The Tea Elf's page

Today I was playing a game (our group got crushed except for me) and we encountered something. The enemy had cast Spike Stones on the ground and my PC wanted to charge through them (he had DR 8/- so he wasn't in any danger from the spikes). Anyways, the GM said that I couldn't because the Spike Stones were difficult terrain and I couldn't charge. Now, as an avid player of wizards I know Spike Stones does halve your movement, but nowhere does it state it is difficult terrain.

So basically my question is thus: Can you charge through terrain that is not labelled as difficult terrain but takes double movement to go through?

Another question: Say I get hit by caltrops, once again my movement is halved. Would I also not be allowed to charge?

So I have run into a bit of a pickle a GM for PFS. One of my regular players is playing a wizard who just so happened to turn level 11 and took Planar Binding as one of his spells. After the scenario when he turned level 11, he explained the rationale behind his spell choice. Simply put, he believes that he is going to cast Planar Binding and bind multiple genies to give him 3 wishes each. First he said he would do it to get that +5 inherent bonus in his stats and after that to wish for more spells to scribe.

Now, I have been looking in the boards for threads about binding genies and usually the way to stop genie abuse is simply because in a campaign, the GM can make it so there are Consequences(TM) for binding and abusing noble djinni or efreet. But in Society play, I can't see of a way to enforce consequences without coming off as vindictive or without derailing the story and possibly punishing the rest of the party for something they didn't do.

To be honest, I do not believe he will go through with it as this player routinely makes ridiculous claims like that. Much like he threatens to throw multiple necklaces of fireballs into a room and follow that up with a normal fireball (a plan of action which I am guilty of encouraging, but has never happened). But I would like to be prepared. All you GMs out there, how would you handle this... shall we say unique situation?

So I had a question about how the plague zombies worked. In particular the Death Burst(Ex) ability.

It states, "When a plague zombie dies, it explodes in a burst of decay. All creatures adjacent to the plague zombie are exposed to its plague as if struck by a slam attack and must make a Fortitude save or contract zombie rot."

Alright, the part that trips me up is the "as if struck by a slam attack." Does that mean that they, on top of having to make a Fort save, also take the damage of the slam attack?

I think so, otherwise why specify it like that? Why not say, "exposed to its plague and must make a Fortitude save or contract zombie rot." It also makes sense as it is an explosion of sorts. But what do you all think?

So I had a question about how the plague zombies worked. In particular the Death Burst(Ex) ability.

It states, "When a plague zombie dies, it explodes in a burst of decay. All creatures adjacent to the plague zombie are exposed to its plague as if struck by a slam attack and must make a Fortitude save or contract pale pox."

Alright, the part that trips me up is the "as if struck by a slam attack." Does that mean that they, on top of having to make a Fort save, also take the damage of the slam attack?

I think so, otherwise why specify it like that? Why not say, "exposed to its plague and must make a Fortitude save or contract pale pox." It also makes sense as it is an explosion of sorts. But what do you all think?

Recently in a scenario a friend of mine came up in a dilemma about alignment. He is playing a Lawful Neutral monk that despises evildoers first of all. So we came up against some evil Aspis Consortium guys (hate them!) and after some struggles, we defeated them. They all detected as evil so my friend said he was going to kill them. At that, the GM took exception stating that if he killed them it would be an evil act and he would become Lawful Evil and have to pay atonement to become Neutral again.

Now, I won't argue that cold-blooded murder is not evil--obviously it is. However, I don't think that one evil act should automatically change your alignment to Evil in the same manner that one good act shouldn't automatically brand you Good. It seems fairly draconian that one Evil act will turn someone Evil, but the countless good deeds don't do anything.

So essentially what I'm asking is: Does one evil act turn you Evil? And if so, why does one good act not change your alignment to Good?

I currently play, among other things, a wizard in pathfinder society. In my area, there aren't many other wizards and the magi in the area only have one or two levels in the class. As such, I do not have the ability to exchange spells with PCs that much and most of the spells I have, I have obtained from scrolls in Chronicle sheets.

The GMs in my area had informed me that I could not purchase spells from NPCs to scribe into my spellbook and that if I wanted more spells I had to first purchase the scroll and then pay for the ink to scribe the spell. For example, if I wanted to have Alarm (1st level Abjuration spell), I would have to purchase the scroll for 25gp and then pay an additional 10gp for the ink to scribe it in my spell book--incidentally destroying the scroll in the process.

