Medium dragonhide full plate costs 3,300 gp (twice the masterwork full plate cost of 1,650 gp).
Medium dragonhide full plate can only be made from a Colossal dragon, since the dead dragon has to be four size categories larger than the armor in the case of full plate.
The only colossal dragons in the three Bestiaries are:
The great wyrms of true dragons that have a base size of small,
All these are far too powerful, dangerous, and rare creatures for their scales to command a premium of a mere 1,650 gp over ordinary steel. So, what is the dragon that is weak enough, while being large enough, to provide the scales for the armor that, by the rules, is in fact available?
Okay, the cleric's Channel Energy ability says:
A good cleric (or one who worships a good deity) channels positive energy and can choose to deal damage to undead creatures or to heal living creatures. An evil cleric (or one who worships an evil deity) channels negative energy and can choose to deal damage to living creatures or to heal undead creatures. A neutral cleric who worships a neutral deity (or one who is not devoted to a particular deity) must choose whether she channels positive or negative energy. Once this choice is made, it cannot be reversed. This decision also determines whether the cleric casts spontaneous cure or inflict spells (see spontaneous casting).
I believe, fairly obviously in context, "neutral" here means "neither good nor evil", which is the more-precise wording used in the Spontaneous Casting text. Which is to say, it means N, LN, or CN clerics of N, LN, or CN deities.
However, we then go to the Versatile Channeler feat, which says:
This feat only applies to necromancers, neutral clerics who worship neutral deities, or neutral clerics who do not worship a deity—characters who have the channel energy class ability and have to make a choice to channel positive or negative energy at 1st level. Clerics whose alignment or deity makes this choice for them cannot select this feat.
It seems logical to me it should be using the same interpretation of "neutral" as used above for the Channel Energy ability, since the feat specifically references "characters who have the channel energy class ability and have to make a choice to channel positive or negative energy at 1st level." But, the text more literally means an N cleric of an N deity, and that is the interpretation offered recently by James Jacobs.
So, I guess I'm asking for an official FAQ or errata or other clarification on the following two points:
1) In the cleric's Channel Energy ability, does the choice of energy to channel apply to a "cleric who is neither good nor evil and whose deity is neither good nor evil", or to a "true neutral cleric who worships a true neutral deity"? (And if the latter, what sort of energy does an LN or CN cleric use?)
2) In the Versatile Channeler feat, is it intended that the feat be available to "clerics who are neither good nor evil and whose deity is neither good nor evil", or to be only available to "true neutral clerics who worship true neutral deities"?
1) The Onyx Path is the new game company that will own or license most of White Wolf/CCP's RPGs. They will also make their own original games, and will not confine themselves to Storyteller/Storytelling.
2) The status of the Scarred Lands is "in negotiation", accordingly to the seminar.
My guess, is that the reason the Scarred Lands are in negotiation has to do with rights issues — Clark Peterson has copyright on the Creature Collection, and there was a 4th Edition license of the Creature Collection, either or both of which might complicate the matter.
The speculative possibility:
Scarred Lands updated and published for Pathfinder. Monsters, spells, magic items, ritual magic, the game world . . . hey, what would you most like to see published for Pathfinder?
I'm just wondering if there's any interest in arranging/defining the magus's abilities so that you have two sensible choices after 7th/8th level -- one where a character continues on as a magus, and one where he swaps into the EK to emphasize melee combat.
Looking at the current class, I would make Medium Armor and Heavy Armor into arcanas, make Arcane Weapon dependent on the magus's caster level (as opposed to magus level), move Fighter Training down to 7th level, and install cool new, magic-oriented class features at levels 10 and 14.
The guy taking the EK/melee path would grab the medium armor at 3rd, the heavy armor at 6th, hang in Magus past 7 to get Improved Spell Combat at 8th, then swap to EK for the better BAB, secure that EK levels 2-10 will improve his Arcane Weapon. He'd lose a casting level and class features, but be able to out-fighter the pure magus.
Do you track the enhancement bonuses as-a-shield and as-a-weapon together or separately for purposes of maximum bonus acheivable?
That is, given a shield that's, say, +5 and blinding (+6 combined), can you then also make it a +4 disruption (+6 combined) weapon? Or can both "halves" combined only reach +10?
By level 17, tongues, speak with animals and speak with plants spells or items are rather trivial relative to party resources. While there are specialized circumstances (talking to oozes, say, or talking to animals inside anti-magic shells) where it's of use, it really is pretty minor.
So, I've been looking back at historical versions of the monk. The Supplement II Blackmoor monk was able to speak with animals at level 4 and with plants at 8. The AD&D monk had the same abilities at levels 3 and 8, respectively. The D&D mystic got speak with animals at level 6 and speak with anyone who had a language at level 10.
3rd level: Tongue of the Beast and Bird. A monk of 8th level or higher can speak with animals.
8th level: Tongue of the Forest and Glen. A monk of 8th level or higher can speak with plants.
13th level: Tongue of the Sun and Moon. A monk of 13th level or higher can speak with any living creature.
17th level: Tongue of the Earth and Flame. A monk of 17th level
A wish costs 25,000 gp per +1 inherent bonus to an ability score, and drops another ability score by a full point in exchange. A manual or tome at retail costs 27,500 gp per +1 inherent bonus to an ability score, and there is no corresponding drawback. The manual/tome, accordingly, is unquestionably superior to the spell for characters looking to improve an ability score . . . a mere 10% increase in cost in exchange for a total avoidance of negative consequences.
Is this a deliberate thematic choice? A bit of subtle game-balance I'm missing? If neither, a revision should bring them into closer accord.
My suggestion would be to get rid of the ability-score-drop aspect for wishes, and then drop the maximum inherent bonus from wishes from +5 to, say, +2. Then drop manuals and tomes of less than +3 bonus from the game. Wishes then can be used to give yourself a mild boost, while you have to find or make a tome/manual to get a really big boost.
The Pathfinder Chronicles Gazetteer, on page 13, establishes that they are paladins with no patron deity (such paladins being more common than paladins of Abadar, Irori, or Shelyn). And, of course, in straight D&D 3.5, paladins similarly need no patron god.
On the other hand, Divine Bond is specifically described as "divine bond with her god" on p.20 of Alpha 2, and Holy Champion (p.22) says that the paladin is "a conduit for the power of her god."
I'd suggest the name of the bond be changed to "Celestial Bond", it be described as a "bond with celestial powers", and the other be described as "a conduit for celestial power." This way, it works for both paladins devoted to gods and, in the words of the Gazetteer, "those who hold no single deity above others along the path of the righteous."