Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ

Chris Kenney's page

RPG Superstar 6 Season Star Voter. FullStar Pathfinder Society GM. 1,151 posts (4,058 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 5 Pathfinder Society characters. 11 aliases.


1 to 50 of 1,151 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Quick point - he specifically wants to give up the spells to get half his favored enemy bonus on all ranged attacks. At that point, you're looking at something that's a bit more even, although I'd generally say the weight is on the fighter side. Vanilla ranger beats both options, though.

Kurald Galain wrote:
Twelve rounds should cover every combat for the entire day, so that's sufficient. Also, you can easily get more: take a trait for +1 pool, a feat for +2 pool, or a wyroot weapon. So it's not "maybe 12", it's at least 12 and up to 20 if you want.

I never have a full combat day go less than twenty rounds at 4th-5th level. How would that kind of scaling affect your analysis?

Note, however, that the general rule is "Most recent published is the official version." Since the UC errata post-dates UE, the final UC version takes precedent in org play.

Erm, I think the proposed action sequence here is to, before combat, cast one or more iterations of Coin Shot to 'prime' the attack later. THEN, once in a fight, possibly if an enemy has closed to close range, use spellstrike with a different spell on the already-enchanted coins.

Which seems to work if you have some way to get spellstrike with a ranged weapon.

I'll admit Vanilla Skyrim isn't my thing (I've generally had more fun using SkyRE or Perkus Maximus, but if you're not on PC those aren't going to be options.) But one thing that's almost universally true regardless of mods - Combat First. The game's systems are set up on a presumption of combat skills being at particular levels compared to your character level - if your primary damage skill is above this, you will devastate, almost regardless of which skill that is. Although, as a mage, you need spells to go with it, and a warrior type needs appropriate weapons.

Also, for the record: The wording you'd be looking for to cover this rules interpretation is not: X does not stack with Y.

The wording you're looking for is: A subject/target cannot be affected by both X and Y simultaneously. If they would be, (X or Y) takes precedence.

My ruling would basically be that the target has to obey rules for line-of-sight and line-of-effect as if it were going in a straight line from you. Otherwise, as others have said, this lets you bypass a number of infusion costs that are obviously intended.

Right. I think I get it, there seems to be some confusion. In a batch of MMOs that includes WoW, spells are considered individual entities unto themselves. In those games, one spell that doesn't 'stack' with another overwrites it when cast, even if the new one is worse (Or the best applies, depending on the game.)

Pathfinder explicitly doesn't work that way. Per everything above, spells are always divided into their individual effects for purposes of determining how stacking functions - in effect, "stacking spells" doesn't even mean anything in the system, because it never happens.

Tectorman wrote:
Gamerskum wrote:
Theatrical Version has always been used to refer to the Original release versions as opposed to the Special Addition versions.

On a halfway related tangent...

I have the original version of Episode 1 on VHS, and when I got it on DVD, I was disappointed to find a number of additions. I'd like to find the original version on DVD; I just don't know what exactly to look for.

It officially doesn't exist.

Mathmuse wrote:

Instead, we have to extend the not-stacking method to be able to handle this impossible case.

One method is to claim that the not-stacking method was not meant to apply to ordered pairs, so we should break down the ordered pairs into pieces that can be completely ordered. This means to treat the threat range number and the critical multiplier number separately. This form of not-stacking combines 17-20/×2 and 19-20/×3 to give 17-20/×3. The examples that Avoron provided are consistent with this method. We could argue that this is RAW because it lets us interpret the rules so that the impossible case does not exist.

Another method is to allow circumstances to dictate which number of the pair is the most relevant to the ordering. If the crossbow attack roll was a natural 17, then the threat range is the most important number because 17-20/×2 gives a better result than 19-20/×3. In contrast, if the crossbow attack roll was a natural 20, then the critical multiplier is the most important number because 19-20/×3 gives a better result than 17-20/×2. We could argue that this is RAW because RAW delegates determining the highest to common sense.

