see's page

This is victory.

Seriously, in theory they might, in ten years, try to kill the OGL 1.0a again. But what would be the point?

The 5th edition SRD is now irrevocably available under CC BY 4. This means killing the OGL 1.0a will not allow them to protect the brand from people making compatible-with-5e product or advertising it as compatible with D&D. (They politely ASK that people not make compatibility claims, but CC BY 4 doesn't let them enforce it).

Heck, now whatever is done under ORC can, if ORC is properly drafted, directly incorporate everything that's in the SRD5.

All killing the OGL 1.0a from now on would do is get them the same bad publicity they just got, with far less upside. And they backed down this time in less than a month of publicity.

Victory is ours.

Note that the new license doesn't say anything about Open Game Content. So, if they actually can and do de-authorize the OGL 1.0a for WotC SRDs, all Open Game Content derived from any WotC SRD would be off-limits for new products.

You want to release a supplement for OSRIC or Pathfinder or Starfinder? Well, you can't just use the OGL 1.0a since it's deauthorized. And you can't just use the "OGL 1.2" because it has no provisions for use of Open Game Content. Hire a contract lawyer to navigate the provisions of the licenses and a copyright lawyer to navigate "derivative work" law, because all the safe harbors are closed to you.

Even if they walked back all the way and said they considered OGL 1.0a holy writ until the end of time, how could anyone trust their word on that after all they tried to do?

Their word, no.

A slight revision to the OGL (an OGL 1.0b) that adds legally-binding text that declares that authorization is irrevocable, the license offer is irrevocable, the rights granted are irrevocable, and the license can only be terminated for breach, followed by releasing the SRD (3rd), MSRD (d20 Modern), RSRD (3.5), and SRD5 (5th) under this slight revision?

Well, then I don't have to trust their word.

"Walking things back" is accordingly something that requires action.

I mean, I don't know what the experience of the rest of you was, but when I submitted stuff for publication to game companies back in the 1990s, both TSR (in a submission to Dragon Magazine) and Steve Jackson Games (a book proposal) required me to include a disclosure form that included rather similar "we can publish this without paying you" clauses. I think the stuff I actually got published later, submitted in open calls to White Wolf's Swords & Sorcery Studios, had a similar term governing submissions, but my memory is fuzzier.

That wasn't because TSR, Steve Jackson Games, or White Wolf was interested in stealing stuff that was sent to them; that was because they didn't want to have to deal with lawsuits over independent inventions of things they were already planning to publish, or might publish five years later, or whatever.

Indeed, the editor of Dragon, in issue #170 (June 1991), mentioned a case where

We once received module proposals from two authors (one in Texas and one in England) who each wanted to create a dungeon in an iceberg populated by people called "bergmen" -- in each case led by humans named Ingemar and Ingrid. One thought we had stolen his idea and given it to the other author (which we hadn't), and in frustration we dropped the whole project.

And, well, let's consider that in the RPG Superstar contests, the initial magic items were posted here on these boards, and "Users posting messages to the site automatically grant Paizo Inc the royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, nonexclusive right and license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, sublicense, copy and distribute such messages throughout the world in any media."

Which means Paizo secured a right to take whatever magic items of those it liked, compile them, and sell them in a book, without paying a dime to the creators . . . not because they were planning to do that, but to avoid being liable to a lawsuit on the chance that something Paizo later published resembled something posted to these boards.

So, from my perspective, as someone who had submitted stuff to game companies for publication (two decades ago, really? Man, I feel old), that clause in the "OGL 1.1" didn't look like a big deal on its own. What made it sketchy wasn't language similar to that I'd seen many times before, but that it was part of a license that indicated a general breaking of faith with the 23-year community of OGL users.

Note that the EFF statement got updated today, with a suggestion that the OGL 1.0a is NOT revocable.

Not every British person has escaped from a PG Woodhouse novel "pip pip old chap" or from East London "right you are gov, we best get this sorted before it goes all pear shaped".

Of course not. Some British people are Scottish or Welsh. It's just all the English who speak those two ways. (Well, except in Cornwall, where the English pretend to be Welsh.)

