SolitonMan's page

Thank you!

Can you please update this order to use the cheapest shipping method possible? $43 for shipping one book seems way out of line.

Been a while since there's been any discussion here...I received my copy of the finished product a few weeks back, and I've been slowly making my way through it. All in all it's brilliant at first blush.

Anyone else get a copy? I'm wondering about the timeline in the temple, and I don't feel as though I have a good understanding of how it's supposed to work. The relationship between solar days and Jing days seems clear enough, mostly, but what's not clear is the whole "the timeline starts at midnight on Jing Day 1 when the characters enter the temple" piece. So, how does that affect people already in the temple? And does the passage of time SEEM consistent to those in the temple? Meaning, although they last longer in terms of solar days, does each Jing day feel like a single, 24-hour day? So the relationship between being internal to the temple and external is that more time passes outside - namely 28 solar days for each Jing week. Or do the players in the temple experience each Jing day as increasingly longer?

I'm sure other aspects of this work will also raise questions for me, hopefully some of you may have insights if you've picked up and reviewed this product.

That seems like a fair assessment, thanks for replying!

I think that barring special materials makes complete sense, and choosing common wood types would be a good option. I'm thinking that I'll allow for some flexibility, giving the caster a limited range of choices. The main limits will be that (a) the caster must be familiar with the type of wood chosen and (b) the resulting transformed items cannot be worth more in their wood state than in their metal state. Item (b) is probably going to be true by default most of the time, but I could see a clever player combining wall of iron with TMtW to create black walnut or other valuable and rare hardwoods.

Just wondering if there have been any rulings on the TMtW spell for the variety of wood created. Not that it matters for the tactical uses, but for flavor and roleplaying, I'm wondering how people have handled it. I could see it being just a matter of choice on the part of the caster, or maybe something dependent upon the type of metal involved. But I've tried searching across various forums and the web in general and I've never come across a discussion about this facet of the spell. Thoughts? Thanks!

I see that now, I missed the little PDF symbol on the items when I checked before originally posting. Thanks for the verification! :)

Hi, I pledged $100 for the Pathfinder Online Kickstarter and thought I'd get a hardcover copy of the Emerald Spire when it was released. I was wondering if you have any record of if this is correct, and if so if the order was shipped. Any info you could provide would be appreciated. Thanks! Please let me know if you need any further information.

Such a nice complement to the Tome of Horrors Complete! :)

Hi, I'd like to cancel order 1825459. Please let me know if you have any questions, thanks.

That's very kind of you Eric, thanks! :)

Hi, I just received the subject line order number today and instead of the Pathfinder campaign setting book Giants Revisited, the order contained the Pathfinder Module No Response from Deepmar. I don't have a module subscription, this appears to be an error.

How can we fix this? Thanks in advance for your help! :)

Master Arminas, I'm curious as to why you didn't do a conversion of the Deceive Item ability. I can understand leaving Imbue Item alone, since the warlock in your conversion is now a spell caster and they don't need an ability to take item creation feats. But why not Deceive Item, especially since Use Magic Device is still a skill that normally doesn't allow a character to take 10?

My opinion on the matter:

Spirit of the rules: I would rebuild the simulacrum to approximate as close to 'half' the original character as possible. If its a Fighter 6/Rogue 6, and this means that I can get 'half power' best at Fighter 5/Rogue 1, so be it.

Literal reading: Just go as close to half of each as possible, going up or down as per above. This spell actually requires a lot of work to use, IMO, and is kindof a pain.

Expedient, on the fly ruling if game is in play: chop off the (rounded down) top half of the spell list, half BAB, subtract half HD from key skill checks, and reduce saves by the appropriate amount; dont worry about much else until you have time for the above two.

I pretty much agree with Krispy on this one. As long as the resulting creature is consistent from a rules perspective, I allow any selection of appropriate class levels, feats, skills, etc. already possessed by the original.

This is a spell that could stand revisitation. It's never been well described in any edition of D&D IMO, and the Pathfinder version is basically the same as the 3.5 version. While it says that damage can be repaired at a cost of 100 gp/HP, it doesn't say if any sort of healing works on the creature (although the spell description DOES specify that the effect of the spell is "one duplicate creature." Can creatures be healed - or in the case of constructs, repaired? And just what is involved in the process to repair the simulacrum? Is this the ONLY way to repair simulacrum damage?)

There are a lot of holes in this spell, so ultimately you should work with your group to ensure that the way you play it is fun and not unbalancing to the game in general.

I am going to look into adding this to the FAQ, but here are a few notes (subject to change).

1. It is not necessary to call me out by name to get my attention. I peruse the boards daily and while I may not take time to post, I do elevate issues for the rules team to discuss.

