Green Man

Thad Remley's page

4 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.




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...


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?