Re: Spell-level slots

Just looking at the level of the spell slots and not comparing the spell lists doesn't always tell the entire story.

Of course not. The other half of the difficulty is the significant caster level sacrifice trouble. Buffing, party- or self-, doesn't work well when your caster levels are trailing CR by seven levels. Per-caster-level effects are seriously weakened and resistance to dispel is lousy. You can't CoDzilla with a bard/paladin/MT because your caster level isn't up to it.

There's not much new analysis needed; we've had the mystic theurge to kick around for ten years. The basic lesson of MT analysis is that caster level and high-level slots are persistently better than "versatile" low-level slots with lower caster level. Any MT build is automatically a worse spellcaster than a pure build of the better of its two caster classes. What keeps the MT out of the "never" bin is that full-progression spellcasting is good enough at high levels that you can still have a viable MT character built around a full-progression class.

So, MT-centered paladin, ranger, and inquisitor combinations with 3/4 BAB arcane classes are consistently, persistently inferior to the 3/4 BAB arcane classes alone, which have better spellcasting before you go into the better class features and equal or better BAB.

MT-centered paladin and ranger combinations with full arcane casters could be viable since they're built on the base of a full-progression caster, but they are completely crushed by deliberate Eldritch Knight/Arcane Archer types of builds. There just isn't enough paladin/ranger spell power to justify any significant degree of MT when you could take full-BAB levels that also level your arcane spellcasting. If you're replacing some pure wizard advancement with MT near the top end in a EK build, okay, but it's minor filler.

Any combinations of 3/4 BAB divine class and a full arcane caster winds up with lousy BAB and HP, because that's what arcane and MT classes bring to the table. They can be mighty casters, but they shouldn't use weapons against anything with a CR in the neighborhood of their level.

Full divine caster MT combinations with 3/4 BAB arcane classes can be viable, though they start behind the 3/4 BAB progression. Holy Vindicator can fill in to boost that BAB; that puts you further behind in cleric spellcasting, but cleric spellcasting is good enough the result might come ahead of a 6-level caster anyway. If you want a "fighter/mage/cleric", a magus/cleric/holy vindicator/mystic theurge can scratch that itch and not be a total write-off. But it'll be a pain to build.

Well for one...they use those specially constructed Composite bows (or if they have at least an 18 Str, probably shell out 1000 gp for an Adaptive bow since it's cheaper at that point I think).

Actually, an adaptive bow is more expensive than standard composite Str-bonus-based out until you're Str 30 (+10 * 100 gp).

However, you still want it because it means you never get penalized for not having enough strength or get caught unable to use all your strength, no matter what powers and abilities are jerking your Str score up and down.

A scenario where, if Next "fails" (whatever that means), Hasbro licenses the D&D brand to Paizo for TRPG use, retaining the rest of the IP, is not particularly implausible, and would help Paizo (being the official D&D game is worth something, and might help them get into places where they currently aren't) in the short term. But Paizo would probably lose it at the end of the first license period when somebody at Hasbro decided to do a new initiative anyway.

Anything else, no, whether Paizo would or not, Hasbro wouldn't. D&D is a "household name", and that's worth a lot as potential future revenue. It can potentially power novels, movies, board games (Dungeon!), computer games, TV series, even kids' toys. Imagine D&D-branded "Holy Avenger", "Twinkle", "Icingdeath", and "Vorpal Blade" all hanging in a toy aisle next to the lightsabers and various toy guns. I assure you, Hasbro execs can.

I still have all my Scarred Lands stuff. Whenever I come across an evil god, I always mentally compare them to Vangal and Chardun.

Ooooh, Chardun.

Man, he captured my imagination. Which resulted in me doing the open call entries that became R&R2's Chardun's glory, Chardun's presence, Chardun's consecration, morningstar of the Black Thorns, sword of divine prowess, and warscepter of pain. (And a few other things not related to Chardun, but.) It was a real kick to see the Order of the Black Thorn become more than a name in the Guide to Rangers and Rouges.

Though the announcement talks about re-imagining the system, which may imply something rather more extensive than "Move it to Pathfinder, the latest incarnation of the original system."