As James Risner said, Table Variance is a thing. And that thing happens when the RAW have an impossible case.

This almost seems to sum up the rules issue in a logical way. Now, what is the logic for "The spell says it does not stack, therefore nothing in the entire game can overwrite it" per CapinCaril's apparent argument?

ZZTRaider wrote:
...The Synthesist just doesn't care at all what his physical stats are.

This is why I houserule that the synthesist changes are always temporary bonuses - thus, they don't qualify for feats if they try to completely dump their physical stats. It seems to work well enough that I question whether that was always the intention.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
DeltaPangaea wrote:

Which, y'know. Ain't a good thing if it's true. The Kineticist would probably be less awful if they did, and the Medium might well have more spirits...

Uhm, both of these were adjusted per playtest feedback. The Kineticist didn't get adjusted enough but it certainly got a bump, and the problem with the Medium was the playtest version had a bewildering array of spirits, intended to introduce an exponentially larger number, and only two or three of the ones they had were of any value. They eliminated a ton of chaff and made six good ones, with the possibility of introducing more later.

Milo v3 wrote:
Wait... You don't want the "Mind Control capstone" because it's mind control... On the mindcontrol class... There is a reason the iconic is evil in alignment....

Short version (from my perspective) . . . there's mind control, and there's mind control, so to speak. Degrees by which things can be measured.

Hypnotic Stare is less "control" and more "general interference with mental function" as are most of the Mesmerist Tricks. There are also a whole bunch of spells which add up to the 'Jedi Mind Trick' which is generally considered acceptable, if a bit dubious and probably neutral rather than good.

It's not easy being a good-aligned Mesmerist, but it's not impossible.

Which, by PF standard, can't happen. That's why my VERY FIRST thing was asking about exactly that kind of thing, we really need more information. . . although again, I would say the Paladins falling is absolutely going to happen regardless. One of the problems with objective morality is that it restricts options, this is one of them.

You can debate the degree of evil, but it is evil, is deliberate, and thus a direct ethos violation. Period.

(And I'd never run a campaign on this premise for that exact reason.)

2 people marked this as a favorite.

This one is going to require A LOT more information - we basically need to know your entire cosmology because you're clearly not using the Pathfinder standard, or possibly you're misunderstanding it.

However, proceeding on the presumption that you are, indeed, trying to use the PF standard cosmology, the first thing is that this kind of wanton murder is never Good. Never. The GOD would become evil for ordering it of his priesthood.

I'm going to sort of skip the first question you asked, because it's an individual thing and I don't really have enough information on what their belief system is.

Paladins who follow the order fall. Period. No ambiguity on this one - direct murder of an acknowledged innocent is a deliberate evil act, regardless of reasons. That's the one rule ALL Paladins have to follow

ALL Paladins who refuse retain their status, so long as their ethos doesn't have an edict requiring them to obey their god (And they don't have an archetype requiring them to follow a deity.) Base Pathfinder doesn't even require Paladins to draw their power from a deity, so they'll retain their powers regardless over their refusal.

Anzyr wrote:
Lord Van Hohenheim wrote:
So a level 2 Bard spell can perma kill a Lich without the whole hassle of hunting down the Lich's phylactery. Need to be sure to pick this up.
[mind-affecting]. Sorry.

Mesmerist with Psychic Inception has. . . a really bad chance to pull it off, and I believe there's a Bard archetype that can use mind-affecting spells on Undead.

I'd say it's poorly edited, rather than poorly conceived. It seems pretty clear the intent is to work only on abilities that require some sort of conscious action but the game makes that fairly hard to word properly. This is . . . obviously not a good solution, which makes sure that you can confuse a troll into not regenerating.

Steve Geddes wrote:

I think the existence of a poll itself isnt going to help. The only way to fix the perception of those who currently feel ignored is either better communication as to why the PDT went the other way or a shift in design direction. Neither of those things requires a poll, but a poll without either of those things gives the potential for the perception to get worse, in my opinion.

