shadowkras's page

Organized Play Member. 1,060 posts. No reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist. 1 Organized Play character.


1 to 50 of 1,060 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Oprak, while a new name, is (Ironfang Invasion spoilers ahead):

Located exactly on the conflict zone of Ironfang invasion, and assuming the PCs made a peaceful deal with their leader, they retreat to their citadel and a new safe zone for goblinoids can be found there.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

So, Vidrian? That's new.

I was searching and couldn't find it. Was this ruling ever added to any Faq or reprinted with this errata applied to it?

Its from Planes of Power (page 9):


Some wizards choose to master one of the elemental
forces rather than one of the classic schools of magic
(Pathfinder RPG Advanced Player’s Guide 142, Pathfinder
RPG Ultimate Magic 87). The following list presents
a number of spells introduced since those books
were published that also belong to these respective
elemental schools.

Any: 3rd—communal resist energyUC. 4th—communal
protection from energyUC.

Air: 1st—air bubbleUC, gentle breezeACG, windy
; 2nd—aggressive thundercloudACG, gusting
sphereARG; 3rd—air geyserACG, hostile levitationUC;
4th—absorbing inhalationARG, cloud shapeARG, greater
aggressive thundercloudACG, miasmatic formARG; 5th—
fickle windsUM, lightning arcUM, wind bladesARG; 6th—
path of the windsARG; 7th—scouring windsUM; 9th—ride
the lightningUM.

Earth: 1st—corrosive touchUM, mudballARG, stone
shieldARG, thunderstompACG; 2nd—molten orbACG, stone
discusACG; 3rd—burrowUM, greater thunderstompACG, heart
of the metalACG, raging rubbleARG; 4th—earth glideARG,
obsidian flowUC, vitriolic mistUM; 5th—acidic sprayUM,
communal stoneskinUC, corrosive consumptionUM; 6th—
tar poolUC; 7th—caustic eruptionUM.

Fire: 1st—touch of combustionARG; 2nd—fiery shurikenUC,
molten orbACG; 3rd—ash stormUM, fire streamARG, fire trailARG,
flash fireUC; 4th—controlled fireballUI, greater flaming
sphereACG, obsidian flowUC, scorching ash formARG, volcanic
stormUM; 5th—damnation strideARG; 6th—chains of fireARG,
tar poolUC.

Metal: 1st—body capacitanceACG, mirror polishACG,
reinforce armamentsUC, shock shieldUC; 2nd—aggressive
thundercloudACG, bullet shieldUC, bullet wardACG, warding
weaponUC; 3rd—pellet blastUC, silver dartsACG; 4th—
greater aggressive thundercloudACG, named bulletUC; 5th—
wreath of bladesUC; 6th—greater named bulletUC; 7th—
arcane cannonUC, awaken constructOA.

Water: 1st—damp powderUC, icicle daggerUM, marid’s
masteryARG, wave shieldACG; 2nd—frigid touchUM, frost
fallUC, river whipACG, unshakable chillUM; 4th—ride the
wavesUM; 5th—icy prisonUM; 6th—cold ice strikeUM,
ice crystal teleportUM; 7th—ice bodyUM; 9th—mass
icy prisonUM.

Wood: 1st—cultural adaptationUI, handy grapnelUI,
illusion of calmUC, liberating commandUC, quintessenceOA;
2nd—companion life linkACG, extreme flexibilityACG, life
pactACG, squeezeARG; 3rd—air geyserACG, anchored stepACG,
pack empathyUI; 4th—lesser age resistanceUM; 5th—mass
charm personUI, plant shape I; 6th—age resistanceUM,
plant shape II, serenityUM; 7th—greater age resistanceUM,
plant shape III; 9th—wooden phalanxUM.

Well, I sure hope this could get clarified before a second edition of the game comes up. It has over 100 faq requests already.