Yes, it does stack; dragons explicitly have a sorcerer casting level.

Yes, it does count as a key class; the Bestiary says so.

On the one hand, I think the optimal number of "real" classes for a class-based RPG is between six and twelve, which gives a variety of options while not being too many for GMs and authors to "keep in RAM". Anything over two dozen is decidedly too far.

On the other hand, there are lots of AD&D "multiclass" options that the basic 3.x structure doesn't handle well. (Multiclass doesn't cause the same degree of problems as class proliferation because they have the same interactions with the system as the combined classes). Saying, "Well, prestige class" doesn't fix that at low levels where most play happens. Hybrid classes seem a good idea here.

On the gripping hand, the magus is our example implementation, and that doesn't so much effectively blend fighter and wizard as it creates something very distinctly new.

*(Come on, the metric system is all based on multiples of 10.

Well, yes, if you use the parochial, human-centered base ten number system instead of the far more fundamental and basic binary system seen in, for example, nearly ever computer ever made.

If you use the binary system, the only measurement units that even approaches easy usability are US units, which at least has a sensible system of fluid volume. In binary, 1 gallon = 100 quarts = 1,000 pints = 10,000 cups = 100,000 gills = 10,000,000 ounces = 100,000,000 tablespoons = 10,000,000,000 drams.

Well, my PC has permanent Arcane Sight, Darkvision, See Invisible, and Tongues, and is planning a personal demiplane . . .

Give the measurements in Kelvins and let everybody but the physicists convert!

I just reread the newer version of Drugs.

They are Alchemical.

That is some weird science.

So, magic Cocaine huh?

Poisons are pretty nuts, too. A fatal dose of hemlock being more expensive than masterwork full plate, for example.

In fact, in an early explanation of the planes by Gygax in Dragon, they were other spatial dimensions beyond the first three. Certain monsters could only be hurt by magic weapons because they extended into these other planes/spatial dimensions (one additional dimension per plus) while non-magic weapons just had three dimensions.

The problem here is the terminology is leftover from AD&D 2nd (itself an update of 1st edition rules), where there was a Chance to Learn Spell percentage check you could only make for a spell you found once a level, and an (optional in 2nd edition) limit on how many spells of a given level a wizard could ever know.

So, for example, your Int 15 wizard may have known four first-level spells, and found a looted a spellbook with ten new first-level spells in it. He'd have to first cast Read Magic to decipher the spellbook; then he'd make a percentile roll (65% in this case) to learn each spell and copy it into his spellbook, waiting until next level to recheck if he failed the roll. And under the optional rule he could only ever learn a total of seven of the ten anyway, since he was limited to 11 spells known of each level and already had 4.

Now, of course, you can freely copy any appropriate spell you find into your spellbook if you read magic it or pass the once-a-day spellcraft check. Treating "known" as "a spell you ever scribed in a spellbook of your own" works reasonably well as an interpretation.

A wizard casting simulacrum is a lot like a wizard making a magic item. Sometimes it's obvious and straightforward (making a simulacrum of a human with levels in only one class is easy, just like making a wand of magic missile), sometimes it isn't.

I have yet to find any circumstance where the Race Builder is any more use than eyeballing anyway.

There have been a number of ways to go about this and many arguments for both sides. My question is simple. Why not PrC to Eldritch Knight from a Magus (or one of its archetypes)?

Because you wind up a worse caster than the magus, worse for every level of EK you take. The first one costs you a casting progression level. Every additional level of EK costs you at least arcane pool progression, and usually useful additional magus class features. All for at best 2 BAB over straight magus.

Being able to make DC 70 checks (and I'm not sure how that's even possible, by the way)

Not too hard to arrange, actually, given high-enough level and a character that made significant investment in the skill. For example:

A halfling starts with +4 size bonus to Stealth. Starting 20 in Dex (18 +2 halfling dex mod), +5 level adv increases/+5 inherent bonus/+6 Dex boost belt, and the 36 means a +13 to the check, so +17. 20 ranks, +3 for class skill, +40. +6 from Skill Focus and ten ranks, +4 from Stealthy and ten ranks, and we're at +50. +15 competence bonus from leather greater shadow armor, +1 luck bonus from a stone of good luck, and he's rolling 1d20+66 on Stealth skill checks.