2. As for this particular issue, I think the intent here of this spell was to keep the subschool limitations. Without them, this spell is probably too good, seeing as its 80% limitation would not really apply (or would have to be creatively applied) to a number of spells outside the subschool limitation. For now, that is the way I would play it, and that is certainly the way I am leaning toward with any clarification.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

Thank you for taking the time to comment Jas- er, unnamed Lead Designer of my currently favorite RPG. ;)

In all seriousness, I do appreciate you taking the time to respond. I'll be looking forward to a final ruling, but I agree with your assessment. If you look at the 3.5 PHB, it seems like the wording for Shades that was chosen was done with the aim of limiting typespace. The strict interpretation is the one I'll be using.

Not jumping on anyone, just clarifying why it may have seemed off to you. Also wasn't entirely serious, hence the " :P "

OP you're fine. A lot of people call out the Devs, and for a lot less.

:)

Cool, thanks man. I have to admit a I was bit worried...

Evil Lincoln wrote:

OP, in future, could you please refrain from name-dropping Jason or the devs when asking a question?

I don't know why, but it bothers me. There are more devs than just Jason who can give an official answer, there's more than one Jason who might answer you, and there are often non-dev forumites who can get you the official answer if it exists.

Sorry for the rant, I know you're probably unaware that it bothers anyone.

Agreed. It smells of disrespect, intended or otherwise, with a splash of 'sense of entitlement'.

:P

Please accept my apology, no offense was intended. I cited Jason because when I looked at the credits in my Core Rulebook, I saw his name listed as Lead Designer. I'm not a frequent poster on these boards, so I'm not aware of any rules or etiquette related to such matters. I based my choice on the oft-repeated idea that Paizo is such a great game company because of the responsiveness of its employees, and because of their engagement on these boards. I'm sorry if I misunderstood.

In any case, I'd still really appreciate it if someone with "authority" (whatever that may mean in this context) could give a definitive answer to the original question - exactly how should the Shades spell work?

Shades

Shades

School illusion (shadow); Level sorcerer/wizard 9

This spell functions like shadow conjuration, except that it mimics conjuration spells of 8th level or lower. The illusory conjurations created deal four-fifths (80%) damage to nonbelievers, and nondamaging effects are 80% likely to work against nonbelievers.

So as written, Option 2 is correct. It can mimic any Conjuration spell of 8th Level or below, not limited to creation or summoning subschools.

Hi David, thanks for replying. I appreciate the response. :)

However, I don't believe that your conclusion is inescapable. By concluding that the creation and summoning subschool limitations are removed because they are not explicitly spelled out in the spell description, can you not then also conclude that the spells aren't limited to the sorcerer/wizard spell list since that too is not explicitly spelled out?

This conversation has been going on for years (from 3.5 and now into PFRPG), and never with any final word from someone who has actually written the rules (at least that I've seen, though it's entirely possible I've missed something somewhere). So that's why I asked for clarification from Jason in my thread title. For me, no one else has the "authority" (if you will) to state the intent of the spell. All we can do is reach conclusions that are based on the RAW interpretation - and the fact that there IS room for interpretation is fundamentally why I ask for clarification in the first place.

C'mon Jason! :) Help a guy out...

Sorry to post about this again, but honestly, it's driving me batty. In an earlier thread I suggested three possible re-wordings to clarify exactly how Shades should work, and if any one of these is on the mark, I'd appreciate having it pointed out, or else another explanation entirely. But in any case, I find the current wording of Shades in the PRD to be more ambiguous than is necessary:

(1) [Shades is Shadow Conjuration for sorcerer/wizard spells of 8th level or lower] - "This spell functions like shadow conjuration, except that it duplicates any sorcerer or wizard conjuration (summoning) or conjuration (creation) spell of 8th level or lower. The illusory conjurations created deal four-fifths (80%) damage to nonbelievers, and non-damaging effects are 80% likely to work against nonbelievers."

(2) [Shades is Shadow Conjuration with subschool limitations removed] - "This spell functions like shadow conjuration, except that it duplicates any sorcerer or wizard conjuration spell of 8th level or lower. Unlike shadow conjuration, shades is not limited to the creation and summoning subschools of conjuration. Any sorcerer or wizard conjuration spell of 8th level or lower may be duplicated.

The illusory conjurations created deal four-fifths (80%) damage to nonbelievers, and non-damaging effects are 80% likely to work against nonbelievers."

(3) [Shades duplicates any conjuration of 8th level or lower] - "This spell functions like shadow conjuration with the following exceptions: the duplicated spells are not limited by subschool, the duplicated spells are not limited to conjuration spells from the sorcerer/wizard spell list and may in fact duplicate ANY conjuration spell, and the level limit for duplicated spells is 8th.