This answer on stackexchange seems to be claiming that you may prepare spells, using the extra preparation sessions during the day, to prepare spells on slots that were unusable due to the Recent Casting Limit, which says:


If a wizard has cast spells recently, the drain on his resources reduces his capacity to prepare new spells. When he prepares spells for the coming day, all the spells he has cast within the last 8 hours count against his daily limit.

As with arcane spells, at the time of preparation any spells cast within the previous 8 hours count against the number of spells that can be prepared.

In other words, in rest for 4 hours, then you cast a spell at T, rest again until T+4 (so 8 hours have passed), but since you are still under the recent casting limit, one of your spells cannot be prepared. Then you rest again until T+8, sit down for 15 minutes and prepare a spell on that slot.

Is this correct? Is there any official source to back this up?

2 people marked this as a favorite.

My two cents about the dedication feats:

A lot of them will be very boring in certain combinations, like fighter+barbarian, since you wont be getting any proficiencies, which are half of what is granted by the feat. So why not grant something else instead? Such as when you grant proficiency in a skill you are already trained?

Im also not hyped over the idea of using the other class's main feature once per day. Once per day mechanics are boring and easily forgettable, the game shouldn't use them at all!

Id look into something similar to using Spell Points to activate those class abilities (such as raging, bard's song, attack of opportunity, etc). I also would be fine with having a shorter duration or some kind of short cooldown on those abilities (10 minutes? sounds fair to me). But I don't see myself picking, or even recommending, multi-class feats to anyone as they are now for anything other than flavor purposes.

On dedication feats that grant spells, it really seems unfair that most of them will only grant you cantrips for a feat. When people think about dipping into a caster for tools, they are aiming at some kind of first level spell that will fit into their character concepts, and cantrips rarely will be their focus. I would change that to grant a single first level spell as well.

The 1e spell Emergency Force Sphere is the cause of a FAQ entry about "centered on you" and large creatures, that say:


Big creatures and centered effects: If a Large or larger creature has up an effect “centered on you,” does that mean that sometimes the emanation doesn’t even affect the creature’s entire space, let alone anything else?

No, when such a creature uses an emanation or burst with the text “centered on you,” treat the creature’s entire space as the spell’s point of origin, and measure the spell’s area or effect from the edges of the creature’s space. For instance, an antimagic field cast by a great wyrm red dragon would extend 10 feet beyond her 30x30 foot space, for a total of a 50 foot diameter.

And later, a response from Mark Seifter about it (here), saying:


5 ft emanations for Medium creatures are absolutely supposed to apply to only those other 3 squares, for certain (I can assure you because I know what the discussion entailed, so I know it was a wording snafu, just like the spurious "Answer:"). Spells like emergency force sphere are already strong enough.

This causes issues when the spell actually protects not only the caster (as suggested by the effect text), but also 3 additional squares and whoever is inside that area. It doesn't protect the caster against the attacks of tiny or smaller creatures, nor from the harm of anything else that shares that same area with him.

The lack of a proper definition of how a "centered on you" effect works (do we pick one of our grid intersections? or do we consider the entire square as the center?) causes those exceptions to rise up, which will pile exception upon exception later on.

But that's fine, old edition problems should be fixed in the new edition, right? Well, when discussing that problem in another site, I curiously went to check how that changed in second edition and looked up "centered on", and to my surprise, the wording is even vaguer (and inconstant) than on the first edition.

We have:


Smoke Bomb (p.48)
You choose which corner of target’s space (or the space in which the bomb lands) the cloud is centered on.

Impossible Volley (p.95)
all enemies within a 10-foot-radius burst; this burst must be centered at or beyond your weapon’s volley range.

Angelic Halo (p.204)
The effect of the spell increases to that of a circle of protection against evil, centered on you for 1 minute.

Circle of Protection (p.210)
Area 10-foot-aura centered on the touched creature

Dread Aura (p.219)
Area 30-foot-radius aura centered on you

Globe of Invulnerability (p.227)
Area 10-foot burst centered on one corner of your space

Glyph of Warding (p.227)
If the spell has an area, that area is centered on the creature that set off the glyph.