85% chance of making a DC 70 check (rolls of 1-3 fail), and we haven't left the Core Rulebook or used any spells.

Antipaladin wrote:

An antipaladin must be of chaotic evil alignment and loses all class features except proficiencies if he willingly and altruistically commits good acts. This does not mean that an antipaladin cannot take actions someone else might qualify as good, only that such actions must always be in service of his own dark ends. An antipaladin’s code requires that he place his own interests and desires above all else, as well as impose tyranny, take advantage whenever possible, and punish the good and just, provided such actions don’t interfere with his goals.

We can extrapolate from this that both 1) it is possible to have a restrictive code and still be considered Chaotic on the alignment scale, and 2) it is acceptable to "break" the code in extenuating circumstances so long as it furthers the overall goal of the character.

None of that get-out-of-jail language is in the paladin code, and it is completely wrong to read it into the paladin code in order to reach conclusion 2 there. Indeed, what that language actually shows is that your conclusion 1 is wrong; antipaladins, unlike paladins, do not have a strict code. They have a list of suggestions they may freely violate whenever it would suit the self-interest of the character.

A paladin who grossly violates his code or commits an evil act, whatever his ends, falls; that's what makes his code strict, and a character who adheres to it lawful. An antipaladin who ignores the various "rules" in his code, on the other hand, is fine as long as he can rationalize it as serving his ends (an example of the "freedom, adaptability, and flexibility" of chaos). Thus part of the "anti" of an antipaladin; he looks like he has a code, but doesn't.

A CG champion can have a list of non-binding suggestions he can violate to serve the greater good (like an antipaladin can violate to serve himself), sure, but cannot have a genuinely strict code. If he had one, adhering to it wouldn't be CG (and a CG god wouldn't expect him to adhere to it anyway). You can have a strict code of unbreakable rules written by someone else that you unfailingly obey or be of chaotic alignment, not both.

we get people who say things like: anyone who has a code of conduct is Lawful, they don't have to follow local laws, or even national laws, they just have to have their own beliefs

"Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties"; "Law implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include closed-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, self-righteousness, and a lack of adaptability."

It does not say anywhere in that explanation of what lawfulness is that they have to obey the local laws. The problem seems to be less any ambiguity in the definition, but rather that the definition does not match your notion of what "lawful" should mean.

Yes, the lawful do generally obey local laws, because that's respecting/obeying the local authority. But when there is a conflict between authorities (say, the rules of the paladin's god versus the laws proclaimed by the local baron), it is not a requirement of the lawful alignment to defer to the inferior authority's laws.

At my table when I institute the other paladins (and they WILL be called paladins), I will make sure that anyone who wants to play them reads up on their deity and said deity's tenets/codes.

If the CG code, for example, is fully as restrictive as the LG code, and a character follows it, that character will be behaving in a lawful manner, because he will be adhering to a restrictive code written by others rather than the dictates of his own conscience.

I mean, it's right there in the definition of the alignment: "A chaotic good character acts as his conscience directs him with little regard for what others expect of him." Behavior, not beliefs, make an alignment. If a character adheres to any deity-written paladin-of-freedom "code" instead of doing what he thinks best, he's not behaving in a chaotic good manner.

But if the character does what he thinks is best in a given situation even if it contradicts the "code", he'll be violating his code. Either way, "chaotic good character who strictly adheres to a god's code" is a self-contradicting impossibility.

Not that a CG god would approve of any character who inflexibly adheres to a CG code. "Chaos implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility." "He believes in goodness and right but has little use for laws and regulations."

You know what makes top tennis players (for example) so good? They take longer before they react to the stimulus of the ball. Now, after they react, they've got all their well-trained speed and strength and whatnot, and that goes faster than your average joe—but because they delay fractions of a second longer before acting, they've got more information to act on, and thus are less likely to do the wrong thing.

This sort of study where the stimulus was hitting a tennis ball in someone's direction would conclude that the best tennis players are more stupid, rather than more disciplined, than inferior players.

