dorgrim's page

Typo: Page 3, 2nd column, 3rd line -- print version

"...on page xxx of this book."

Same page and column, 10th line

"...on page xxx for the robojack."

Same page and column, 2nd to last line in first paragraph

"...dermal plating (see page xxx)..."

*sigh*

Sure, this will eventually get fixed in the pdf but it's pretty bad since I'll have to pay extra if I ever want a corrected print copy.

That 5ft limit is specific to that feat only.

Improved Shared Spells does not replace the normal Shared Spells class ability, either. It just gives the caster another optional way of using the Shared Spells ability.

Regardless, once the spell is on a target, Permanency cast using the Shared Spells ability will trump the 5ft limit 'Improved' feat anyways. That feat will no longer be in effect once Permanency is cast because per it's spell description, the spell effect just simply becomes permanent. Not permanent within 5ft...permanent.

If there's a disagreement among the ranks, then don't use the Improved Shared Spells feat in this situation since the normal ability is sufficient.

Bane is mind-affecting so won't affect vermin swarms without a hive mind. Also, swarms don't make attack rolls, so a -1 penalty to them doesn't really help.

Since we are working with limited information, there's no reason to limit the options until we know more.

Which means, these spells can still be useful since:

Swarms could still have a hive mind, and thus be affected. Also, Bane doesn't only affect attack rolls.

Will it always work? No. Can it still be useful? Of course; just like any other spell in any other different encounter, it depends on the situation.

As a positive energy channeler i feel pretty useless lobbing alchemists fire at swarms, but i dont really see any better options. None of my domains help either.

You neglected to mention your domains.

A quick look at the Core domains yields the following spells:

*Air, Water and Weather grant Obscuring Mist.
*Fire grants Burning Hands.
*Alignment domains grant 'Protection From' spells, in case the swarms are summoned.
*Plant grants Entangle, which doesn't target creatures. There's nothing in the description for Swarms that says that Entangle won't work.

As far as I can tell, the following 1st and 2nd level Cleric spells (Corebook) will also work against Swarms because they don't target a set amount of creatures.

1st
Bane
Obscuring Mist (see above)
Protection From (see above)
Sanctuary
Summon Monster I (Flash Beetle to do a daze-like affect. Friendly Fire possible.)

2nd
Sound Burst
Summon Monster II (Small Air Elemental to use Whirlwind to blow away and damage the Swarm. As a GM, I would rule that this works against a swarm).

Depending on your resources, I would personally grab a wand or a bunch of scrolls from some of the spells above and resort to alchemical items if you have any funds left over.

I also have had a problem with the adhesives used in the last two modules (Wardens of the Reborn Forge and Tears at Bitter Manor).

It seems that the glue blobs are possibly being exposed to heat that is melting the adhesive, allowing it to reset more-so once cooled.

I didn't have this problem with my two copies of Dragon's Demand; I was able to easily remove the map and then 'roll-off' the circular adhesive.

I feel that we should have the this looked into for future products.

Order #3048023 included my Module Subscription and it did not apply the Pathfinder Advantage from my Adventure Path Subscription that was shipped three days earlier (#3019077).

Email for Order #3048023 replied/sent back to Paizo on 3/13/14 explaining issue and requesting correction. No response.

Also, I'd like to have future monthly subscriptions shipped together at the same time. I could not find where to change this under my account (still looking).

But I'm not talking about gems. I'm talking about the "power"

That make sense?

And yet you could still use the same idea. Like I said, change the fluff.

Make it a magical tattoo; each person can only have so many of them. Tattoo ink is made from specially crushed gems, thus still providing a craft avenue/cost.

Each tattoo will only affect certain objects specifically so you can't have an armor bonus tattoo affecting a weapon.

Or, make it a special ceremony where an infusion or elixir is imbibed or bathed in that gives it's properties only to living flesh.

It could be special training they undertake from a master/mentor that has the same costs of regular item creation. Creation Feats could be the means of allowing crafters to train others. Special metals could be required and consumed in the training.

You have to balance the end product/result with the means to get there so that you also take into account the rest of the mechanics in place for such balance. You don't necessarily have to use the rules in place or at all. But, to avoid cheese and abuse you'd have to figure something out instead.

Edit: Corrected grammar to read "so you can't have an armor bonus tattoo affecting a weapon."

We did this in a 2nd Edition game. It was similar to Final Fantasy VII and materia collection.

Weapons and armor had to be crafted with slots and we found these magical gems that had properties. Each gem had a minimum default +1 but, each special property would have it's own bonus.

For example, if I were to use this system in my PF homebrew, a gem of Animal Bane would change the masterwork weapon with sockets to +1/+3 vs Animals.

You could also set up a time factor for changing gems if the party had an overload of them with not enough slots for them to fill.

Obviously, you couldn't put a such a gem intended for armor into a weapon.

Lastly, it wouldn't interfere with current item crafting; the object with sockets still needs to be crafted or found and prepared to receive a special gem.

Just follow the same guidelines as normal item creation (costs, checks, etc.), just change the fluff.

Mind you, this was only for weapons and armor; it would not truly work with items made from non-metallic/wood materials like flimsy cloaks and hats.

Suppose someone shoots what looks like icicles at my friend out of their hand, and I either don't have Spellcraft or I don't make my Spellcraft check to identify the spell as it's being cast. I am going to cast Mass Resist Energy (cold) on my turn based on what I saw. If I saw a fireball, I will cast Mass Resist Energy (fire) on my turn. I will drink a potion. I will hide my Necklace of Fireballs. A spell's visual effects, with the exception of the Illusion school of course, are practically a non-caster's only indication of what the spell does.

I would be highly against re-skinning spells to appear to do different damage types unless the damage types are actually changed or a metamagic feat that does this is used.

It's still moot because any good DM will tell a player what type of damage they took. As an observing character, you are fully within your rights to ask the DM, "Hey, did I see what type of damage she took?"

In my games, SURE! I'll let you try almost anything. Because, *I'm on the players' side.*

Give me a healing check. Don't have healing, what other skills do you have that might work? History, religion, weather? I'd use those too (with a small penalty). Still don't have a skill? Perhaps they've heard stories. "Roll d20 and add your highest class level!" Still no?

"Hey, buddy! Was that attack cold?" -- free action.

Even so, I just might right out and tell that player exactly what happened.

"The spell that the robed Ice Giant cast **looked** like magical icicles *made of force energy*."

Because, we're role-playing, and you can still do it in combat.

And I can easily answer your 2nd example:

"Your party is engulfed by pink flash and black smoke that rapidly dissipates, **burning** you for X damage. The succubus, scantily clad in pink and black lingerie cackles with delight."

Seriously, flavor text isn't cheating by any means, and not the only means whereby a character can figure out what's going on as long as they have a good DM.

Edit: It's not meant to change the spell effect or damage type in any way, only it's appearance for the sake of story and character background.

Bill Dunn wrote:

Dekalinder wrote:

Magic Missiles are famus for being a force effect, you can't describe them as a phisical icicle.

But they could still look like icicles. That's the point of the thematic reskinning.

Thematic reskinning taken that far is essentially cheating. It's trying to get out of the bed you made for yourself.

Sorry for going off topic but, please explain how a flavor text *description* is cheating in this example? It's not changing the damage type in any way.