Moonlight Glow (p.240)
60-foot burst centered on you

Prismatic Sphere (p.247)
shaped in a 10-foot burst centered on a corner within your space.

Protective Ward (p.248)
10-foot-radius burst centered on you

Sanctified Ground (p.253)
30-foot burst centered on you

Weakening Ground (p. 271)
30-foot burst centered on you

Control Weather (p.277)
2-mile-radius circle centered on you

Smokestick (p.369)
in a 5-foot-radius burst centered on one corner of your space

Dust of Appearance (p.388)
all creatures in a 10-foot burst centered on the corner of any space within 5 feet of you.

Skyhammer (p.407)
centered on the sky hammer

I highlighted Glove of Invulnerability because this seems to be the first time we have been clarified and told to pick a corner, which is pretty good. But the spell suffers from the same problem fixed on the FAQ, meaning we will need another FAQ about this for 2e.

And we also have effects that are centered on the target of an attack (like the Skyhammer), but are grid intersections picked for those effects? I believe this should be clarified.

I mean, I know Im focusing too much on the 1st edition, but I see nothing that actually prevents those discussions on this problem from rising up again for 2nd edition. So, if possible could we see a proper definition of what "centered on" means (when not talking about a grid intersection, of course) and avoid another legacy issue?

Hey, mister Seifter. I know Im beating on a dead horse, but this dead horse refuses to stay dead.

You said a while ago that:

5 ft emanations for Medium creatures are absolutely supposed to apply to only those other 3 squares, for certain (I can assure you because I know what the discussion entailed, so I know it was a wording snafu, just like the spurious "Answer:"). Spells like emergency force sphere are already strong enough.

But if you check this link, here we are discussing effects "centered on you", and I couldn't help but notice that this problem is still present in 2nd edition of Pathfinder, as pointed by my comment:

Curiously, I went to check how 2e handled this. And surprisingly, we have some effects that say "Area 10-foot burst centered on one corner of your space", but many others still have the same wording as EFS, and worse, we now have effects saying "centered on your weapon's range" and "centered on the touched creature" (wait, what?).

Has the developer team discussed this in any way. Do you have any idea on how we should fix their wording so these spells doesn't sound broken in our games?

Hey, Diego, sorry for the late reply.
The packages are labeled correctly (personally), but the problem, I believe to be, is that the text is small and difficult to find considering the overall size of the font and the amount of stuff written on the package.

If you wind up with burn for any reason, you get elemental overflow (feel the burn) bonuses. However, more or less everything else in the class that asks you to accept burn is in the form of "accept burn to get benefit X from me." So if you accept burn for your fire skin, you get more fire skin (and having it also triggers elemental overflow), and if you accept burn for a giant blast you get a giant blast (and also elemental overflow). You are correct that defraying burn does not count as accepting it.

Considering the number of times I see this question pop up, I would say its worth of a FAQ entry.

Iv been wondering about this question recently too. There is no blanked ruling that applies to gaining immunities temporarily. Each ability describes what happens (or doesn't) when you gain that immunity.

Hey, Katina. Sorry to bother you again.

I couldn't help to notice that I was charged the shipping cost again (for about 8 usd).

This caused me a small issue with the total order going over 50 usd (which im trying to avoid due to taxing issues in my country), so if possible add a note on my profile to not ship replacements in the same package if it already contains two other books (which happens bimonthly).

To give you a little background insight: Its not unheard of that international shipments are bound to have issues, but here in Brazil we have a legalized cartel that will incorrectly tax packages that shouldn't be, namely our standard shipping company, Correios, and the company responsible for reviewing imports and exports, Receita Federal.
Two years ago I had to cancel my paizo subscription because of this, every other month I had to petition for my packages to be revised, as books should not be taxed in my country (as per our Constitution), which delayed the packages by up to three months and caused me headaches by printing receipts, sending e-mails back and forth with people who does not know what "books" or "a federal constitution" means. Long story short, Im only subscribing as long as I no longer have those issues, so I try to keep my packages as low as possible and buy the remaining pathfinder books off other sellers. Amazon will send me books by DHL for instance, which avoids all this headache, but I lose the pdf's (can't win everytime).

