So... where does it says Alertness gives you an initiative bonus?
Here is my take. First, I rarely will have my players even know of an encounter that will totally destroy them, however occasionally it has happened that I've given hints as to the "campaign villain" so for example, I'll use that.
Say my whole campaign hinges around the players eventually thwarting a level 20 werewolf. Well, they are only level 1 so she sends her afflicted minions after them. As they get higher in level, she starts to send a few natural minions... etc until they are level 20 and then she comes to kill them herself.
Now, what if the players manage to figure out she's got a mansion in Ustalav and decide to GO to her mansion and fight her right away. Seriously, guys that's stupid, and so I will subtly imply that she's too much for them. If they keep heading to her mansion I get less subtle to the point of just under saying "Dude, she's a level 20 werewolf lord (old 3.5 template I converted/modified that makes a werewolf a dire wolf and other nasty stuff) inquisitor! Then if they stupidly still show up at her mansion, well players have never been so very dumb in my games before, so I'm not really sure but I think at that point I would probably TPK them just... cause really you're low level, she's VERY high level and very advanced... you knew this and you still attacked her.
Now, as to your situation, if it's established that in the area they are in they have a certian chance of random encounters, then yes go for it. This isn't GURPS with "Bulletproof Nudity" rules where a totally naked girl is damn near unkillable cause everyone is too distracted by how hot she is. The players should know without their armor... they are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.
Remember that just because it's implicit doesn't mean it isn't RAW. The archetype grants a judgement therefore, by Argumentum ad Absurdum, the situation where you lose the judgement ability but gain an archetype that specifically gives you a judgement is logically unviable. Therefore, based on the written rules (the existence of said judgement), implicitly justifies that you gain back all your powers despite being an ex-inquisitor. Don't confuse implicit with RAI; implicit RAW can be backed up by what's written. RAI isn't necessarily.
So... I'm confused LOL. You are saying you agree, she can be an inquisitor again, despite having an incompatible alignment as long as overall she still has faith in the deity's goals even if she goes about it a different way and is therefore a heretic?
So we played our first session today and with some talking with the GM she went with the belief that all spell and hex related abilities are affected by Con rather than Int.
Okay, reading over the rules, while I think that it does not apply to bonus spells chart, I think that's silly. It applies to literally everything else... makes me wonder if that was left off for word count or actually left off intentionally.
In fact, I'm going to go ahead and tag this for a FAQ candidate as if it's something that needs to be FAQ/Errata'd we will eventually find out, and if it's not then they can let us know just in this thread (usually they do)
Hmm, okay thanks yeah I kinda thought like you said "descriptive to intent" but though I don't play PFS and I am normally the GM, I like to fully know/understand the rules as written/intended before I make any house rules (which drives me nuts when people tell me to just ignore the rules, like in my recent alignment question thread, about half the people were like "Just ignore alignment completely cause alignment is stupid")
Well, it outright says
Eidolon rules wrote:
"Eidolons can select any feat that they qualify for, but they must possess the appropriate appendages to use some feats. Eidolon feats are set once chosen, even if the creature changes when the summoner gains a new level. If, due to changes, the eidolon no longer qualifies for a feat, the feat has no effect until the eidolon once again qualifies for the feat."
So, if you took simple weapons as an evolution, you would then qualify for Martial weapons as a feat.
Now, the other way around... that COULD be seen as not allowed, although I think most GMs would allow it, simply on a which came first the chicken or the egg? idea in that it's 2pts OR a feat for each level of weapon proficiency... So to say you can't spend 2pts for the evolution of Martial because you took simple as a feat first... seems kinda overly critical to me.
It would have been better if they had said "If the ediolon already has simple weapons, then it can learn martial for 2 pts" or something like that but, like I said, to me it's really a chicken/egg question.
Speaking of egg-laying birds, I'll leave you with a quote from Sean K. Reynolds that fits here I think about how things that work exactly the same way but aren't called such exactly are still the same.
