Thad Remley's page

Hm... yeah, the more I think about it the more it seems likely given the spell description that freezing sphere would indeed freeze the water right at the caster's fingertips, and thus would be, um, a less than optimal choice.

For the record, I wasn't asking this because a player tried this in a game; it's actually for an adventure I'm writing... there's a sorcerer lich in the adventure who resides in the Elemental Plane of Water, and I'm trying to figure out his spell list. Given that he spends most of his time underwater and he's not an idiot, I think if freezing sphere just freezes the water at its point of origin, all things considered it would be better to leave it off his spell list. (Maybe I'll swap it out for summon monster vi; I was thinking maybe I ought to give him at least one high-level summoning spell anyway...)

Thanks for the replies.

[EDIT: Ooh, or actually, maybe I'll give him hellfire ray; he's lawful evil and consorts with devils, so it definitely fits his character. Of course, then I have to worry about how hellfire works underwater... maybe even if the water puts out the fire, it becomes superheated steam and so it still does fire damage? Then there's also the somewhat sticky fact that hellfire ray is described in a book that can't legally be referenced by name under the Compatibility License... meh, maybe I should stick with summon monster vi after all...]

[EDIT 2: Then again, acid fog may also be a good choice, given his bloodline... he has resist acid 10 and any spells he casts with the acid descriptor do +1 point of damage per die... would it be reasonable to assume that acid fog would work underwater (assuming there are no currents)?]

Okay, this seems like the sort of thing that surely must have come up before, but I've searched around for it and have been unable to find anything. (Admittedly, I only searched here and in the Pathfinder rules; it's possible there was a ruling on it somewhere regarding 3.5E, but if so that wouldn't necessarily have been binding in Pathfinder anyway.)

So, I guess I'll ask here. What happens if you cast freezing sphere underwater?

The rules for freezing sphere say that if it "strikes a body of water or a liquid that is principally water (not including water-based creatures), it freezes the liquid to a depth of 6 inches in a 40-foot radius." But striking a body of water isn't the same thing as being cast underwater. Would it freeze the outer 6 inches of its spherical area of effect? Would it just freeze at the caster's fingertips the moment it was cast and thus be rendered useless? (That last possibility seems silly, and I hope it isn't the case, but it is a conceivable ruling given the spell's description.)

The rules for aquatic terrain say that "[s]ome spells might function differently underwater, subject to GM discretion." Freezing sphere seems logically like one of those spells that should definitely work differently underwater... I'm just not sure how it should work underwater.

Is there a ruling on this already somewhere that I missed? Like I said, it seems like the sort of thing that should have come up by now, so it seems unlikely I'm the first one to have asked this question, but I couldn't find anything...

Since the Harrow Deck and the Harrower prestige class have been updated to PRPG rules in the Inner Sea World Guide, my guess would be no.

But what was done with the Harrow deck in later books has no bearing whatsoever on whether it was OGC in Edge of Anarchy. Once something is released as OGC, it can't be taken back; OGC is OGC forever. Nor is there anything in the Compatibility License that forbids or restricts the usage of older content -- as long as it's Open Game Content, it's fair game. Even if the rules updates in the Inner Sea World Guide are Product Identity, that doesn't make the Harrow deck's original description retroactively Product Identity too -- the Open Gaming License doesn't work that way. All it would mean (assuming the description in Edge of Anarchy is Open Content) is that I couldn't refer to any updated rules from the Inner Sea World Guide -- I'd still be able to refer to the original description. (And for what I have in mind, I wouldn't need the updated rules anyway -- I'm not interested in using the Harrower prestige class or anything else outside of what's in Edge of Anarchy.)

Besides, it's not clear that the version presented in the Inner Sea World Guide is Product Identity, either. The Inner Sea World Guide, too, is published under the Open Gaming License. And its designation of Product Identity is similar (though not identical) to that in Edge of Anarchy: "All trademarks, registered trademarks, proper names (characters, deities, etc.), dialogue, plots, storylines, locations, characters, artwork, and trade dress. (Elements that have previously been designated as Open Game Content or are in the public domain are not included in this declaration.)" So I could have asked the same question about the Inner Sea World Guide, really. (Although that case is a bit stickier, in that, while Edge of Anarchy explicitly says that all content that isn't Product Identity is Open Content, the Inner Sea World Guide merely states that the game mechanics are Open Content, leaving the status of material that is neither game mechanics nor one of the categories stated as Product Identity somewhat undefined. The safer assumption is that if it's not listed as Open Content, it's probably Product Identity -- but note that the Inner Sea World Guide explicitly says that anything that has "previously been designated as Open Game Content" is not Product Identity (though legally, this would still be true even if it wasn't explicitly stated).)

So my question stands, as to whether the Harrow deck as presented in Edge of Anarchy is Open Content. (Whether the updated rules in the Inner Sea World Guide are Open Content is a separate question, and not one that matters to me for my immediate purposes.) Unfortunately, my guess is that it may very well not be, for the reasons I mentioned above (because it may count as a proper name or as a "concept"), but I figured I might as well ask.

Sorry if I'm posting this in the wrong place... I couldn't find a more specific forum where I was sure this fit, so I figured I'd just post it in General.

Anyway, I just wanted to ask the Paizo Powers That Be whether it was OK to reference Harrow decks in products released under the Compatibility License. The Harrow deck is described in Pathfinder Adventure Path #7: Edge of Anarchy, which uses the Open Game License, designating as product identity "proper names (characters, deities, artifacts, places, etc.), dialogue, plots, storylines, language, concepts, incidents, locations, characters, artwork, and trade dress." The Harrow deck isn't an artifact, a character, or any of the other things specifically named; it's just a regular item, not even magical. However, the main thing that leads me to wonder is the fact that "Harrow" is capitalized--does that mean "Harrow deck" is regarded as a proper noun, and thus out of bounds for compatible products? (Or would it be regarded as a "concept" and thus out of bounds for that reason?)

OK, tl;dr version: Is it okay to include a Harrow deck reading in a product published under the Compatibility License?