Im not blaming you guys for anything, but next time, if possible, try to send replacements when the package will only contain my adventure path subscription so it doesn't get too costly. I will try to remember this and mention again when I request a replacement too.

Thanks in advance.

Found this again by accident while looking for something else. So an update, my 9th order taxed. :)

Hey, my Order #4557741 is missing, I never received the package.

Pathfinder Adventure Path #124: City in the Deep (Ruins of Azlant 4 of 6)

If you are building your way from a hex with river towards Oleg's, then you probably already have the requirements to build farms there:


Farm cost represents the BP cost to cultivate a hex for farming. a Farm must be within or adjacent to a hex containing a river, lake, swamp, or Canal, or adjacent to at least 2 hexes that already contain Farms.

Oleg's is about 5 hexes away from the bandit fort, you need 2-3 hexes with farms along the way so you can build farms on Oleg's.

Actually, if you own the rickety bridge's hex, you can build a farm on the gold mine's hex and make your way with a farm in every hex until Oleg's. The gold mine hex is fine because it's 1 hex away from a hex with a river (rickety bridge's hex).

This means you need the following hexes with farms when noted:

Stag Lord Fort
River Crossing
Rickety's Bridge
Gold Mine (farm)
Forgotten Cache (farm)
Spider Nest (farm)
Bokken's Hut (farm)
Oleg's Trading Post

There are similar paths that require one less hex, but its really all too similar. But I would rather get that gold mine as soon as possible for that extra +1 BP per turn.

6) He's also not a Core Race. That's right, the character on page 123 of Pathfinder RPG Advanced Player's Guide is actually an aasimar. That's why his eyes are totally white and glowing, and why he has blue hair poking out from behind his ears. He's descended from a planetar angel, and instead of inheriting blue skin, it went to his hair. Weird, right? So to everyone claiming an Iconic has to be a member of a Core Race, I'm sorry, but he's disqualified by your own rules. If he'd come out after we decided that Iconics could be from other 0-HD races he might have had a chance, but he was just before his time.

And...NOW he has a backstory. Thank you.

What's his name, Mr. Moreland? (please?)

1 person marked this as a favorite.

That also makes sense. I simply assume they still take up some space within the settlement and for simplicity's sake, ask them to place their fort within the district limits.

If they become a barracks and stables, they should take district slots.

Note that each Fort also increases Consumption by 1 BP. But when they become a barracks+stable, that Consumption increase is gone. That means your defensive structure is no longer so useful, and thus you need fewer people guarding it.

Think about a walled structure with watch positions on all four directions on a high ground. Now suddenly you have hundreds of people living around that, blocking line of sight and causing noise or asking guards for directions or to solve their problems. That defensive position is still useful, but not as efficient anymore.

A fort improvement is meant to be an isolated building from your settlements, something that works as a barracks in the middle of nowhere. But if you happen to build a settlement in the same hex, that Fort becomes a Barracks and a Stable. Which means that you lose some Defense (2 points) because your fort is harder to defend with tents and houses around it, but also means you could build other defensive buildings to stack up that Defense higher than a standalone Fort could have. For instance, barracks + city walls + watchtower = 5 defense, if you add a castle you have stacked your defense way higher.

Does "settlement prep" take the place of one of the hex improvements that you can do that month, or perhaps does it take the place of the number of settlements you can create that month, or perhaps it doesn't count against either?

Here we have some confusion because the rules on UCam say two different things. First is that the preparation is done on a hex, not for a settlement, which is why we can't have two settlements on the same hex. But later it says that you must prepare the terrain for a settlement to create a new district. The latter is more specific, so it takes precedence.

Building a district works the same as building a new settlement. You pay for the preparation cost and by the end of the preparation period, the new district is ready for you to create buildings on it.