Sean K. Reynolds wrote:
If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck. If you line up Daffy Duck, Donald Duck, Duckman, and Howard the Duck, from a game standpoint it makes sense that a +1 duck-bane arrow is going to do +2d6 damage in addition to normal arrow damage if you shoot any of them, because they're all ducks. And if you shot that arrow at "Duckie" from Pretty in Pink, it wouldn't get any bonus damage, because he isn't a duck. And you should be able to see why those first four are ducks and the last one isn't.
Yeah, the religion traits just require you to worship the god, but as blaphers said, unless you are a cleric you don't have to follow the alignment rules.
As for feats and spells under deities and such, most of them say that they originated with or were created by followers of the deity, but that with GM permission others can take them. So, best bet would be to read the entire section where the feat is in to make sure that there is no "Only worshippers of Erastil may take this feat" (which, YES you can still worship him even if you aren't a cleric to answer that part of your question) then ask your GM for a reasonable exception if there is no "Erastil only" caveat on it.
Sorry if this has already been asked already, but I didn't see anything for it.
If an inquisitor is not a compatible alignment with their deity, like for example say I am Lawful Evil yet my deity is Chaotic Evil (the idea is the character is more in tune with the evil than the chaos as her worship is due to the deity's portfolio elements) then it says they can take the heretic archetype replacing their class features with the archetype features...
Now, my question is... do they then get back all their Inquisitor powers, with the Heretic ones switched out, or are they completely devoid of all inquisitor abilities other than the two heretic ones?
The Mighty Khan wrote:
Sorry to necro, but how to avoid AoO as a gunslinger was something I could not remember how to do, so I was looking it up here and found this thread. Thanks for reminding me about Deft Shootist, and then as for the idea that crossbows do not provoke attacks of opportunity when reduced to a free action(reloading a normal bow does not and is already a free action) there is this...
EDIT: And bah I didn't mean to hit "FAQ" on your post, since it's not needed lol
Pink Dragon wrote:
Yeah, she is from a long line of werewolves however for some unknown reason she's only a witchwolf, not a full werewolf (as skinchangers can become afflicted, she has been though.) It's strange because she is the direct daughter of a natural werewolf, she SHOULD be a full natural werewolf but she isn't... so she has a sort of inferiority complex and feels she has to be that much more devoted to her mother to prove herself. Further compounding it is one of the characters (niece/cousin respectively) is a natural werewolf that is actually good and the mother is trying to get her to "return to the family" and embrace evil. The daughter is jealous that her mother is so fixated on her "good" cousin and not her.
As for that question about if her mother was out of the picture, hmm really she'd probably be chaotic evil. She really has no morals of her own and is pretty much a sadist even. So, actually that might be appropriate actually, make her neutral evil and it's only her mother influence that keeps her "in check" by giving her some semblance of morality to follow.
So thanks everyone and for the last time, yes I know alignment is not a straightjacket and I am not going to throw the whole system out, not even for NPCs. You can do that in your games, I don't mind.
Roberta Yang wrote:
That's all fine, except that I have already said I am not an advocate of ignoring alignments and the rules based around them as a whole (whether I agree with the "assassin class must be evil" thing or not, I am asking based on the RAW not any house rules I may decide to invoke afterward), and this thread is for helping determine the best alignment, not to debate whether alignments should be completely ignored (for NPCs, PCs, in this case it doesn't matter as by the RAW alignments should apply to everyone.)
Not meaning to be rude, but really... please don't try to derail my thread into a discussion on whether alignments should be removed from the game, there are many other threads to discuss that.
Bill Dunn wrote:
What does the daughter do when she's not on duty doing dirty deeds for her mother? Her moral philosophy suggests LN, but how do her actions and pastimes, taken all together, weigh out?
Well, if I don't take the quote literally, then yes Lawful Evil is pretty much perfect for the daughter. She really is kind of a sadist. In fact, the only law she really cares about is her mother's word to the point that oh murder is illegal? If I kill you will my mom help me get away with it? Then, cool I can kill you.
In a way, she very well could be chaotic evil, however she does have the ethical sense of she follows her mother's orders. Basically, her mother is all that really keeps her in check (except on nights of the full moon, as she's an afflicted werewolf not natural (which is very strange, why is she only a witchwolf instead of a full werewolf like her mother?)
