Adjacent means immediately neighbouring; on a grid squares which share a side (or in some instances a corner). This definition doesn't change with size increases (although you will naturally be immediately neighbouring more squares at a larger size), and it doesn't change with reach - just because you can reach a square doesn't make it adjacent.
The fact that you can reach 10 ft away doesn't change the fact that those squares aren't in direct contact with the one you occupy; they aren't adjacent.
Telling me that it is up to me when I am asking for your advice doesn't help. :-/
Three. They should have three extra spells.
More seriously, lots of advice has already been given and I'm not sure what you're looking for that hasn't already been provided. There are no rules to follow here, or even any guidelines. No extra spells might be most appropriate. An extra ten or twenty spells may be most appropriate. Literally every spell ever printed may be appropriate in the right situation.
How many more do you need them to have?
Do they need a particular set of spells to fulfill the role you have planned for them? If that set of spells didn't fit within what they already have from starting/leveling, they'll need to have aquired the additional ones through other means such as purchasing.
Do they have a particular back story or theme that would be suited to certain spells? Again, if they can't all be selected via leveling they'll need to have acquired them another way.
Can they afford more spells? Perhaps your particular wizard is poor, or has to funnel their resources into something else. Perhaps they're rich and like to collect exotic spells. Do what makes sense for the character.
Also consider your game balance: are they likely or certain to die and have their spellbook looted by the PCs? What should or shouldn't be in there so that PCs can access it? Maybe some spells are better off as consumable scrolls or potions, or they've invested in knowing them without having them in their spellbook.
Does that help?
Agreed with the above for 1).
2) is a bit problematic, did you make a typo and say "Bloodline Arcanas" when you meant "Bloodline Powers"? As your question is currently written I would have to disagree with the above responses and say the answer is no - a Bloodline Arcana is a separate feature of a Bloodline (possessed by Sorcerer Bloodlines but not Bloodrager Bloodlines) that is not mentioned in either the general Bloodline Mutations rules you have presented or the specific Blood Intensity rules. You can not trade a Bloodline Arcana for a Mutation. You can trade either a Bloodline Power or Bloodline Feat, as per the text.
- "You can attack into your own square if you need to" is a perfectly sensible rule - but is it then the case even for a Reach weapon?
No. The general rule is that you can attack into your own square if needed, but using a reach weapon is a more specific situation adjudicated by it's own more specific rule which alters the squares you threaten/can attack when using that weapon. :)
I remember reading somewhere the reason some people are born as sorcerers are because they have some draconic ancestry
In Pathfinder that depends on the Bloodline. For Draconic bloodlines it may be from a dragon, but there are numerous other options. It also isn't necessarily a blood relation, but could be the effects of some encounter that an ancestor had.
"Each sorcerer has a source of magic somewhere in her heritage that grants her spells, bonus feats, an additional class skill, and other special abilities. This source can represent a blood relation or an extreme event involving a creature somewhere in the family’s past. For example, a sorcerer might have a dragon as a distant relative or her grandfather might have signed a terrible contract with a devil."
what does "You only get the bonus spells if your class level grants you access to those spell levels." mean
The design of the system is intended to limit the player to two rings so that they have to choose between those items. Want that ring of regeneration? You'll probably need to remove the ring of sustenance. Allowing players to override that limit (by combining items, making items slotless, removing the two ring limit, etc.) risks altering the balance of the game and should be carefully considered.
That being said, for a home game, it's not uncommon to allow custom crafting on a case-by-case basis, with a slotless version of the item costing 150%, or allowing the player to "combine" items with an associated cost increase.
Keep in mind as Claxon says above, allowing custom crafting is one of the easiest ways to break the game's balance.
Agreed with all the suggestions above, but I hadn't seen anyone address your third point yet.
Firstly, anyone consistently getting high or low results over time may have poorly balanced dice. Have you checked this, or even tried just mixing it up with new dice periodically?
Unfortunately this isn't one you can resolve yourself, but the DM can absolutely change their style to improve the game if their run of good luck is making it overly difficult. Rather than showing their rolls so that you can see how well they're rolling, they could consider hiding their results so that they can fudge them if needed. A good DM might pretend a crit didn't confirm to avoid dropping a player -- not every time, but on occasion -- or that a save failed so that a player can break a run of bad luck and be useful. They might pretend a low attack roll was higher to get off an attack and increase the drama and tension for players.
2) Finding the spot where person X ate breakfast on date Y is easy. A visitor consulting the Akashic Record simply turns her attention to the moment she wishes to observe, and it appears before her, not as a two-dimensional image like an illustration on page, but rather all around her, as if she were actually present witnessing the desired moment in history.
Note that the text you quoted is for "a visitor consulting the record". Akashic Communion explicitly does not work the same way.
1. You get experential guidance (that is, guidance based on experience or observation) based on flashes of insight. The spell specifically states that you do not get "perfect knowledge", and that "impressions gleaned from the distant repository are sometimes skewed when received".
The rolls are made in secret so that the player doesn't know how well they've done, a really bad result can be "wildly inaccurate" (but doesn't have to be obviously so), and the player can't try again on the same subject for a long time.
My interpretation is that it's left up to GM interpretation. This allows you to control what information you give the player so that you can provide guidance or hints without necessarily ruining plot details.
You can choose to give incomplete or somewhat cryptic information - it's guidance based on potentially skewed impressions! That being said, unless the roll is actually a natural 1, you should give something that's at least potentially useful to reward the player's investment into the spell, skills, and crafting of their questions.
2. It's a perfect record of everything in the multiverse, that's pretty clear that it includes everything without omission, even down to small details like you mentioned.
Any omission or inaccuracy would be a matter of plot outside of the normal rules of the game.