Preparing a terrain is a different "slot" than terrain improvements though. Preparing a terrain is only used to build new settlements and districts. While terrain improvement is used to build farms, sawmills, canals, fishery, forts, mines, etc.

What is weird is that there are no explanations of examples of this in the Skulls & Shackles Player's Guide or in the 6 books of the adventure path.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

What does achoring spells to a ship means?

About Spray, that is what I meant to ask, it was a copy+paste error.

The rules for Spells in Naval Combat mention that several spells dont move with the ship unless they are anchored to the ship.


Forcecage, Resilient Sphere, Wall of Force: The effects of these spells move with a ship if they are anchored to it. Otherwise, they do not move with a ship, and a ship running into them makes a ramming maneuver.

Prismatic Sphere, Prismatic Spray, Prismatic Wall: These spells do not start fires on a ship unless the ship passes through the spell effect and rolls a natural 1 on its saving throw against fire damage. A prismatic sphere or prismatic wall moves with a ship if it is anchored to the ship. Otherwise, it does not move with a ship.

Wind Wall: The effects of this spell move with a ship if it is anchored to the ship.

How do you anchor a spell to the ship? Where are the rules explaining how that works? How would Wind Wall become anchored? How would an instantaneous Prismatic Spray affect a passing ship?

Matrix Dragon wrote:

The Shifter class's levels count as Druid levels for the purposes of Wildshape feat prerequisites. However, the Shifter doesn't count as having druid levels for any other purposes.

This makes many wildshape feats useless to the shifter. This includes wildshape feats that would have been used to advance the character's effective 'druid level' for wildhshape when multiclassing.

I'm assuming this was not intended, and it should probably be put on the errata list for the shifter.

Many wild shape-related feats require wild shape class feature or Druid level Xth, there are maybe two feats excluded from this that requires caster levels. I can only think about Quick Shape from memory. But there will be other feats that have other requirements that not even all druids could qualify, like Bat Shape (requires werebat-kin). Do you care to elaborate, I think im missing something here.

I really wish I could find a reasonable physical copy of this book. But drivethru's shipping cost to brazil are way too high. 37 bucks, nearly twice the price of the book (19,90).

I was agreeing with your logic for bringing into light things that I had not considered. The first time I agreed was because you had shown a breakdown on how the action economy would go (attacking requires a move action), and the second because you said that a certain interpretation of the rules (which I had) wouldn't allow Fritz to charge. You can argue and diss me all you want, but this is not the place for that. Since it seems that we cannot have a civil conversation, you can ignore my posts, Nefreet.

To everybody else, seems that some people understand that Ride can be used to make a mount Charge, which is a stretch of the "ride" mention on the skill. A charge is a move+attack, while the attack is optional at the end of the movement.

I personally do not agree (from my reading of the rules, since we have to make that clear around here) with claiming that charge is a movement and that a you can make your mount charge as a free action. I don't see that written and it's not crystal clear to me as some people are trying to make it to be.

@Wheldrake that quote would normally be fine, but the FAQ seems to break it when it claims that both must use their own actions to charge together.

Can you use Ride to make your mount Charge as a free action?

The published FAQ says that the mount and rider must charge, but making your mount attack is handled by Handle Animal, while making your mount to move is handled by Ride.

From combat:


Charging is a special full-round action that allows you to move up to twice your speed and attack during the action. Charging, however, carries tight restrictions on how you can move.

After moving, you may make a single melee attack. You get a +2 bonus on the attack roll and take a –2 penalty to your AC until the start of your next turn.

But seems you are right and I stand corrected.


You are indeed a troll. Thank you for showing your true colors.

That was unnecessary. If you cannot discuss things without offending someone, refrain from replying on a discussion board.

From the FAQ:


A mounted charge is a charge made by you and your mount. During a mounted charge, you deal double damage with your first melee attack made with a lance or with any weapon if you have Spirited Charge (or a similar effect), or you deal triple damage with a lance and Spirited Charge.

Even if the mount moves on your action (using a free action from a Ride check or a free handle animal check), the mount cannot charge because the mount wasn't commanded to charge.