But, of course, g deniers have to come up with something as an alternative to g. If they admitted that g is intelligence, there would be all sorts of resulting conclusions that would be ideologically uncomfortable.

Paladins have a code of conduct they cannot deviate from. A character who does not break a code of conduct even if it seems to his best judgment that it's a really good idea to make an exception in a rare case is lawful.

Paladins are then good because the code of conduct they follow demands they "punish those who harm or threaten innocents" and avoid evil acts. Anyone who followed the paladin's code as closely as a paladin has to would, as a result of his consistent actions, be a lawful good character.

You could invent alternate "paladin" codes for LN or LE characters. Those would work well enough, though you'd have to modify the class abilities. To make a "paladin" of non-lawful alignment, you'd have to give them outs for the code of conduct wide enough they don't bind a character very much (such as the CE antipaladin's "provided such actions don't interfere with his goals" and "evil cares only about results").

On other class alignment restrictions, I'd lift them all, except on druids. Druids I'd just change. Druids should be putting "nature" first. To me that means they can't put the welfare of sapient creatures first, which means they cannot be good. Any other alignment could be justified, though.

If you want to do a generalized formula for the gems, you could theoretically do:

(Feat/10) * (2^LevelBonus)

500 × 2^0 = 500
500 × 2^1 = 1,000
500 × 2^2 = 2,000
500 × 2^3 = 4,000
500 × 2^4 = 8,000
500 × 2^5 = 16,000
...

Was beating my head around looking at various places where it's been tried, and I think I've found a working formula.

(MaxSpellLevel/9]^2) × 5000/(5/UsesPerDay) × (LevelGain × 2 - 1) × (49/6)

Let's try it out.

Minor rod, three times a day, that adds 0 level:

(3/9)^2 × 5000/(5/3) × (1×2 -1) × (49/6)
1/9 × 3000 × [0 replaced by 0.5] × (49/6)
1,361 (rounded up to 1,500)

Minor rod, three times a day, that adds 1 level:

(3/9)^2 × 5000/(5/3) × (1×2 -1) × (49/6)
1/9 × 3000 × 1 × (49/6)
2,722 (rounded up to 3,000)

Minor rod, three times a day, that adds 2 levels:

(3/9)^2 × 5000/(5/3) × (2×2 -1) × (49/6)
1/9 × 3000 × 3 × (49/6)
8,166 (rounded up to 9,000)

Minor rod, three times a day, that adds 3 levels:

(3/9)^2 × 5000/(5/3) × (3×2 -1) × (49/6)
1/9 × 3000 × 5 × (49/6)
13,611 (rounded up to 14,000)

Minor rod, three times a day, that adds 4 levels:
(3/9)^2 × 5000/(5/3) × (4×2 -1) × (49/6)
1/9 × 3000 × 7 × (49/6)
19,055 (way off)

Normal rod, three times a day, that adds 0 level:

(6/9)^2 × 5000/(5/3) × (1×2 -1) × (49/6)
4/9 × 3000 × [0 replaced by 0.5] × (49/6)
5,444.44 (rounded up to 5,500)

Normal rod, three times a day, that adds 1 level:

(6/9)^2 × 5000/(5/3) × (1×2 -1) × (49/6)
4/9 × 3000 × 1 × (49/6)
10,888.89 (rounded up to 11,000)

Normal rod, three times a day, that adds 2 levels:

(6/9)^2 × 5000/(5/3) × (2×2 -1) × (49/6)
4/9 × 3000 × 3 × (49/6)
32,666.67 (rounded down to 32,500)

Normal rod, three times a day, that adds 3 levels:

(6/9)^2 × 5000/(5/3) × (3×2 -1) × (49/6)
4/9 × 3000 × 5 × (49/6)
54,444.44 (rounded down to 54,000)

Normal rod, three times a day, that adds 4 levels:
(6/9)^2 × 5000/(5/3) × (4×2 -1) × (49/6)
4/9 × 3000 × 7 × (49/6)
76,222 (reduced to 75,500)

Greater rod, three times a day, that adds 0 level:

(9/9)^2 × 5000/(5/3) × (1×2 -1) × (49/6)
1 × 3000 × [0 replaced by 0.5] × (49/6)
12,250 (EXACT!)