As for the mother, her concept very much is the corrupt "hanging" judge character. So, Lawful Evil Inquisitor with the Justice Inquisition.
That may be true, but I'm not an advocate of it's removal and as for just ignoring their alignment completely, if that's the case I could have them be good upstanding citizens (by actions) and yet worship Jezelda and get all the benefits of being a chaotic evil worshiper of Jezelda (so they have to sacrifice someone once a month, who cares they don't' have an alignment to care about) since their alignment doesn't matter. Granted, I know that's an extreme example, but if I decided that NPC alignment doesn't matter, what really would stop me from doing such an extreme thing?
The daughter is evil because she is her mother's assassin and from what you've said she will willingly commit evil acts for her. Now it comes down to whether she is lawful or nuetral. I would say lawful because she follows a code that her mother deserves to rule and she does what is necessary to ensure that rule.
Okay, yeah so don't read too much into the quote at the beginning of the Lawful Evil section on her.
Also, as for what I said about Jezelda I'm actually reconsidering them actually worshiping her simply cause while they share her beliefs about the superiority of werewolves, they aren't chaotic about it.
Paladins aren't the only alignment dependant class. For example, if the NPC wanted to become an assassin her alignment would matter. Her mother is a heretic inquisitor of Jezelda (heretic because she's lawful evil worshipping a chaotic evil goddess) So their alignments DO matter, unless I want to say NPCs don't have to follow the same rules as players, which is not something I tend to do unless it's in the player's benefit, if even then.
Okay, so I have two villains in my campaign, and I recently was reading the new write-ups and advice in Ultimate Campaign and one of the characters it's a no brainer that she's Lawful Evil.
Ultimate Campaign, pg. 136 Lawful Evil wrote:
However, the question is her daughter. Now, her daughter cares about one thing. Her mother. She is her assassin, her enforcer, she is completely devoted. Now, her mother is going to send her out to do some very very evil things... she doesn't want to rule, doesn't care about good or evil, just helping her mother pursue her aims... So UC says this about Lawful Neutral...
Ultimate Campaign, pg. 135 Lawful Neutral wrote:
By that it really sounds more like it for her, although is that enough to keep her from being evil herself, a "just following orders" mentality?
Or am I just reading too much into the "quote" and they are both Lawful Evil, but the daughter accepts the mother's rightful place as part of her own code of behavior?
Well, once again this book is on sale... which makes me kinda want it but then... really not.. because... it seems like it would be too darn short...
People who actually own this book, please tell me your honest opinions, should I buy the PDF of this book (or if you answer me quick enough, I might be able to get in on the Great Golem Sale and even with $5 shipping and tax it's cheaper than the PDF!) or just not bother since it's 3.5 and so short?
Even more important question I'm sure has been asked any maybe answered, but really is there any chance of getting a newer updated "Campaign Setting" line book about The Great Beyond, or is this pretty much it?
Sort of a bump and sort of more info... another thing is, would I need the deity parent to necessarily be the god or goddess the character worshipped? Part of me wants to say yes, since I mean it's your parent it would make sense that you would follow them. Hercules worshipped Zeus, not Ares or Hera or anyone else, didn't he?
But, if I do enforce it I don't want to force deity choice so that's creating a problem for the changeling character as she's leaning toward Milani which is a female goddess.
Well, I would like to know your actual spells and inquisitor powers and such. Also, your domain choice. OR even better, do you have an actual Inquisition from Ultimate Magic, that would be even better.
Now, as for what you have said... honestly I think the biggest problem is that you have ten players. That pretty much means that the more core classes like the fighter, wizard, cleric and rogue are going to shine, along with the cavaliers and then throw in the barbarian and oracle and boom, they can do pretty much everything why do they even need you?
Maybe someone with more experience in trying to run tabletop games with live action number of players can give you better advice, but really I am just thinking that with that large of a party an inquisitor is pretty much worthless and honestly so is almost anything else you could make... because they have everything. In abundance.