I just saw your follow-up post. So we are in the same line.
However, I do not agree with the interpretation that a charge is a movement that allows a free attack. Charge is a full-round action that combines movement and attack. I never heard of charging and deciding not to attack simply because you wanted to benefit from doing a charge (double movement or some other special ability).

This is the first time I hear about this, and probably why we were going back and forth on this discussion.

@Nefreet this not a discussion of who is right or wrong.
You agreed with me that Fritz the fighter cannot make a mounted charge. And I said that he is not alone on that, only classes with access to "link" are able to do that.
People are saying that the rules are fine and he can charge just fine, which I disagree with.

Ride allows the rider to do many things, but none of those things is commanding your mount to charge as a free action.

My apologies if "dissing" is not the correct word, but it's the closest I found to the translation in my country for the act of saying "your argument is silly" during a discussion.

Disregard the comment about link, yes they do gain it. I was thinking about the bonus on handle animal checks with your companion.

@Lucy please don't put words in my mouth, you can read what I have written here and I don't have to join that dissing game you want me to.

We are not talking about characters that have link (pet-classes), those work just fine as the rules as written and the faq care about. The topic are those rules for characters without link (the majority of the population), where the rules simply do not work. If I have to draw this so you stop judging my intelligence then we can no longer have a civil discussion.


Move action: command Mount to attack
Free action: guide with knees
Free action: fight with combat trained mount
Standard action: attack

This is exactly the scenario I was describing. Fritz, the Fighter, will never be able to make a mounted combat check unless he multiclass or someone develops a new feat that allows non-pet classes to command their pets as free actions. Thank you.

I am not taking side of the original poster in any way shape or form. That's their stance, that it takes an action to make a Ride check.

I never said that Ride takes a move action, I said that anything not covered by Ride should require a Handle Animal check, which for most people is a move action. Different things.

If you're riding it, it goes as directed. It doesn't need to be told "go over there, 53 yards", you just need to turn it in the correct direction and tell it to go, then tell it to stop when you arrive.

And what rule covers that? Normally, using handle animal will make the animal use their own judgment call to move and act, which could be dangerous depending on what lies on their path and they might not be aware off (enemies, traps, spell effects, etc). However, Ride allows you to guide their movement, that is crystal clear. But I don't see any written rule in Ride saying it allows you to command your mount to move or attack as a free action. That is just something commonly accepted as a fact, when in fact it is not.

As @BigNorseWolf pointed out, 3.5 had this clearer due to the published FAQs (which you should take into consideration very carefully), but Pathfinder lacks some of those clarifications completely.


Fight with a Combat-Trained Mount: If you direct your war-trained mount to attack in battle, you can still make your own attack or attacks normally. This usage is a free action.

This in no form says it allows your mount to attack as a free action from the rider. It is saying that "if you direct your mount to attack" (using Handle Animal, not Ride), you (the rider) "can attack normally", when you normally wouldn't be able to because you would have to waste your action controlling your mount.


Move action: command Mount to attack
Free action: guide with knees
Free action: fight with combat trained mount
Standard action: attack

This is exactly the scenario I was describing. Fritz, the Fighter, will never be able to make a mounted combat check unless he multiclass or someone develops a new feat that allows non-pet classes to command their pets as free actions. Thank you.

In reality Fritz the Fighter is very rare, and he's probably a low level NPC.

The scenario is rare because we usually ignore mounts in our games completely. But no, the possibility is not rare and will happen to more than 50% of the classes in the game.

Fritz, the 20th level fighter will have this issue. Willian, the 20th level wizard will have this issue. Robert, the 20th level rogue will have this issue. And Claude, the 20th level cleric will have this issue. None of them can actually make a mounted charge or participate in a cavalry charge.

Yes, even with the Animal Domain, because the domain doesn't grant clerics the ability to handle their pets as a free action.

According to the FAQ linked earlier, if you cannot command your mount to attack, and your mount cannot charge, Fritz the Fighter cannot make a mounted charge.

