Shadrhar's page

In the Advanced Player's Guide, the summary for the spell Blessing of the Salamander says

Subject gets fast healing 2, fire resistance 10, and +2 to its CMD

However, the spell description says

While under the effects of the spell, the creature gains fast healing 5, fire resistance 20 and a +2 competence bonus to its Combat Maneuver Defense

My APG is the first printing, but it is not corrected in the first printing errate. The SRD/PRD is also incorrect:

Summary
Description

So which is correct?

Yes, if you are not a GM looking for general advice (the first half of the book) or if you're not a GM who likes statblocks and writer's-block tables (the second half), this book probably isn't for you. As far as precedent, I think that's what most DM books have been.

Statblocks and writer's-block tables are my bread and butter, so I'm having a hard time grasping your response. I can only imagine your style of GMing is radically different from my own. Paging through this book gives me the desperate urge to GM.

You've probably best grasped the situation - I'm not a GM looking for general advice. I've been playing for 32 years now, and I end up as GM roughly 80% of the time, so I really only need plot/story arc ideas, game mechanics, setting info, etc. General advice, while always welcome, is not something I need in print - print items are things I need to refer to on a regular basis, while advice I will read once/year as a refresher.

And what were you after ? The description pretty accurately tells what's inside.

Re-reading the description, you are correct. I suppose it is my fault for not considering more carefully exactly what they would deliver. My impression of the PF team so far is that they have boiled 3.5 down to the essentials, fixed what was broken, added what was missing, and delivered big chunks of useful game mechanics. I was expecting the Gamemastery book to do the same, and didn't really consider evaluating its real use (I'm a subscriber, although I'm not sure why it doesn't list it with my alias).

The bottom line is that I just assumed (my fault) that anything they produced would be useful on a regular basis. I expect to use less than 25% of this book less than 10% of the time.

Am I the only one not to be bowled over by this? I just opened the covers and at first glance I am fairly disappointed. I looked through the table of contents and flipped quickly through about 60% of the book and my impression is a lot of fluff and a lot of needless tables and stat blocks.

I will read it cover-to-cover as all my books, but right now I'm regretting my purchase. :(

Just in time. My list was a little too short.

Yes, ?, No.

Shadrhar wrote:

1) Is movement while prone considered crawling?

Yes (see the text you quoted)

2) What movement is required to move from prone to sitting/kneeling (roughly half the penalties of prone)?
That is a decent question - Personally I allow free stand from kneel, so I'd call it a move action, but that's not any official rule.

3) Does a prone person get a 5-foot step (if 1 is no, then why not)?
No, they get 5' crawl for a move action. Just like you can't 5' step in difficult terrain.

Pg. 186
Crawling: A crawling character is considered prone and must take a move action to stand up, provoking an attack of opportunity.

Thanks - those seem to be reasonable answers. What I was trying to avoid was the Crawling = Prone, therefore Prone = Crawling false assumption (all grass is green, all green things are NOT grass). However, in the absence of another rule or corollary, I'll assume this is correct.

We have adjudicated moving from Prone > Sitting/Kneeling is a 5-foot step equivalent at the moment and will see how it plays out since we have a trip-crazy monk.

I'd say that movement while prone is crawling. The rules don't explicitly say this, but this is a case where the dictionary does - it's what crawling means.

You might want to read your dictionary on "prone" and "crawl". Prone generally indicates being flat on your stomach or back, while crawling generally indicates being on hands and knees. That being said, it seems like maybe the Crawling rules are intended to provide movement while prone - its just very odd that the Prone condition does not refer to this.

Can you use Scorpion Stike and Vital Strike at the same time?

I'm going to quote others from this thread to reply:

Jason Bulmahn wrote:

As of the current rules, you cannot use Vital Strike as part of a charge. Vital Strike is an attack action, which is a type of standard action. Charge is a special full-round action (excluding partial charge). You cannot currently combine the two.

Going by what Jason said means that Vital Strike uses a Standard Action which is the same action as Cleave. As you only have one Standard Action a round you can not apply both feats. Its one or the other.

