From the Campaign Setting Book pg. 185

"One group of souls stands apart, however - atheists who actively denied their own afterlives. Unlike agnostics - whose souls Pharasma judges against their own character without punishment, like many other souls without a pre-determined fate - the truly atheist have, in a way, impacted their souls' solidarity and disrupted their natural ability to migrate through the Astral. Many remain behind as ghosts or similar spirits on the Material Plane, others fall into the hands of fiends, while those who reach Pharasma's palace are locked away within the tombs and graves therein, awaiting an unknown, uncertain fate below Groetus's grim, eternal vigil."

I see this as the source of the Wendo.

I understand that some people don't like the Juju Mystery or the Wendo but I'm just curious as to where people think they come from and if they are in the rest of the world?

Nope. Anything you give him would stay there when he went poof.
However I think if you Planar Called Mike and gave him some new digs he'd keep them. I could be wrong though.

Well as a Shadow Summoner you already lose the ability to summon several Monster's and in exchange you summon several different monsters. I have not asked him if he would let me do that because that wouldn't help me all that much. Also I'd only summon him in the morning for that immunization purpose. But the fact that if he's destroyed the whole immunization thing would be purposeless because I wouldn't be able to summon him again for 24 hours. I'd also be wasting one of my summons to be able to do that. That doesn't seem all that cheesy for a DC 15 check.

But why not just say they aren't destroyed then? Why say specifically that they can't be summoned again for another 24 hours if that were the case?

I highly doubt it's a campaign based insurance policy. How many of those exist in the core rules?

Also the Named Summoning rules are related to the Planar Calling spells only so that has little effect on the Summoning Spells I use.

Wow I completely overlooked that. Planar Ally/Binding just became a much more serious spell.
But that casts even more doubt in my mind on the idea that you can't summon the same creature if you want too. Because as FLite says why would it even be relevant to put that piece of information there if you were summoning a different creature each time? Also the idea of a chance roll to summon the same Allip might be a percentage measurable in single numbers but what about the more numerous creatures? The insurmountable horde of devils or demons? The idea that chance would throw you the same creature is a little unrealistic.(Hahahahahahaha) So it seems like you should be able to summon the same creature if you wish, as long as it isn't regenerating.

Although it could be specifically referencing the Planar Ally/Binding Spells.

Hmm. That is quite true. Still generally kills my scheme, but at least I might still be able to have Chuckles :D

Also, his name was Chuckles :'(

Allright. I get the picture. It was too good to possibly be true. And thus it was false. If anyone else has any other evidence that would counter the statements above please feel free to contribute but otherwise oh well. Thanks for the help guys.

So, I'm trying to discuss with my DM the possibility of Summoning the same monster over and over again with the Summon Monster Spell. The exact nature of the discussion is I want to Summon an Allip in the morning, make everyone in the party immune to it's Babble ability, and then when we get into a combat circumstance I can just summon the Allip and possibly fascinate all our enemy's. I'm Wondering if anyone knows any obscure rules or clarifications that would back one of our arguments. I'm A Shadow Summoner by the way, so yes I can Summon an Allip.

Thank you.

Specifically I need the price of a lead lined box that can hold something of the tiny sized category. It's not a super fancy box that amazes the eye and dazzles the mind just a box with a thin sheet of lead inside to stop certain magics.

This is the first time I've actually posted on anything so I didn't actually know that there was very little chance of getting a definitive answer from an official so I apologize for that.

Secondly I'm glad that people at least somewhat understand what I'm saying about my interpretation. You disagree with me, but you still understand where I'm coming from. I'm not trying to nerf the Monk. I love Monks! They're one of my favorite classes. I'm just saying this is how I see it, a lot of people see it differently. If all of the feats are in fact not Style feats then I suppose you have valid points and I concede my argument. But I still believe they are all in fact Style feats and the fact that the others are not labeled as such is simply a typo. But I will bow to your guy's wisdom.

He has a 29 AC because of Mage Armor, Shield, High Dexterity with the help of Magical Items, semi-high wisdom, and he's an Urban Barbarian so everytime he's next to two enemies +1.

Snake Fang Works like so.

While using the Snake Style feat, when an opponent’s attack misses you, you can make an unarmed strike against that opponent as an attack of opportunity. If this attack of opportunity hits, you can spend an immediate action to make another unarmed strike against the same opponent.

So the immediate action is only for an extra attack after you hit them.

If you concede that they are all Style feats as well as combat feats then the wording of the bonus feat's ability makes it so you have to go through the chain in the order they are meant to go through. Because you must have the appropriate Style feat to go on to the next Style feat.

I'm not sure of the exact math behind the 29 AC but I'm fairly sure it's accurate. Let me put it this way. He has always played up.

And I'm not waiving off anyone's proof I'm just interpreting it differently than you. I would like to hear from the higher-ups not because I don't value your opinion but because their word, technically, is law. So it won't matter if I interpret it differently or not.

Only the feats that actually are listed as [Style] feats are style feats. For example, Boar Style has the descriptor(Combat, Style) next to it. Boar Shred just has (Combat).
So Boar Style, Crane Style, Djinni Style, etc.
The rest are not actually Style feats, just feats in the feat path. So the part where it says "Alternatively, a master of many styles may choose a feat in that style’s feat path (such as Earth Child Topple) as one of these bonus feats if he already has the appropriate style feat (such as Earth Child Style)" means that as long as he has the Style feat, any of the feats in its path are eligible to take as bonus feats, regardless of whether you had the preceding feat.

I feel like this is a typo because why are they all under Style Feats in Ultimate Combat than? Like I said I know all the arguments for it and it still seems just wrong to me. By the way the monk in question has a 29 AC 8 attacks of opportunity and is able to use one of his attacks of opportunity whenever someone misses him. If I don't get an answer from any higher-ups than I won't get an answer, but if i don't put this out there I will never get an answer. That's what this is for. To see if I can get an answer.

Oh he's also only 5th level.

Because they did not put the third feat in the path in the description. They put the second. Which means too me that you need to get the second then the third. AKA get the appropriate Style Feat before you get the next one. Every other prerequisite is removed, except for that one. I believe this to be the case, and I'm looking for someone who is actually part of the Society Hierarchy or someone who was part of creating the game to either say I'm wrong or say I'm right. I don't want random people just saying yeah that's how it works.

Yeah I've got a player that has a Master of Many Styles Monk and he believes that when he gets his bonus style feat that as long as he gets the first in the Chain that he can skip the second and just get the third, pretty much breaking the style feats. I've also seen a lot of forums that agree with this but I really see it as untrue. I also see that none of these people have any actual authority on this being true or not true.
Pretty Much I'm looking for verification on its validity from someone who actually has said authority.