3. Yes, I believe it would "get around" such things - as above, it's a perfect record of the history of everything in the multiverse. Do note however the limitations above - the record is complete and contains everything, but the guidance you give the player may be significantly less complete (although unless their result is very poor it should at least be accurate if interpreted correctly).
This is *not* the question James suggested you should ask for a FAQ on...
You probably wanted to ask something along the lines of "can a creature effected by a polymorph effect benefit from non-spell size changes or polymorph effects (e.g. from Supernatural or Extraordinary abilities)".
It's also customary to cite any relevant rules, and to link to discussions showing that a faq response is necessary.
//EDIT: Removed something unnecessarily antagonistic.
The text for Spell Storing specifies "a single targeted spell". I would agree with James Risner that you get ONE spell that you may discharge with any relevant attack.
This FAQ is for a different weapon property, but I think pretty clearly shows that the developer intent is not to allow properties of this sort to apply to multiple natural attacks:
This is probably an advice question rather than rules.
I would rule that taking the ability with the intention to, or knowledge that, you will definitely become immune to it later is not really within the spirit of the rule, and therefore wouldn't allow it.
If the character happens to organically develop towards immunity, with appropriate roleplay and later wants to take an ability that would remove the negative I might allow it.
We've done something like this before, but we don't do it for every well described attack, and we decide the bonuses case-by-case rather than a fixed +1. Sometimes we might give a small bonus to hit, sometimes some extra damage, or sometimes we'll tack on an extra situationally appropriate effect like bleed, igniting the target, etc.
We typically only do this for particularly awesome and heroic moments, like a character risking near-certain death to allow the rest of the party to escape, or similar.
What if your UMD bonus is higher than 12? What if your roll is higher than a 10?
Skill checks aren't supposed to work all the time, and sometimes they aren't even necessarily meant to be easy!
If you're planning on relying on this particular check, you would optimize your character build to make the checks more reliable through things like Skill Focus, Magical Aptitude, etc.
Consider for example a 10th level character with max ranks in UMD and both of the above feats. We haven't included ability score bonus yet or rolled the dice, and they have a minimum result of 21 (which would yield an emulated score of 6 after subtracting 15). With an average roll of 10 (and still not including any bonus from ability score) they have an emulated score of 15.
Not so unreasonable as you start to level up more and if you have invested in making it more reliable. :)
Slim Jim wrote:
(It's no wonder these rules are F-balls confusing to parse by literate people.)
Flagged as abusive. If you believe someone is mistaken, politely state your case, there is no need to be passive- (or otherwise) aggressive.
You're wrong about the reading of the sentence though, one possible use of "instead" is "this thing" instead of "that thing", just as Jeraa said.
It isn't like we're talking about a fine print technicality thing--you cast the spell, you use up the material components whether it works or not,
Can you cast a spell without a valid target though?
True Resurrection specifies as Raise Dead (with some differences), and Raise Dead specifies a "dead creature touched" as the target. True Resurrection stipulates the following differences:
This spell functions like raise dead, except that you can resurrect a creature that has been dead for as long as 10 years per caster level. This spell can even bring back creatures whose bodies have been destroyed, provided that you unambiguously identify the deceased in some fashion (reciting the deceased's time and place of birth or death is the most common method).
To me that seems like we don't have a valid target.
I would probably have the spell fail without consuming components, explaining that this seemed different to a fizzle or other failure with no manifestations or energies appearing at all. Then allow a Spellcraft check to see if the character realizes they have no valid target.
I do think it's probably also a reasonable ruling to expend the components though.
To the original issue, could you spring the surprise earlier, or prevent aquisition of the diamond until after you're ready?
See the Magic chapter in the Core Rule Book, under the heading "Casting Time" (prd link ):
A spell with a casting time of 1 swift action doesn't count against your normal limit of one spell per round. However, you may cast such a spell only once per round.
You are normally limited to one spell per round. A swift action spell doesn't count towards this, but you can only cast one of those as well.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Take a given 24 hour period. If we went by the creature that last damaged you in that 24 hour period, it could mean a creature from (almost) yesterday that hit you, and based on the flavor text, it could certainly imply that, since that is also the "last" creature that damaged you in that time period.
Yes, that's exactly the same interpretation I already listed. You were suggesting there are other possible interpretations, but I'm just not understanding what they could possibly be?
It's easy to rule out, however, because it's fairly convoluted and results in some fairly weird rules interactions that are hard to quantify without some sort of written-down timeline,
How is it convoluted? What weird rules interactions?
Yes, you need to keep track of the timeline, but that's hardly convoluted, and not without precedent in a game with other spells and effects that either last 24 hours or are once/day.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
I can think of only one possible valid interpretation: the creature that most recently damaged you. If you have not been damaged by a creature within 24 hours, there is no valid target.
What other possible meaning are you thinking of?
Since we're in the rules forum, there is no limit on how many characters may have a certain class or option in the rules of the game; you are allowed to have a large party consisting of nothing but 15 Draconic Bloodline Sorcerers if you wish.
Your GM may choose to impose any limits they wish or consider reasonable.
Since the orc and dragon bloodlines generally add damage to spells cast from other classes
Those are different, they say "whenever you cast a spell...", with no mention of class.
In this case, the ability applies only when casting spells using your Sorc or Bloosrager spell casting, not to other classes which happen to also have the spell on their list.
i think when you delay it should just be for that round and your initiative should return to normal afterwords
Then a player with high initiative could delay to the end of initiative order and act twice in a row, and we would have additional questions about the awkwardness of effects that span multiple turns, trigger on start of turn, etc.
It's simpler to have a delaying character act on the new initiative from then onwards. :)
PRD Create Demiplane.