Its from Planes of Power (page 9):
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:
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?
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.
And later, a response from Mark Seifter about it (here), saying:
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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:
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
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?)
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.
The rules for Spells in Naval Combat mention that several spells dont move with the ship unless they are anchored to the ship.
Matrix Dragon wrote:
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 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.
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:
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.
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.
Ride allows the rider to do many things, but none of those things is commanding your mount to charge as a free action.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Both of those rulings are very problematic and unrealistic.
How do you charge together with your mount if you are not a pet-class?
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:
("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)
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?
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.
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.
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.
That has been clarified, not sure if here or on another thread.
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.
Then the Totem Warrior (APG) is nothing but suggestions? Apparently the archetype has no features at all.
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:
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.