So, following the same logic, you cannot use Vital Strike and Scorpion Style (you said Strike) at the same time.

The prone condition does not list any limitations on movement other than that standing up from prone is a move action that provokes an attack of opportunity. So...

1) Is movement while prone considered crawling?

2) What movement is required to move from prone to sitting/kneeling (roughly half the penalties of prone)?

3) Does a prone person get a 5-foot step (if 1 is no, then why not)?

Pg. 568

Prone: The character is lying on the ground. A prone
attacker has a –4 penalty on melee attack rolls and cannot
use a ranged weapon (except for a crossbow). A prone
defender gains a +4 bonus to Armor Class against ranged
attacks, but takes a –4 penalty to AC against melee attacks.
Standing up is a move-equivalent action that provokes
an attack of opportunity.

Pg. 186

Crawling: You can crawl 5 feet as a move action.
Crawling incurs attacks of opportunity from any attackers
who threaten you at any point of your crawl. A crawling
character is considered prone and must take a move action
to stand up, provoking an attack of opportunity.

The rules for the paladin's Lay On Hands is described differently in the 3.5 conversion guide and the printed rulebook.

The rulebook states that the paladin heals 1d6 damage per two paladin levels when using Lay On Hands, while the 3.5 conversion guide states that that the healing is 1d6 per paladin level.

Which is correct? I'm assuming the rulebook is correct and the PDF is incorrect.

Nethys wrote:

You are free to disagree. I maintain however that Power Attack is not an innate part of the attack, it is an option you may adjust an attack with. In that case, you use the second part of that paragraph.

"For all other purposes, such as qualifying for a feat or a prestige class, the monk uses his normal base attack bonus."

I can see where the gray area is, however this rule was only written to increase the monks' attack bonus while in a flurry of blows. For anything else that makes a reference to base attack bonus, the monk's normal BAB should be used.

In this case, I will admit (something I am rare to do) that I could be wrong. I was hesitant on commenting on this specific issue, as I can see where you are coming from.

Your God of Knowledge,
Nethys

I can see where you are coming from. I could see it going either way, though I'll stick with what I said for my own game, but if an errata clarifies otherwise would easily switch. I'd say it can be ruled either way and go with what works best with your group.

Until an errata clarifies :)

BTW I hate writing late at night, as I keep finding SO many typos! I THINK I cleaned it up (and fixed at least four typos in this part too-add two more). If you see a typo try to figure out what I meant lol

The last line of the first paragraph under Flurry of Blows clearly states "For all other purposes, such as qualifying for a feat or a prestige class, the monk uses his normal base attack bonus." Therefore, for Flurry of Blows, the BAB = monk level. For "all other purposes" including determining the hit penalty/damage bonus from Power Attack, "the monk uses his normal base attack bonus." Aside from saying "For all other purposes including Power Attack", it couldn't be much more specific.

The benefit of Extra Channel is that you "can channel energy two additional times per day".

Under Special it states "If a paladin with the ability to channel positive energy [assuming they meet the prerequisite - can channel positive energy - then this previous statement is redundant, as all paladins can channel positive energy] takes this feat, she can use lay on hands four additional times per day, but only to channel positive energy." This is not the problem, merely redundant text.

The benefit of Extra Lay on Hands is the ability to Lay on Hands two additional times per day.

Given that channeling positive energy is arguably more powerful than laying on hands (30' radius, can turn undead, takes up two uses of lay on hands [which seems to be a clear indicator that channel energy is twice as powerful as lay on hands]), these two feats seem unbalanced. One provides 2 x channel positive energy (and the 4 x lay on hands needed for same), while the other provides 2 x lay on hands.

The rules for the paladin's Lay On Hands is described differently in the 3.5 conversion guide and the printed rulebook.

The rulebook states that the paladin heals 1d6 damage per two paladin levels when using Lay On Hands, while the 3.5 conversion guide states that that the healing is 1d6 per paladin level.