Greater rod, three times a day, that adds 1 level:

(9/9)^2 × 5000/(5/3) × (1×2 -1) × (49/6)
1 × 3000 × 1 × (49/6)
24,500 (EXACT!)

Greater rod, three times a day, that adds 2 levels:

(9/9)^2 × 5000/(5/3) × (2×2 -1) × (49/6)
1 × 3000 × 3 × (49/6)
73,500 (rounded down to 73,000)

Greater rod, three times a day, that adds 3 levels:

(9/9)^2 × 5000/(5/3) × (3×2 -1) × (49/6)
1 × 3000 × 5 × (49/6)
122,500 (reduced to 121,500)

Greater rod, three times a day, that adds 4 levels:
(9/9)^2 × 5000/(5/3) × (4×2 -1) × (49/6)
1 × 3000 × 7 × (49/6)
171,500 (reduced to 170,000 even)

Now, I have no idea at all where that (49/6) factor comes from in the pricing (thanks to xaeyruudh on the Candlekeep forums for pointing it out this February), but given that weird bit, and acknowledging a fudge factor for round-ish numbers, the formula works pretty closely for everything except the lesser quicken rod. Just assume that was a playtest adjustment, and you have a formula.

In Kobold Quarterly #14, Skip Williams (3.0 core developer, long-time Sage Advice columnist) in the "Ask A Kobold" column said that the spiritual weapon keeps attacking the square the invisible creature was in and has the normal 50% miss chance if the creature is in the square. You can actively direct it to another square if you think the enemy left the square.

- - - - -

As far as: "The weapon always strikes from your direction."

This is a leftover artifact from the wording of the spell spiritual hammer in previous editions, when facing was part of combat:

AD&D 1st Edition PHB, spiritual hammer: "Note: If the cleric is behind an opponent, the force can strike from this position, thus gaining all bonuses for such an attack and negating defensive protections such as shield and dexterity."

AD&D 2nd Edition PHB, spiritual hammer: "The hammer strikes in the same direction as the caster is facing, so if he is behind the target, all bonuses for rear attack are gained along with the loss of any modifications to the target’s AC for shield and Dexterity."

This was carried forward into later editions as:

D&D 3rd edition PHB, spiritual weapon: "The weapon always strikes from the character's direction."
D&D 3.5 edition PHB, spiritual weapon: "The weapon always strikes from your direction."

The way to handle this in facing-free 3.x is to usually ignore it, unless there's some specific battlefield circumstance.

- - - - -

Similarly to the facing issue, I'd say the lack of commentary in the spell as to how to handle ranged weapons is that, when re-designating it from always-a-hammer to the favored weapon of your deity, nobody actually thought about the effect of deities with ranged weapons as favored weapons. Instead, it was supposed to merely be a cosmetic change from a warhammer (note that in 3rd it always had the same crit range/multiplier whatever the form, bolstering the "100% cosmetic" intention).

3.5 started to take the weapon's appearance as a more-than-cosmetic thing, but again nobody thought about ranged weapons; even though form is not entirely cosmetic anymore, it's still supposed to work like a spiritual warhammer where not otherwise specified.

- - - - -

To summarize: This game wasn't really "designed". It was accreted, revised, accreted, and revised again, by lots of people over four decades, working on publishing schedules. There are accordingly rough patches in the rules. When you hit 'em, just do your best. Lots of people are willing to give you advice, but there's not always actually an unambiguously right answer.

We live in a world where duelist exists as a prestige class, so we should design to consider duelist and accommodate for it, especially since it would be a solid option for swashbucklers.

Mmm. We live in a world where the Eldritch Knight is a prestige class, but it isn't a solid option for a magus.

Basically, for mages you concentrate on all the other AC boosting stuff, right up until you get to Dex booster +6. THEN, you start upgrading from Mage Armor to Bracers of Armor. That first one is going to cost you 25k gp...there's no bigger cost for +1 AC for any mage. Then run it up to +8 and you're done.

Let's be clear that a Bracers of Armor+X is not an efficient use of gold if you can have a Haramaki+(X-1).