Agreed. A poll is best used as a tool for the PDT for finding out where their time spent on communication is best directed.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

To take these in order...

Chris Lambertz wrote:

- Does having more accessible and visible introductions to our new design/development staff sound like something you want? (Either through our blog via tags or maybe our contact page?) Is there something we can do to the forums themselves to make employees more visible?

The first idea sounds all right, but it's not really what we're going for here. The key problem is that the rules team already has the tools they need, but are choosing, for whatever reason, not to use them. I'm not trying to pass judgement on their reasons for not doing so, but it's leading to the problem whereby there's a disconnect. This can't be solved by giving them more tools, but by them using the tools they have.

- How would you prefer to see new FAQs communicated to the community? Is that in the form of a blog series, or is it a series of threads?

I think it needs both, if not more, personally. Right now FAQs are extremely difficult to find if you don't know where to look. Stickied posts at the top of the Rules forum, individual Product Forums, and the General forum (could concievably be cross-linked somehow so they only need to be posted to once) plus a BIG link on the actual product pages might work.

- Knowing how we've handled errata up until now, what would you change? If it's a blog, what general information would you like to see us include?

The first thing I'd do is stop calling a great deal of stuff like this "errata." Instead, reserve the word "errata" purely for editing issues. A +20 where a +2 was obviously intended, pure typos, that kind of thing. This would bring you in line with the English language. Errata might change rules-as-published, but would not consist of any changes of rules-as-intended. Errata, ideally, would happen very rarely as this kind of thing should be fairly easy to catch.

Now, how to handle the rest of these kinds of changes? First, let's instead call them (for want of a better term) "Updates." Updates reflect new ideas on how a particular rule should work from the rules team. They can be folded into the FAQ system (and announced in the same manner as above - an Update doesn't require a specific forum post to ask a question) but should be subjected to pretty restricted internal review. That would, hopefully, expedite serious changes like this to avoid problems like the massive retraining crisis PFS is undergoing.

Lastly, and I think this is important - there needs to be a moratorum on Updates between the end of Paizocon and the start of GenCon. If that means they don't make the new printing, they don't make the new printing.

- Let's assume the PRD is a blank slate and we can have any unicorn we want, how would you invision errata being notated here?

Display the updated rule as colored text (I'll suggest red, but I'm no web designer). When moused over, red text in rules shows a pop-up of the original text and a link to the Update post or relevant Errata document.

- Are versioned PDFs a thing you'd use and want?


- Polls have been mentioned here, and in the past we've done a *couple* playtest surveys. If we did have polls, what do you invision them being used for? What kind of content justifies a poll versus a feedback thread in your mind?

Updates on product over a certain age should probably require a poll. Obviously, a strong 'no' vote shouldn't be an automatic veto but it should give the rules team pause, which would hopefully make the point more clearly that the community finds certain types of updates . . .less than acceptable.

*Facepalms* Because spontaneous casting is an overwhelming advantage.

Please note, the above is sarcasm.

Grond wrote:

I appreciate everyone's input and advice. I called him this evening and told him I was sending him a link in an email and I wanted him to check it out and give me a call once he had.

About thirty minutes later he called and was apologetic. It turned out my suspicions were right in that he wanted to play a paladin this campaign and was not expecting the, as he admitted, new girl to want to play a martial character and thought she would want to play an Elf magic user of some sort.

I asked him why he thought she would want to play an Elf magic user because it honestly confused me and he sheepishly responded that almost all new players that were girls in his experience wanted to play an Elf magic user of some sort or some kind of Dark Elf ranger.

We had a nice talk and I told him that kind of thinking was really insulting to other people, explicitly sexist even, and he agreed. He then asked me how I liked how he RPed his paladins over the years. You could have cut the dead silence that stretched out with a sword. I finally told him that while I didn't mind the "typical" paladin every once in a while the fact he played it the same way each time made it less interesting. Not to mention it made it always a source of IC conflict with any kind of rogue class or a character that was not very religious.