Okay, so I am planning a mythic campaign where all of the characters are fated to meet and then find out that one of their parents they were raised by (or whatever) was actually a deity.
Most of the characters it works just fine, however some of them I'm having a bit of trouble with, one more than the other.
The biggest one presenting a problem is a character that is a werewolf. Since I want them to meet and be friendly with their deity parent, I'm having a hard time deciding what deity would have a baby with a werewolf. Now, one consideration is that she's the odd one out. She is not actually the child of a god, however Jezelda imbued her father with the unholy power to act as her proxy. Then the deity she actually ends up working for is the deity she worships, trying to help her fight her deity "mother"'s influence? How's that sound, or does someone have a better idea for her father (best bet by her background if not as I said with Jezelda, a male deity since it's already established that her mother moved with her to Alkenstar so she could raise her without her werewolf heritage "forcing" her to be evil)
Then the other is a changeling. Only thing I can think of is Cayden Cailean was drunk and thought a green hag was pretty hot with his beer goggles on? LOL Which, might work well since the character is a freedom fighter of sorts, so she'd work well as a champion of Cayden Cailean.
The last is a duegar, although really he's less of a problem, since Torag would work just fine, right?
Anyone have any thoughts or input?
I'm actually working on writing up a campaign for this myself. Basically, my idea so far is the players at level 1 decide to try the test. While they of course fail cause they are level 1 nobodies, whatever mysterious divine forces that guides the Starstone sees potential in them... so they don't emerge gods, but they do emerge changed. Mythic tier 1.
Not sure yet if I will, but thinking a crazy twist would be at the "end" of the campaign when they are level 20 and mythic tier 10 they actually emerge from the Starstone and realize that once the entered the Starstone, the rest of the campaign never actually happened, it was just part of their test... and they are gods.
Yeah same here! I went ahead and subscribed today. After I see the module I'll decide if I remain subscribed for future modules, but either way I'm going crazy since I just found out about this book today I want it so bad!
In fact, just yesterday I started a campaign with an NPC from Alkenstar that the PCs met in Cheliax and I was thinking of having them go check out the Mana Wastes with her, but I needed a reason for her to go back. Which, more information plus an actual adventure set in Alkenstar... OMFG this is like totally what I needed!!!! I'm going crazy right now.
Is it possible to either make a magic item with more uses per day than the standard version, or to add more uses later?
For example, the new Pelt of the Beast from Blood of the Moon allows one to turn into the animal the pelt is from 3/day.
Would it be reasonable to increase the cost of it to make it at will, or to have it enhanced to be at will?
More so the reason I am asking is I'm more thinking about it as an upgraded version with the Legendary Item thing from Mythic Adventures.
Just to give you a bit more on "why" the answer is yes to better help you understand, look at the way it's all worded...
'Add +1/2 to the oracle's level for the purpose of determining the effects of one revelation'
Your Mystery is the category that you choose your revelations from.
Yeah, that's what I was thinking although I like the idea of the skin-walkers, I'm more a fan of an actual wolf form.
Which, if I am reading my new PDF correctly, skin-walkers beast form is akin to a watered down hybrid and not an actual animal form, yes?
Correct, unless it says otherwise, like for example the new Wolf Style feats for monks specifically say that while they were developed by werewolf monks, anyone can learn them.
The way I see it, the party is meant to work together. So, the wizard immobilizes the giant, the fighter kills it. They both rock because they worked together.
Casters don't outshine and make the martial characters useless unless they are built by the player to do so. IF your players actually want to work together, and design their characters to work together, all is good. Nobody is useless, everyone has their roles.
I know a guy we call "Evil Dave" (though I recently found out he doesn't like that nickname, so most of us have stopped using it) because many GMs he plays with let him play evil. Nobody else. Because they know that he knows how to play an evil character.
Best story I heard was he was a Lawful Evil wizard in a party with a Paladin. He never did anything evil around the paladin, so the paladin had no reason to suspect him. It wasn't until the end of the campaign when he and the player of the paladin agreed that he finally backstabbed (literally wizard coup de grace with a dagger) the paladin and killed him.