Bracers of Armor +5, +5 armor bonus to AC : 25,000 gp
Haramaki +4, +5 armor bonus to AC : 16,153 gp

Bracers of Armor +6, +6 armor bonus to AC : 36,000 gp
Haramaki +5, +6 armor bonus to AC : 25,153 gp

Daethor wrote:

1) To your knowledge, does a feat already exist that makes flanking easier (e.g. allies only have to be adjacent to the enemy, not on opposite borders/corners)? If so, where?

1) I bet so... but I can't think of one. There's probably a teamwork feat that does it. There's also a 0 level spell called unwilling ally in the APG that can help.

As mentioned upthread, Gang Up, from the APG.

Daethor wrote:

2) To your knowledge, does a feat already exist that increases the bonus to attacks from flanking? If so, where?

2) Same. Not sure. I actually don't have a huge knowledge of the thousands and thousands of feats we've published.

The teamwork feat Outflank, also from the APG.

At low levels keeping mage armor on all the time would mean spending most of your spells on it. A 3 gp haramaki is hardly a major expense for a bit of extra always-on-even-when-you're-surprised AC.

At higher levels, yeah, it's not there for the AC. Instead, it's a slot to hold various armor special abilities, including the ones that can't be put on bracers of armor or an amulet of natural armor. Like determination.

If they're allowed in the campaign by your GM, consider the advantage of a haramaki. +1 AC, no penalties (even if non-proficient), no ASF, and as actual armor can later get the sort of armor enhancements that aren't bonus-equivalents.

Formians? As in originally from the Clockwork Nirvana of Mechanus?

No, as in originally just another inhabitant of the material plane (AD&D Monster Manual II, 1983), and then from Arcadia (Planes of Law boxed set, 1995). They were only moved to Mechanus in 3e (2000).

F. Wesley Schneider wrote:

Mead Gregorisson wrote:

1. Will there be race creation costs for the abilities of the new pc races?

2. Will we be able to redeem Cthulhu from the dark side?

3. Will there be mythic muskrats?

A definite maybe to all three.

NO to 2! Cthulhu's too bad to be good!

Anyone can be redeemed. It just takes four little words—

helm of opposite alignment.

Sure, Cthulhu probably has a Will save high enough he only fails on a 1, but that's still a 5% chance.

see wrote:

DM_Blake wrote:

Pathfinder skills don't work like that. The system is too simplified and abstract for real-world logic to apply. What we have to do is simply follow the abstract rules:

If you want to make something, use Craft.
If you want to know something, use Knowledge.
If you want to earn a consistent living, use Profession.

No, you are oversimplifying and abstracting things despite explicit contradictory RAW. The rules explicitly state someone with Profession can answer questions about the profession; that is, know something. Your approach might make a good house-rule, but it's not how skills actually work in Pathfinder.

Yes, yes, you're quite right.

Thank you.

So, a naturalist might know how to farm, how to harvest, how to milk a cow, how to catch a beaver or a rabbit, how to collect healthy berries and avoid poisonous ones, how to market his food and furs, how to supervise his employees, and how to deal with problems like bad crops, pests, infertile fields, maybe even how to birth a calf.

Right, exactly. Which is to say, your earlier three-sentence bit was an oversimplification. After all, the naturalist can't avoid poisonous berries unless he can tell which ones are poisonous. If you need to know, "Hey, are these berries poisonous?" ranks in the appropriate Profession will give you an answer.

So I stand by what I said,

You mean the oversimplification which was directly contradicted by what you just said?

As to the reason your oversimplification was a problem (as opposed to your properly nuanced response), it leads to people posting things like this:

When your character IS adventuring, and he and his party come to a wide chasm underground, and he needs to build or repair an old bridge that is spanning a chasm, or needs to determine if the bridge is still safe, he rolls his Knowledge (Engineering) skill to see if he can make good with his skill. He very much is concerned with a specific object or area in this case.

"So, is this bridge safe?"

"Don't ask me, I just build and repair bridges for a living. Can't tell a thing by looking at this one in particular."