He said he would apologize in person to Theresa at our next meeting and he would stop the attempts to alignment check her and criticizing her RP. I told him I would hold them to this and if he did not change then despite our being friends for about 20 years I would ask him to step out of the campaign. He agreed.

So hopefully all of these comments that came from someone else besides myself helped turn him around. We have this argument before to lesser degrees over the years and I think he just tuned me out this time because he thought it was just another argument and not a real issue affecting other players.

Thank you guys and gals for your help. :)

Glad to see it worked out!

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Charon's Little Helper wrote:
Grond wrote:
His idea of a paladin is the holier than thou, look down my nose, constantly checking to make sure the party isn't violating rules, ready to donate all the party's loot, never crack a joke or be anything other than some steadfast Puritan warrior. Or as some Witch Hunter using Warhammer an an example.

Frankly - if he ever tries to give away other party members' share of the treasure (as you mentioned above) - he should fall. It's stealing, no matter his reasoning. Arguably Robin Hood style stealing (though less so as it wouldn't be from evil men who'd arguably stolen it in the first place) - but he was called the Prince of Thieves for a reason.

The paladin 'Josh' likes to play epitomizes the things that make many players not like to be in a party with paladins. It sounds like 'Theresa' is doing a far better job of playing a paladin than 'Josh' ever did.

Little as I post these days, this gets me to come out of my shell. Josh isn't roleplaying paladins, he's roleplaying jerks. Even the oldest of the old-school was only required to donate his own share. Anything else wasn't his to donate, and doing more than politely suggesting it would be a minor ethos violation itself.

I would suggest not reinventing the wheel - The Daring Champion already does most of what you want, so I would just apply it to the Samurai, perhaps with modification to give him the Slashing Grace feat at level one. Yes, Panache is not ki but it's honestly better in most cases.

Buri Reborn wrote:
Dump stats are a player creation. The game was designed to reward players for putting high scores into certain attributes, then switched from a random generation system to a point buy (meaning those high scores are a scarce, hard-to-expand resource.) The label 'dump stat' is arguably a player-made one. You are, of course, free to do what you want with your resources, but the idea that "If you're playing class X, putting points into Y won't reward you so it's a questionable choice" is baked solidly into the game at a number of points.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Uhm, the really egriegious thing here is the GM declared "Automatic damage every round until you're dead from being grappled once and you have no options to escape." There's a bit more going on than just the legality of the grapple itself.

While the opponent might technically be able to grapple a whirlwind, your GM messed up on a couple of points.

1) The Whirlwind ability triggers in response to touching the creature using it - grappling most certainly counts as touching, so he has to make a save before the grapple can begin.

2) Being grappled does not deny you the ability to use any actions in particular - it imposes penalties on some of them and prevents actions that require two hands but changing shape with Wild Shape doesn't require any hands at all (It's a Supernatural, not a spell-like).

3) In addition, each round the grappler needs to make a new CM check to maintain the grapple. This would almost certainly continue to count as touching the whirlwind, requiring new saves against the Whirlwind ability. Plus, of course, a natural 1 on any given check is an automatic failure, so there's also that.

Aelryinth wrote:

Continual Flame is at will ability of Torch Archons. it costs NOTHING to do massive amounts of Continual Flames. You could light a city in a day or two by Calling up an Archon or two and having them drop CF's where instructed for a nominal fee.


In addition to the above, you also can't actually do this - Summoned creatures can't use spell-likes with an expensive material component (or, more likely, won't.) Continual Flame requires 50 gp of ruby dust.

Deylinarr wrote:
Why would the DC be Cha based for a class that uses Wis as it's casting stat?

Because, unless specifically called out, that's how SLAs work.

What about the White Mage Arcanist? You'll probably need the Witch to be willing to cover some of the non-Curing spells, but you'll be able to use spontaneous healing pretty well. Then build as a blaster Arcanist.

