Turner Bout's page

The amusing thing I would note is that a character that is aware of the problem has several ways of surviving the situation. The easiest being to go underground. The detonation of a nuke is explosive, in that it expands in all directions until it strikes an impediment - at which point it imparts a significant portion of energy to that impediment and rebounds.
This means that if you are underground a sufficient distance not to be fried by the transferred heat (say 100+ feet), you should be subject to a similar effect to an earthquake (let us assume a mythic earthquake lasting 10 rounds).
If you are in a subterranean structure you are looking at a total of 100d8 points of damage over 10 rounds plus 1d10 for (probably) being trapped under rubble. The further down you go, the less damage you would take, especially in a heavily supported structure (Waking Rune anyone?).
If, however, you are transmuted into something with the earth glide ability, and not in a structure, you should be able to ride out the blast fairly easily.

Half Orc Barbarian! Wootsauce

So I was looking at the list of legal sources for pathfinder society and saw that the drugs and paraphenalia from the alchemy manual were legal. I had to pull out my GameMastery Guide to figure out how they worked. My question is this: The GameMastery Guide is not on the list of legal sources - are drugs from it (specifically aether) legal for use if the required tools are posessed by the character? Was the Guide just an oversight on the list or intentionally left out?
Please let me know, thanks.

My dividing line on FoM is if it targets you, FoM negates it. The only thing FoM wont negate, to me, is solid, obstructions not targeted at the player or creating effects that target the player(black tentacles), aka anything you would need earth glide to get through. So FoM wont beat Wall of Stone for example, but would beat Icy Prison.

Brilliant. That is the line I was trying to draw. Earth glide is key here. Puts that boundary down and makes sense. Brings back the original question though. The leashed shackle. Clearly it cannot entangle the victim. That has been made abundantly clear. Can it restrict to a region of movement 30 ft in radius?

Personal opinion - 30 ft radius enforced, no entangle. But I could certainly be convinced otherwise.

I agree with Skylacer's interpretation. Make the save, you're entangled and unaffected by it. Fail the save you are helpless and inside a block of ice. Helpless is not prevented by freedom of movement, no more than freedom of movement would allow you to move whilst daze, nor would it let you walk through a wall of stone.

Thank you sir that makes a great deal of sense. I misread the spell the first time.

Hah! I love it! Yes it is indeed ridiculous. However, it is remotely conceivable to escape from such a situation. And look at it this way - there are always two possible exits. I know I know that was offal... er awful.

It protects against grapples, therefore "magical vs physical" is provably NOT the dividing line.

So far, as I understand it, the arguments presented regarding icy prison have been "it doesn't work because it's a physical barrier" and "it doesn't work because 'helpless' is not a protected condition". If the former were true, then FoM wouldn't work against grapples, but it does, so that argument is wrong. If the latter were true, then FoM wouldn't work against paralysis, but it does, so that argument is wrong

Going to have to disagree with you that a grapple is a physical barrier. Not saying that it isn't physical, just that it isn't a proper barrier. I would consider a barrier to be a wall or some sort of significant blockage. Unless you have been swallowed by some sort of animate mountain, I wouldn't consider any combat maneuver that significant.

I do appreciate the opinions. I am looking at builds and trying to see how a GM could counter them. This is a very powerful ability and I like it. Thus if I know how to counter it...

yes, you have a point. My argument is as follows.
1) As with a golem, the direct magical creation of a purely magical impediment will fail. e.g. solid fog.
2) The transmutation of a non magical surrounding into a non magical surrounding cannot be prevented.
3) Provided the surrounding prevents passage rather than impeding movement FOM does not apply.

On the whole, I feel that I am going to house rule that any substance as viscous, or more viscous, as peanut butter is the limit for freedom of movement.
Icy Prison will fail because it is the act of entangling the individual that makes the target helpless.
If someone were to say - polymorph the air around the target into window putty, I would say that FOM would be worthless. A prevention of movement such as a barrier would be equally effective.

Most likely you are correct. The question is, how far does freedom of movement stretch. Would it stop say - Icy Prison? Forcecage?
The description of entangled is that it does impede movement, so that does make sense that option 2 for leashed shackle is wrong and icy prison would fail. I think however, that the impediment to progress caused by the leash point or the cage may still work.

Does that shut down work? Leashed Shackle is an entangle effect, and cannot be attacked or directly escaped from. Would the spell work at all?
Options that I see are
1) The target is not entangled, but is still restricted to the 30 feet limitation
2) The target is entangled and the spell works as normal
3) The spell cannot keep hold of the target and the shackle slides off

Arguments for options
1) Makes sense - still free to move about despite impedance, and does not prevent spell from working
2) Not really likely, however freedom of movement does not specify any entangle effects. RAW vs RAI probably means no though.
3) Possible, but given that there is no potential for an escape artist check I find it very unlikely.

Thoughts?

Missing probably my favorite go-to force spell. Sign of Wrath from ROTR anniversary edition. 6th level evocation. Love the book, only thing I noticed that might make it better would be to separate the spells by school. Helps for favored school wizards immensely.

Not particularly, but I wanted to make sure my response wasn't just reflexive. If there was a mechanical reason it could work, I might have allowed it from fairness. Blahpers reasoning matches mine though so I feel justified in a denial.

I am currently gming ROTR, and a player who runs a alchemist brought a question to me. He has a tumor familiar and wants to know if it can cast fire breath. His argument was that his extracts made any spell an alchemist could cast have an effective range of personal. Thus, any spell he could "cast" should be usable by the familiar.
My initial response was no. Fire breath does not have an explicit range of personal nor a target of you, and it is not a touch attack spell. Reading the spell carefully though, it certainly has an implied target of you and he may have a point.
Can anyone clarify?

Sent vote in. Luck to all.

Okay, I have ironed out all of the kinks. I have the characters in mind I would like to play with and am ready to roll. Turner Bout is prepared to rock.

Mass enlarge person works too

Turner Bout
I think this is everything. Looking forward to selections!