Sorry if I disregarded your answer, but "table variation" is used when rules are unclear and can be interpreted in more than one way, not when house-ruling is required for a written rule to actually work. For both charging with a mount, and using the seek trick for something it doesnt actually do.

Fritz can only use Ride to move his mount, which is not a charge, and means that he will not gain any benefit from charging with a lance or from spirited charge.

Not only that, but Ride only covers guiding your mount, you still require to actually order your mount to move to the designated location. Guiding with your knees is simply freeing your hands to be used in combat, not actually saying it allows you to move your mount where you want to go.

@Nefreet I am not confusing, I came to the same conclusion as you just posted. It's because they don't make sense that I am asking those questions.

Fritz, the Fighter, cannot charge with his horse because he picked the wrong class. He will never gain the benefits of a lance or spirited charge.
You cannot point your mount or pet to move closer to a tree or rock because those are objects/locations and not creatures.

Both of those rulings are very problematic and unrealistic.

How do you charge together with your mount if you are not a pet-class?
How do you make an animal move to a specific location away from you?

On top of the still unanswered questions, the FAQ also breaks mounted combat for characters who lack "may use handle animal as free action" (druids, rangers, cavaliers, etc).

How Fritz, the Fighter, would make a mounted charge with a lance? What actions he would use? What skills?

More about the Shory can be revealed by other means. The library revealed what was written about it (which is quite a lot really).

Any other details they would have to use divination, necromancy or talk to knowledgeable NPCs and ask about the Shory.

Scholars could have read or heard something about it, but the average Tephu citizen wouldn't have a clue of what you are talking about. In the real world, we know so much about those lost civilations (even dinosaurs) because of books, the internet and overall because of the job of archeologists.

That does not answer what kind of action is required:


Action: Varies. Mounting or dismounting normally is a move action. Other checks are a move action, a free action, or no action at all, as noted above.

("ride" is not noted above)

Or what riding specifically means, I mean, do I have to look up a dictionary and can do whatever the rules do not specifically mention? Because if that's the case, all I can do is remain idle while the animal moves around (be carried on their back)

2 people marked this as FAQ candidate.

I was checking the mounted combat, ride and handle animal rules again, and I found no clear answer to this. Apparently, you cannot move your mount unless you spend a move action (free for whoever it is free) telling your mount to move wherever you want them to move.

However, there are no tricks that say "move into that direction" or "move towards that rock". We have the attack ("go to that guy and attack him"), come ("come to me, its safe") and heel ("follow me closely, its safe").

The seek trick is the closest, which tells the animal to move into an area and look for "anything that is obviously alive or animate.". But this doesn't sound right. An "area" is something different from a "direction".

The riding general purpose only teaches come, heel and stay:

Riding (DC 15) An animal trained to bear a rider knows the tricks come, heel, and stay. Training an animal for riding takes three weeks.

And the combat general purpose simply adds attack options.

But how would you tell your animal (companion or not) to go to a specific place you are pointing them to? How would you tell your mount that they have to move, what direction to move, and how far they should move? Sounds like you would have to push your animal (DC 25) with a full-round action (move for those who make it a move), which doesn't sound right.

Going into the Ride skill, the only option we have is to guide with knees, so you can have your hands free. Or spur the creature, but that simply increases their speed.

You also have the option to make your mount "attack" if they are combat trained, but this is overlapping the attack trick from the handle animal skill. But unlike handle animal, using ride to make your mount attack is always a free action.

If I want to make my mount move into a target so I can attack him, I also have to tell my mount to "attack" using the trick with the same name, which could be impossible for my mount if the target is more than one move action away from her. Otherwise, both will attack, which isn't what we normally see on mounted combat on any media (of course, its a game, but still). I simply want for my mount to take me to my target.

How do you move your mount to the direction you want?

The mounted combat rules or the FAQ clarifying it also did not help much in my quest for knowledge.