EDIT: Just double-checked myself and forgot that Witches don't have some of the key spells either. This would mean you'd be dependent on purchased scrolls and wands, although with UMD on your list you could probably do this since you'd likely need some Charisma as a blaster anyway.

4.If the parrot stays a parrot, but gets feats and things, do I still have to use handle animal to control it in pfs.
Moot point, as PFS only goes to level 12 and true spirit ability isn't available before level 16. But even if that wasn't the case, your dear parrot would be way above animal intelligence and understand language, so no handle animal check should be needed.

In PFS, an animal companion's intelligence and languages are considered irrelevant - you always need to use Handle Animal checks to control the animal regardless of what you try to do to get around it.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
the secret fire wrote:
Wizard: "Gah...uhhhhh...this is...but I...wait! I'm going to cast a web between the rocks down there, and you peeps jump down into it. It might be a bumpy landing, but it should catch you, and I can dispel it when you're all down."

And then the party dies. There are about ten reasons it doesn't work or is a rotten idea in this scenario, starting with the fact that you can't cast it on the area described in the first place.

I'm sure others will also point out that the wizard's probably going to have scrolls of better solutions to the problem handy, and know which ones.

Arcanist: "Well crap guys, I didn't prepare the right spell, but...give me six seconds...ok, now I can cast feather fall with all of my 1st level slots. You may jump at your leisure."

And he's burned through about a fourth of his resources for the day given a probable party of five-six targets. So even IF your web scenario worked, an Arcanist working with his fewer spells has just as much, if not more, reason to apply cleverness and ingenuity to the problem so he doesn't burn through his entire spell allowance. He also doesn't have ready access to Scribe Scroll, so he's (a bit) less likely to have the right answer a move action away without spending daily resources.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Also, and one thing I feel the need to keep bringing up, is that Golarion is written as though it's not a static setting even though it very much is. What we see isn't intended to be taken as the end point, but a continuation of a never-ending cycle whereby the sentient races (particularly humanity) rise up from the stone age, usually to the beginnings of a Magiindustrial Era...and then some moron wonders what the World Destroyer Button on the new doohickey does and/or a rock falls out of the sky and resets everything back to the stone age. This has literally happened four times in various incarnations that I can think of off the top of my head.

Golarion does not have some wondrous continual upward curve of accumulated knowledge. Even in the real world, where we don't have to contend with civilization crumbling every couple thousand years on average, knowledge has routinely been lost and regained all the time up through roughly the later half of the 20th century. And we're still rediscovering stuff we obviously once knew.

How much worse is that going to be in Golarion, without an internet, where printing presses exist for maybe 300 years at a time and then people have to burn the books to survive the winter?

It just so happens that the 'snapshot' of this development and redevelopment cycle we're given is at a point where the "unknown" about the science of arcane magic still vastly outweighs the "known."

666bender wrote:
SLA can be gain from 1 class.

Not true. You just need one SLA from an Arcane source and one from a Divine source. Racials are always Arcane, but the Trickery domain gives Mirror Image as a divine SLA, allowing you to qualify via SLAs for both requirements. There may be others, but they're probably not as useful so people aren't going to know them off the top of their heads.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

It should also be pointed out that Golarion goblins have been described as having a seriously unreal metabolism at times (such as four killing and eating an entire horse in a single night.) That's probably a bit extreme, but it gives you an idea of some of the problems even a "civil" goblin might cause.

All right, here's the idea for a character - Ex NEG who got drummed out of the service, and was grabbed by the Society who recognized that she is still dedicated to the fight. She has a small PI job on the side as a cover for her activities for the Society, and uses her Tager abilities for investigation more than combat.

Crunch below, probably best to check it since it's been a very long while since I made a character and memory of the mechanics is fuzzy.