Doing this as a new post, just so I don't keep editing or changing something more in my initial post.
Lore wise as to where my cat-dragons come from, I was thinking lately that whatever mysterious patron(s) employs them, it (they) actually sends them out (in dreams) to make pacts with those that would be receptive to a witch's pact, but aren't necessarily asking for it themselves. Like young apprentice wizards who try as they might, can't master the most basic cantrips... until the cat-dragon shows up and they make the pact to finally have the magic they want. THEN they perform the usual 'summon a patron and familiar' thing as the dream cat-dragon instructed them to do.
I have a character that I designed as a bit of a pyromaniac. Originally I designed her as a Elementalist (Fire) Wizard, then as a Elemental Fire Bloodline sorcereress, and both of those worked ok, but really the class that fits her best is Witch.
However, the elements patron has a mix of different elements, and I just don't see her caring about ice and wind spells. So, I thought I might switch out the non-fire spells for fire spells, maybe even do it as an archetype and give it a bit of flavor. I also wanted to, as a further way to make it somewhat unique, switch out meteor storm at the end for Form of the Dragon III (limited to the element and alignment, so for fire it would be gold or red dragon only depending on your good/evil axis. Neutral characters could pick their dragon at 1st level, but then it never changes as per the cleric channeling rules at least).
So I thought I would post my initial ideas (starting with fire, but after feedback I can work on the other elements, for sake of completion or others who like other elements)
Normal Elements is thus:
Elements: 2nd—shocking grasp, 4th—flaming sphere, 6th—fireball, 8th—wall of ice, 10th—flame strike, 12th— freezing sphere, 14th—vortex, 16th—fire storm, 18th—meteor swarm.
So my Elements Fire is thus:
Elements: 2nd—burning hands, 4th—flaming sphere, 6th—fireball, 8th—wall of fire, 10th—flame strike, 12th— sirocco, 14th—delayed blast fireball, 16th—fire storm, 18th—form of the dragon III (gold or red only (see above)).
As an archetype idea, I was thinking of having the archetype focus the familiar choice too. Awhile ago I created a "cat-dragon" familiar based on an idea I had years ago in Mage the Ascension and the cat-dragons in Lunar (which ironically I created mine (just as a flying fire breathing cat) before I ever played Lunar, might be why I love it so much)
So, your familiar is a cat-dragon of the element you choose. The cat-dragon is a flying talking cat (like a raven familiar) and it has a breath weapon, useable every 1d4 rounds that is a 5-foot version of whatever dragon type it is, dealing 1d6 damage per 4 levels (to a maximum of 5d6 at 20th level) Also it gets Resistance to it's element 5 every 4 levels, to maximum of 20 at 20th level
EDIT: A further note about my cat-dragons and how they relate to the Beast-bonded archetype, they count as cats essentially in regards to the Beast-bonded's shapeshifting power. Just normal cats in that regard, so no turning into a flying cat, just lions and tigers (not bears) oh my!
Now, as for what you "lose" for taking this archetype, I am thinking losing your 2nd level hex sounds alright.
Yeah when I read that I was like... really 2 hours and the the pelt becomes just a worthless (well, not worthless but you know what I mean) white wolf's pelt? As you said, two hours a day wouldn't be too powerful IMO, so I wonder why they made it once ever then it loses ALL properties of magic? I noticed Jim Groves said he's the one that created it.
Ok, thanks yeah I get it now... once I re-read over your post and DrDeth's a few time (and especially this new one you did) I understand it now. So, it is somewhat beneficial to take a trait that gives you low-light vision even if you have darkvision. :)
Wait, how do the two points I bolded in the quote above not contradict each other?
Seems like it plainly says in the bottom bolded part that if they have darkvision, they do NOT suffer a miss chance.
EDIT: Wait, I think I see it.. so my darkvision extends 60 feet... but the low-light extends further, so while my darkvision doesn't go out the 120-mark, the low-light vision extends out that far... but within my 60 feet darkvision I use the better darkvision rules? Right?