Your mount acts on your initiative count as you direct it. You move at its speed, but the mount uses its action to move.

Cool, but how do I tell the mount to move and the direction and distance I want them to go? How do I make them stop before my target so I can attack him instead of tramping over him or avoiding him instinctively to avoid collision? Or even prevent a sudden stop that could throw the rider into the ground by accident.

Combat while Mounted: With a DC 5 Ride check, you can guide your mount with your knees so as to use both hands to attack or defend yourself. This is a free action.

Well, I do not want to guide with my knees, I want to guide with one of my hands, so I can attack with the other. Also, does this "guiding" works as a handle animal check to make the mount move? Does it make the mount spend a move action so they can move?

If your mount charges (...)

This is even cooler. But I don't want my mount to charge, I want for my mount to move, not attack someone. Afaik, you cannot charge and forfeit your attack, and I am unsure how I would tell my mount (tricks) to do that anyway if it was possible.

Likewise, you can take move actions normally.

This not really helpful if I am making handle animal checks every round. Sometimes possibly even more than one check.

Interested on hearing about this. Favourited.


What does the knowledge bonus for all the libraries (e.g., Knowledge Bonus +2) do?

Has anyone prepared party handouts that I could steal for when the party gains new information in the library?

1) Its bonus on knowledge checks to cause damage on the knowledge pool of each library. Each check (sucessful or not) increases that bonus by +1.

2) I have a few that I compiled from the background given by the adventure and handed them to my players every 4-5 points of damage on the knowledge pool. I compiled a bunch of egyptian papyrus images (sample), printed them, then I translated the information from the adventure and printed them in the back of each paper (translated version), which they could read once they passed the knowledge check. They are all in portuguese, so its of little help to you.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I believe they use spell-like abilities because those are much easier to write on a statblock than a new supernatural ability that will simply say works as certain spell.

Here is an undead dragon from a Lich template or some such.

Nope, that is a unique dragon, no template was applied there (despite the name on the SRD).

If you check the lich template, its everything different and will not match the final result in any shape.

FAQ'ed, things like this could always help from extra clarification.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

If a creature that has vulnerability to cold damage (like a red dragon) dies and is turned into a skeleton (which grants immunity to cold damage), what happens with her vulnerability?

RAW: Monster feats are available at GM discretion.

1 person marked this as a favorite.


That has been clarified, not sure if here or on another thread.
But basically, each improvement can only be done once. Either the hex has the improvement or it doesn't.

The published rules have a small error though regarding which improvements can stack with others or not. Each hex can have any number of improvements that have an asterisk, and only one improvement without an asterisk. But this improvement without asterisk can be built on the same hex that has improvements with an asterisk.

Why even publish an archetype that will do nothing? I mean, it doesn't help with flavor, as the rage power alone does a better job at that.

Then the Totem Warrior (APG) is nothing but suggestions? Apparently the archetype has no features at all.


Totem Warrior

A barbarian often has a special totem that is the patron of her
tribe. While individual totems vary, those in the tribe that
call upon a totem receive similar abilities. Totem warrior
barbarians can select from the following rage powers.

Rage Powers: The totem warrior is based entirely upon
his totem rage powers. In addition to the totem powers
themselves, the following rage powers complement the
totem warrior archtype (depending on the totem chosen):
animal fury*, low-light vision*, night vision*, raging
climber*, raging leaper*, raging swimmer*, and swift foot*.

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.

On classes that have abilities to pick from a list, like rage powers, rogue talents, arcanas, and so on, there are archetypes that modify said list saying that it complements the archetype. But many times, that ability is not being "complemented" at all, as the class already had access to those options.

This happens on several archetypes. For example, the magus's bladebound archetype (from ultimate magic) says the following:


Magus Arcana: The following magus arcana complement
the bladebound magus archetype: arcane accuracy, broad
study, dispelling strike, and ref lection.

But all the listed arcanas are already available to the magus (from the same book). In fact, they are all options from the base class, when arcanas are introduced to us.

1 to 50 of 1,060 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>