Sarah Watson (Female Human Tager (Shadow)/Former NEG Mecha Pilot)

Age: 28 Height: 5'8" Weight: 130 Lbs
Virtue: Courageous Flaw: Violent

Agi(7): 8/4 10/5
Int(6): 6/3 6/3
Per(7): 8/4 10/5
Pre(6): 6/3 6/3
Str(4): 4/2 6/3
Ten(7): 8/4 10/5

Actions: 2/3 Movement: 6/8 Orgone: 5 Reflex: 7/8
Vitality: 11/13

Skills(20 + 2 human + 12 Cheats = 34):

English: 4
English (Literacy): 2

Athletics: 2
Communications: 2
Law Enforcement: 1
Misdirect: 2
Observation: 4
Pilot: 3 (Wheeled Vehicles, Mecha, Personal A-Pod)
Stealth: 2
Streetwise: 2
Surveilance: 2

Armed Fighting: 1
Dodge: 3
Fighting: 3
Marksman: 2
Support Weapons: 2


Eidetic Memory (3)
Tager (Shadow)(4)

Disgraced (-4)

1 person marked this as a favorite.

My read - a Pearl would only work if the Arcanist has some way to "burn" the prepared spell slot (Losing access to the spell prepared in that slot) and would restore it for use with their spontaneous casting pool. Right now, I don't know of any way to do that other than maybe some 'steal spells' type abilities.

All right - working on ideas, but have to work tonight. I should be able to finish in the morning - this is gonna take a LOT of skills to get just right.

Definitely interested - have an idea for an ex-pilot. Would mecha skills be verbotten by the campaign rules? (I was thinking a few points put towards them to represent "Used to do this all the time, but it's been awhile.")

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Nathanael Love wrote:
Sure if they put all the revisions in one single volume of an updated core book and don't redo any other books, that would be fine. . . that's not an "edition" though.

Uhm, yes it is. WOTC's been trying to change the idea of what constitutes a new edition by creating a new game every five years and labeling it a "new edition" but that doesn't make them right.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
captain yesterday wrote:

man! if only they would come out with a book like that, why they could call it Pathfinder to the Max, or maybe Pathfinder Unchained?, nah!


These sorts of things have never proven a long-term solution. It's been tried before, and at best you get temporary bickering about as bad as any edition war short of the 3E/4E one, followed by lots of "Well, I like it but it's 'just a sourcebook' and one of the other players hates it so we don't use it." Plus it can't actually fix underlying issues like the save divide, the Feat structure, the spell level assumptions, and so on.

And yes, I believe it's possible to fix these things without invalidating the Adventure Paths, although it's enough work that I can see Paizo being very hesitant about trying.

Pathfinder Unchained is a good breeding ground to try out new ideas for a revision. It's not a substitute for actually going in and doing that revision.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
JCAB wrote:
Especially when they are not actually indented to be BBEG in Aps.

So you completely missed my point. Anybody in a secondary supplement who gets more than a few lines is potentially going to be one of these down the line. To use your example, just because the head of the Acadame has not yet been featured in an AP doesn't mean he will not be. In fact, given the background on the Acadamae, he's a very good candidate for such at some point in the future. Just because that AP hasn't been written yet doesn't make it good practice to make him unsuitable for it.

I'm going to take this to a meta level for a moment. Those arguing that characters CAN be low level are disregarding a very key problem.

Every six months, one of these rulers might be designated the BBEG of an Adventure Path. Not 'your personal campaign', but something meant for general publication. This enforces a very tight structure, including pre-selecting a CR range that can be used. On average, APs end with the PCs at around level 15-16, which means the CR has to be something that would be appropriate to challenge PCs of those levels.

And people tend to be kind of touchy when something new deviates wildly from previously published material.

This pretty much dictates that more NPC rulers will fall into the high range than the low, simply so that future authors and developers won't continually find themselves in a position of having to justify a previously-discussed NPC suddenly adding ten levels and an artifact they didn't have before. You can get away with that every now and again, but not every time you start on a new AP.

Nothing's stopping you in a homebrew campaign, but Golarion's got to support the main product and that imposes design limitations.

Flame mystery has several decent blast powers, as does the Winter mystery.