EDIT: Ok, so yeah I think I see now where it would be beneficial to have both low-light and darkvision, as you would see BETTER than the low-light vision within 60 feet, but see nothing past that... except you have low-light vision which lets you see PAST your 60 feet darkvision as long as the light allows...
I've asked about this before, and had multiple developers state that you channel for what you want to do, and then negative energy affinity decides how the person is affected based on what you are trying to do. Either it works as intended, or it fails because you weren't trying to affect them in the only way they can be affected.
So, you are channeling positive energy to heal? You will only heal with it. You will NOT heal the negative energy guy because he's not healed by positive energy, but you won't hurt him either because you aren't trying to harm him, nor will you affect the zombie who's attacking you in any way.
On the other hand, if you channel positive energy to HARM undead, then you are going to blast your negative energy affinity friend too, unless you have selective channeling.
On the flip side, if you are channeling negative energy to HARM... then you negative affinity friend is UNAFFECTED because he can't be harmed by negative energy only healed, but he's not healed because you aren't trying to heal him.
Basically, what it boils down to is negative energy affinity just means you need to be careful not to hurt your friend when you are trying to blast undead and that when you heal all your other friends with a blast of postive energy, he's unaffected.. you don't kill him while healing the rest of the party.
Now, you said the devs recently changed this, can you provide a link to the source of where they said this? Because if so, I'm cool with it, but it contradicts what they've told me many times in the past.
EDIT: Also, wraiths don't channel energy like a cleric, they have a touch attack. Rules for cleric channeling and rules for a wraith's touch attack don't have anything to do with each other. So, I could see easily where a wraith could attack the dhampir and be like "OMG WTF DID I JUST HEAL YOU?" being completely different than the cleric doing so.
So, because there is light, things have concealment from the low-light rules, but if I actually put out the torch, they lose all concealment? Unless I am completely misunderstanding how you laid this out, it sounds like having low-light vision with your darkvision actually hinders you, at least in ranged combat...
EDIT: Oh, ok wait I read again, and I see where you said "some would say combined and you agree" so yeah, for what you said to make sense to me it would have to be as you said in parenthesis, or else it seems it would be BAD to have low-light vision.
Berk the Black wrote:
Well, right but that's another thing... if "the presence of light does not interfere with Darkvision" then... what does that really mean?
If I am standing in light that extends 30 feet and you are standing 45 feet away in the dark, can I see you with my darkvision? You are within my 60 foot range...
So, other than darkvision being black and white, does me having low-light vision to extend that 30-foot range to 60 feet really mean anything, when all it tells me is that you have a red shirt on?
Or, is it like I said, if I am in the light and you are in the dark, I can't see you, but again if that's the case, what does "presence of light does not interfere with darkvision" actually mean?
So, I noticed that only a very few creatures that have Darkvison also have low-light vision, so I was wondering what others thought, is there any benefit to low-light if you have darkvision already? I ask because I never really thought about it but I was looking at some of the new traits from Ultimate Campaign and "Blood of Dragons" caught my eye, but then I remembered "Oh, my character has darkvision already" so it made me wonder if that would still be to her benefit to take it, or not?
Been awhile since I came to this thread, life's been pretty hectic. Heh.
But yeah, I'm kind of thinking that maybe her "father" was a recruiter and found her abandoned as a baby, then when he returned to Hermea, he got permission to bring her with him since she was mostly human (since changelings are born to hags, one would assume the child of a non-hagified changeling would be human) but had magical potential due to her heritage and that was intriguing. If she passed her test, she could stay after 16, if not she had to go just like everyone else. Then, being a wizard himself, he was teaching her things, and she understood it on an intellectual level, but the magic just wasn't there for her,and her father was very disappointed thinking he was wrong, she has no magical potential at all... So in her frustration at being a failure in her father's eyes that's when her familiar showed up and offered her the pact so she could finally have the magic she so desired.
The black raven wrote:
Except that D&D alignment doesn't work that way. I could just as easily say that what a demon considers good and proper is an atrocity to most everyone else. The demon can CLAIM and even BELIEVE he's Lawful Good as he's slaughtering kittens, doesn't mean he is good in any way using the D&D alignment system.