The illusory conjurations created deal four-fifths (80%) damage to nonbelievers, and non-damaging effects are 80% likely to work against nonbelievers."

It would really be personally helpful if the designer could clarify his intent. Thanks in advance for your help! :)

To clarify my earlier post: I'd like to see Shades re-written to something similar to one of the following options, depending on the designer's intentions:

(1) [Shades is Shadow Conjuration for sorcerer/wizard spells of 8th level or lower] - "This spell functions like shadow conjuration, except that it duplicates any sorcerer or wizard conjuration (summoning) or conjuration (creation) spell of 8th level or lower. The illusory conjurations created deal four-fifths (80%) damage to nonbelievers, and non-damaging effects are 80% likely to work against nonbelievers."

(2) [Shades is Shadow Conjuration with subschool limitations removed] - "This spell functions like shadow conjuration, except that it duplicates any sorcerer or wizard conjuration spell of 8th level or lower. Unlike shadow conjuration, shades is not limited to the creation and summoning subschools of conjuration. Any sorcerer or wizard conjuration spell of 8th level or lower may be duplicated.

The illusory conjurations created deal four-fifths (80%) damage to nonbelievers, and non-damaging effects are 80% likely to work against nonbelievers."

(3) [Shades duplicates any conjuration of 8th level or lower] - "This spell functions like shadow conjuration with the following exceptions: the duplicated spells are not limited by subschool, the duplicated spells are not limited to conjuration spells from the sorcerer/wizard spell list and may in fact duplicate ANY conjuration spell, and the level limit for duplicated spells is 8th.

The illusory conjurations created deal four-fifths (80%) damage to nonbelievers, and non-damaging effects are 80% likely to work against nonbelievers."

YMMV, but I believe that if shades were written with one of these options it would be clear what the designer intended.

The Glorious Heat feat allows a character to heal an ally half his levels in hit points each time he casts a divine spell with the fire descriptor. Spark is an orison with the fire descriptor.

So, for a single feat, a character now has the option to heal his companions for free as long as he has sufficient fine objects to burn.

That should really hurt the wand of CLW market. And now all clerics are pyromaniacs.

That's a nice find! :) I'm preparing to run the Carrion Crown AP, I'm going to suggest this to the player looking at running an oracle.

After reading the bulk of this thread, I'm wondering how many posters have played in a game wherein the party has unlimited free healing. FWIW, I can tell you from running a ghaele eladrin PC in a Savage Species game that the ultimate effect was the simple convenience of not having to track a small amount of resources. My ghaele had CLW as an at-will spell-like ability, and while great for restoring everyone after a combat, it was virtually worthless in combat.

And the plus side was that we could manage more encounters per day. Which, for us, was a whole lot of fun! :)

I can see how something that messes with economics in a game where money is important would be broken. But for games where that isn't the primary factor, I think that this is useful, but hardly broken. In fact, if run right I can imagine it being a really interesting role-playing opportunity.

Particle_Man wrote:

Unlike Shadow Magic and Demi-Shadow Magic, it seems that Shades can duplicate *any* lower level Conjuration spell on the Sorcerer's spell list. This would include Teleport and Planar Binding.

So first, is that right?

Second, would that result in Teleports that have an 80% chance of working?

Third, would that result in a Planar Binding on a real outsider that has an 80% chance of being effective, or a Planar Binding on a shadowy duplicate of an outsider that is 80% as powerful? If that latter, is any gift required with the Binding, or is it just an illusion of a gift for the illusion of an outsider?

In my game, no, Shades works with the same limitations on conjuration(creation) and conjuration(summoning) spells as Shadow Conjuration.

Frankly, I'm a bit irked that Paizo didn't bother to take the time to clarify the rules on spells such as this. Explicitly stating the intent would have been a kindness, after the numerous, unresolved discussions that took place about this very spell under the 3.5 rules. I really don't care which way they would decide, but leaving it ambiguous was a cruelty.

How about it, Paizo employees? Care to help a guy out and take a stand?

And there's even further room for abuse if you take the broadest interpretation of the spell text: "This spell functions like shadow conjuration, except that it mimics conjuration spells of 8th level or lower. The illusory conjurations created deal four-fifths (80%) damage to nonbelievers, and non-damaging effects are 80% likely to work against nonbelievers."

Mostly people focus on the lack of limitation to creation and summoning sub-schools, but note as well that there is no CLASS limitation! Whereas shadow conjuration explicitly limits itself to sorcerer/wizard spells, shades is just talking about conjuration spells. So, if that's the intent, then a wizard could use it to mimic conjuration(healing) spells from a cleric's list, and be doing mass cure critical wounds. And it would work 100% of the time, because the recipients would undoubtedly willingly fail their saves, and thus be subject to the full effect of the spell.

Yeah, this should have been cleared up.