Honestly, you're going to be very unhappy trying to be a blaster as a Mystic Theurge. It may be doable at this point by hunting through every single splat book, but it's literally going to take you months of research and possibly hundreds of dollars buying relevant Additional Resources if you're new to the game as a whole, and you'll still probably going to be less capable than a straight class because you'll be, at best, a spell level behind everyone else.

I think the goal was to try to keep it relatively balanced with the Core races. Flight's expensive with the Race Builder (and correctly so), so you probably can't get everything you want. If your GM doesn't mind a little more power, you can probably add some of that in, but not all.

1) Yes.

2) Yes.

3) No. "Magus Spells" in the Magus Armor Proficiency refers specifically to spells from the Magus class.

Jonah "Deadshot" Johnson wrote:
at the end of it i think it came out to almost a 40 RP rating...

That should be your first clue that it's massively OP. Zero HD races should average around half that. 26 would be pushing, 40 is beyond the pale.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I also think there may be a cultural aspect to it. The gestures are close to universal, but casters taught in one school may exaggerate the motions, creating sweeping gestures that have some "force" behind them to try to ensure accuracy, whereas others make the shapes in a manner that is tight and controlled, with precise angular motions. It's the same spell, looked at through slightly different lenses.

Eh, not sure it's that cut and dried. The proper way of phrasing this is "Do you get all the Domain Spells unlocked at 1st level and are just unable to use them, or do they get added to spells available as you level?"

Before you ask, this is actually possible. Gnome Oracles have the ability to advance their Curse class feature faster than their Oracle levels. When combined with the Haunted curse, this starts adding spells known that are above the highest level the Oracle has access to. She knows the spells, but cannot cast them (absent a metamagic feat that reduces their effective level.)


Domain Class Feature wrote:
Each domain grants a number of domain powers, dependent upon the level of the cleric, as well as a number of bonus spells. A cleric gains one domain spell slot for each level of cleric spell she can cast, from 1st on up. Each day, a cleric can prepare one of the spells from her two domains in that slot. If a domain spell is not on the cleric spell list, a cleric can prepare it only in her domain spell slot. Domain spells cannot be used to cast spells spontaneously.

Reading that, I think that you get the spells from your domain immediately on gaining access to the domain, whether you can cast them, and the Domain slots as well. But I'm not positive.

To clarify further - Psionics references in Golarion are mostly confined to the pre-PFRPG days, specifically the old "Pathfinder Campaign Setting" and maybe a few splatbooks. The rub is that they're not really Avistani, coming from further east (Pretty much between Avistan and Tian-Xia by land.) There are a few other references as well, like Aboleths and other monstrous races with access to the abilities.

They're rare, require training that comes from beyond the core campaign setting, and even then are acknowledged as just being an unusual way to access magic. I might not have any issue with it in a "kitchen sink" party, banning it as simply unavailable even though it's in the setting because, say, you want the players to all be Andoran slave liberators or from the Land of the Linnorm Kings is well within your perogative.

Asking politely for the above references so you can decide whether it fits the local flavor you're going for wouldn't be out of line, but you want to be careful about not escalating it into a challenge.

magnuskn wrote:

Erm, yeah, your mileage varies quite by a lot there to the one used by Paizo themselves. By official stats, the weakest demon lord is pegged at CR 25 and true deities don't even have an assigned CR, because they are beyond CR 30. Baba Yaga is mythic because the party is not supposed to fight her, after all.

Now, that she is as powerful as the most powerful demon lord is another thing, but arguable. Still, your CR scale is way off in regards to what Paizo themselves assume. For them, true deities are invulnerable even to high-level mythic characters (at least in their own realm) and can utterly annihilate entire metropolis with a single attack (see: Saranrae, Gormuz).

Thanks, said it better than I could have. Only going to add that Mythic power isn't meant to be "relatively normal" at all. At least in Golarion, having it represents nothing more or less than the start of apotheosis.

1 to 50 of 1,151 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2016 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.