Pathfinder skills don't work like that. The system is too simplified and abstract for real-world logic to apply. What we have to do is simply follow the abstract rules:

If you want to make something, use Craft.
If you want to know something, use Knowledge.
If you want to earn a consistent living, use Profession.

No, you are oversimplifying and abstracting things despite explicit contradictory RAW. The rules explicitly state someone with Profession can answer questions about the profession; that is, know something. Your approach might make a good house-rule, but it's not how skills actually work in Pathfinder.

Well, let's see:

Knowledge: "Answering a question within your field of study has a DC of 10 (for really easy questions), 15 (for basic questions), or 20 to 30 (for really tough questions)."

Profession: "You can also answer questions about your Profession. Basic questions are DC 10, while more complex questions are DC 15 or higher."

So, by pure RAW, the Profession should have a DC of about 5 lower (basic questions 10 versus 15), right?

The real difference to my view is that with Profession: Engineering, you're answering questions about how to do engineering. Let's look at the Knowledge Engineering example checks:

1) Identify dangerous construction: DC 10
2) Determine a structure's style or age: DC 15
3) Determine a structure's weakness: DC 20

The first there is definitely a "do" question, and it's definitely basic; you're not much of a practical engineer if you can't tell what's a bridge at risk of collapse. The third, similarly; it's arguably only a DC 15 Profession check to figure out what the weakness of the bridge is.

But the second? You don't need to know who made the bridge or when to do bridge engineering. The fact that it's "obviously" a duergar-made bridge while the older neighboring construction is all svirfneblin work isn't something you need to know to build, maintain, or destroy it. The Profession-only character is going to miss the hint that there are a bunch of invisible poison-wielding sadistic bastards in the cave ahead.

I'm no poker expert, but I think your hand is the one you can effect.

Only in draw poker. In straight, stud, or flop poker, you can't change your cards.

Augment Summoning is not merely an incredibly useful feat for anyone who does summoning, it's the prereq for Superior Summoning, which is similarly of great use.

I wonder what people think equipment list items like caltrops are there for. I mean, now we've even got stuff like tanglefoot bags and shard gel . . .

Yes, it's hard to run away if you have made no preparations (in chargen, equipment, spell selection, et cetera), and you don't do it before battle has been joined based on a scout report, and nobody's willing to stay behind to cover the retreat.

There will likely be people looking to dig up all those abilities to get as many attacks as possible right now

Everybody was Kung Fu Fighting . . .

A Dhampir isn't immune to level drain (it can still kill 'em), but they don't take penalties for negative levels either.

Deathless is a +1 armor enhancement that gives 25% resistance to level drain.

The black soul shard negates one level drain a week; the scarab of protection can absorb 12 drains.

I'd have played them.

Right now, we don't have any dragons that make sense for a from-first-level mount for a cavalier archetype.

Also, we don't have any dragons that explain how you can get dragonhide medium full plate for a mere +1,650 gp premium (the only Colossal dragons in the whole game are linnorms and great wyrms, and the rarity of such suits alone should drive a premium higher than making full plate out of mere gold at +13,500 gp).

A single relatively weak monster of the dragon type (say, with a modified progression starting as a Large "wyrmling" about as strong as a horse and peaking in power as a Colossal "young adult") could both enable a dragonrider archetype and explain dragonhide armor.

It's been argued both ways and there is no official FAQ answering it. Some people say making the ability swappable is itself a change to an ability by the archetype, and thus Qinggong is incompatible with pretty much every monk archetype. Others say Qinggong doesn't change an ability unless you choose to swap it. Ask your GM, or decide for yourself if you are the GM.

Okay, first thing is, stuff isn't going to add up perfectly. The abstractions used in the crafting system don't line up very well with actual costs of inputs and whatnot.

Second, though, the major expense in medieval blacksmithing (especially of good steel) was the large quantities of fuel required. Access to a forest you basically own means you have gone a long way to covering that cost (in the short term, at least). However, you're going to need people who know how to burn wood into charcoal (colliers) and, presumably, pay them. (In addition to the people to cut the wood and drag it to the collier, etc., but you apparently have already been repairing walls so you have some idea what that'll cost you.)