I have been neglectful in reading the FAQ or else I would have found the one FAQ that states:

Can I scribe spells from another PC's spellbook into my own? What about gaining spells via scrolls found during an adventure?

Players are welcome to exchange spells with each other during an adventure. They must still follow all the normal rules as put forth in the Core Rulebook and their class descriptions (for instance, an alchemist can scribe from a wizard, but not vice-versa) and they must not bog the session down.

Similarly, scrolls found during an adventure can be used to add spells to spellbooks and similar class features (such as a witch's familiar), using the normal rules for doing so. Scrolls used in this way during an adventure do not need to be purchased, but are still consumed as normal.

With either method, the GM should sign off on the spells gained (after witnessing successful skill checks) on affected players' chronicle sheets. All other methods of gaining new spells (such as by gaining a level or purchasing access to an NPC's spellbook) function as described in the Core Rulebook and relevant class descriptions.

In the rare instance of a wizard charging a fee for the privilege of copying spells from their spellbooks, this fee is equal to half the cost to write the spell into a spellbook (see Writing a New Spell into a Spellbook). Rare and unique spells do not change the fee in PFS.

Now, it would appear that a wizard (and technically a magus as well) is allowed to gain access to an NPC's spellbook using the rules from the Core. However, I am confused by the last paragraph.

What does it mean by in the rare instance of a wizard charging a fee for the privilege of copying spells? Is that not the norm? Or could I walk up to say, Aram Zey and ask him nicely to look through his spells and simply pay the cost of the inks?

A friend of mine was reading this thread and got it into his head to create a fighter that could hurl an arbitrarily large amount of shields in one turn.

What bothers me about that thread is that assuming everything is true and you indeed can throw your shield as a free action and you can carry an arbitrarily large amount of shields somehow, what is your attack bonus?

I know there is a FAQ that limits free actions a turn to "reasonable" numbers. 5 seems to be reasonable. But for now let's eschew that and assume reasonable is an arbitrarily large number say one million. I know it's not reasonable, but it serves my purposes for what I will say next.

You see, the way I read it is that the shield simply allows itself to be thrown as a free action as opposed to a standard action for a one-handed weapon or a full round action like a two-handed weapon. But you still have to have an attack available to do that.

For example, I have a fighter with Quick Draw and a BAB of +6 so normally he gets two attacks, one at +6 and one at +1 (not including strength or dex bonuses). He could hit someone with his sword with his +6 attack and then Captain America his shield with his +1 attack. But he could not then quick draw his backup shield and get a free attack.

Am I interpreting the combat rules correctly? Or am I missing something and you can in fact make unlimited free action attacks by RAW? If so, are they all at your highest base attack bonus? How does it work? And where are the rules supporting this?

Is it legal to have multiple ability modifiers apply to a single roll? For example, from the Heretic archetype of the Inquisitor we have Lore of Escape and from the Conversion Inquisition domain we have Charm of Wisdom.

Lore of Escape (Ex): At 1st level, the heretic uses every trick she knows to escape those now pursuing her. She adds her Wisdom modifier on Bluff and Stealth skill checks in addition to the normal ability score modifiers. This ability replaces monster lore.

Charm of Wisdom (Ex): You use your Wisdom modifier instead of your Charisma modifier when making Bluff, Diplomacy, and Intimidate checks.

If you have both of these do you actually get to add your Wisdom modifier twice?

On a rather unrelated note, what's up with the Inquisitor and adding Wisdom or just bonuses to random rolls that already have an ability tied to them? With the above two abilities, I see no reason not to multiclass into Inquisitor to make all your social skills dependent on Wisdom rather than Charisma (allowing you to buy down your Charisma for extra points).

So in a campaign I am playing in, one of my party members got grappled by a tendriculos. The wizard decided that to help out the party member he would cast Grease on the rogue's armour so he would get a +10 to his escape check.

The DM ruled that because the rogue was not in control of the grapple, I could not target him with Grease because the tendriculos would just move him out of the way.

I explained that I had line of effect/sight to the rogue so I should be able to target him. He agreed but said that the tendriculos got to make the Reflex save even though the target is the armour of the rogue. I thought that line of reasoning was fallacious. What to you all think? How should this go down?