|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
I'm sorry but you're just flat wrong.
Kestral understood my point.I agree with Aelryinth. I previously never argued that fast healing to all PCs would make combats easier (though instant stabilizing does make them less lethal). I argued it would reduce the tension of most encounters and change the way players approach using their class abilities.
You also seem to make the faulty assumption that every combat should be lethal. That's not true. Any GM worth his salt varies his encounters, such as ones merely made to wear down the party. It's much harder to do that and vary the encounters when the party can recover for free after every fight.
But you just illustrated the GM would have to make encounters harder if fast healing had any effect on the resource consumption per encounter. Let me break it down.
1) Fast healing impacts the resource consumption of each encounter, even if a little. That should be obvious, even if the impact merely reduces the consumption of a CR = APL encounter from 25% to 20% as you postulated.
2) You argue that if the above point is true, then a GM only needs to add another encounter each day. (Padding the day out with another encounter is actually a big deal, but that's beside my point)
3) If the above points are true and the GM wants to keep the same number of encounters per day, then the GM must increase the CR of one or more of his encounters. With your example, the GM would need to increase CR of one encounter by +2 or two encounters by +1.
Therefore, fast healing would require the GM to make encounters harder if it had any effect on resource consumption (which it does). You just illustrated that with your example.
Maybe one could say a +1 or +2 to one or two encounters as no big deal. I can concede that point. A GM granting all PCs fast healing would be prepared for that. But to say that a GM wouldn't have to make encounters harder at all to keep the resource consumption the same? That's a fallacy.
That example has so many flaws for various reasons. It also neither supports your claim nor does it disprove mine.
1) It views the game in isolation within a single, specific type of encounter and makes the gross assumption that a party has infinite amount of healing wands and/or the ability to exchange money for healing items at any given time. This and other ridiculous assumptions undermines the counterargument by postulating a spherical cow.
2) The example fails to look at emergent player behavior, which I consider much more important and relevant to the discussion than simply how much money the party loses each encounter.
3) Even excusing the above two points, the math provided proves against your argument. Losing up to 10% of your income is not insignificant. Even players with 12th level characters would wince at losing 250 to 750 gp on each encounter--mine certainly do, even when I'm generous on treasure.
And no. Pathfinder is a game of attrition, at least as the game design pattern described by Joris Dormans. Each encounter beats up the party's abilities, health, and items they had to buy/prepare ahead of time. If they play smart, they can get to the climax with enough resources necessary to win and save the day. Otherwise, someone might die or worse.
Even if I agree with you, you cannot deny that it's much harder to beat up the PCs if they can recover from any injury completely for free by sucking their thumb for 5 or 10 minutes. I don't want to play, run, or design for a game like that.
The whole point of a switch-hit build is that you shoot at enemies until they're close enough to engage with melee. Precise Shot isn't useful because if an ally engages in melee combat, you should engage with them--not stand there and shoot. If you're close enough to benefit from Point-Blank Shot, then you should be close enough to charge at the enemy. As a switch hitter, you're still primarily a melee fighter. You simply put a few of your eggs in the "ranged basket" so you're still a big threat when the enemy isn't close enough to engage with your primary weapon.
Power Attack, Deadly Aim, and Quick Draw should be your big priorities. Invest your feats into your melee weapon first.
Grammar Coach wrote:
Sorry, Coach. I originally wrote "There's many mechanical reasons to not allow this." but later added "thematic" because activating a wand takes some concentration and the invoking of one's force of will. You cannot duct tape a bunch of wands together like they're Canadian squirt guns to create a magic missile minigun. Magical devices do not work that way.
But as you wish.
Drops to the floor and gives 20 gold pieces.
DM Blake's absolutely right. There's many thematic and mechanical reasons to not allow this. Action economy deliberately limits the great power of magic. This also would cheat the magic item creation system because firing three magic missile wands is essentially getting a CL 5 wand of magic missile at a discount.
However, I would allow following:
This way, the player can combine three wands to fire two missiles at a time, spending a charge from all three wands. I'd consider this fairly balanced as this is mathematically the same as having a wand of a magic missile with a caster level high enough to fire multiple missiles. The expenditure of charges is also proportional because spending 1 charge from each of three CL 1 wands is proportionally the same cost of spending 1 charge from a CL 3 wand.
The premise is simple, but compelling: A necromancer gets her revenge on an old, deceased rival and uses the loyalty of her people against her. The scope is tight, avoiding the usual problems I see in modules that try to do too much at once. The few elements in the adventure have plenty of room for expansion and intrigue. I find the characters rather interesting. I want to learn more about Delbera and Zohir and about their rivalry. I want to explore Zohir's fortress and see what creative sins of nature she has crafted. I now want an orphne-related player race. Shadow-touched or exiled fey always fascinated me since Realm of the Fellnight Queen. An artistic, gothic fell-nymph? Yes please. There's a lot to like about this adventure.
As mentioned by the judges, there's some issues (why do you use en-dashes instead of hyphens for "non-combat?"). I'd think a title like "Bound to the Blighted Oath" works better considering the villain's plan involves twisting a magical oath to enslave a leader's loyal men. But these are minor nitpicks.
I also like that you made little assumption about what the players will do. There's several ways for the adventure to turn differently, and you do a great job accounting for that. You skillfully avoided railroading.
In my opinion, you struck a home run with this adventure.
If a party of low level enemies ambushes a bathing 20th level fighter, low level ambushers are screwed and incredibly stupid for even thinking about doing this. Why? Because the fighter has something more powerful than any individual class feature or magical weapon: friends. Powerful friends. No character reaches 20th level without accumulating several lifetimes of allies and accomplishing deeds to the awe of thousands of people. Several kingdoms owe him.
Even if you're a low level and kill the 20th level fighter, you're more than a dead man. That fighter has countless wealth stored elsewhere and a party of friends just (if not more) powerful than him. That fighter has entire kingdoms and powerful outsiders that owe a debt to him. If a mythic character, gods would owes him a favor or two. If you kill that fighter or take his stuff, his allies will find you. A slow, agonizing death is a merciful fate compared to what that fighter and his allies can do to you.
Because this is the heart of D&D. Your growth in power is not merely the numbers on your sheet, but the allies and experiences you accumulated in getting there.
Path of War by Dreamscarred Press wrote:
I like this feat for a number of reasons:
1) Little feat tax: The only feat requirement is Weapon Finesse. With my house rule, there's no feat tax whatsoever.
2) +1 BAB requirement: This means martials can pick it up immediately (like they should be able to), but gish classes cannot until 3rd level. I like this because gish classes were the only problem I've ever had with Dexterity-to-damage. Dexterity builds are very attractive to gish classes because they offset the class's lack of armor proficiency and MAD. I hated Slashing Grace because it's easy to munchkin a magus or another gish class to become as powerful of a fighter as a Dexterity martial while still being able to cast spells and use other powerful class features. Making the gish classes wait until 3rd level is fair.
3) Strength builds still do more damage: With Deadly Agility, a Dexterity character cannot gain the benefits of two-handing weapons. Power Attack already has diminished returns for finesse weapons. So while the Dex build still has some great benefits, a Str build will still do significantly more damage.
4) It helps two-weapon fighters: As a bonus, the last line of Deadly Agility provides a huge helping hand to two-weapon fighters.
Deadly Agility was obviously very well thought out, well designed, and well playtested.
Before you mention the rogue and monk not being able to pick Deadly Agility at 1st level, I always argued they should have been full BAB classes. In fact, Pathfinder Unchained will introduce revised versions of those classes that will have a full BAB.
I just simply give Weapon Finesse as a bonus feat to any character that meets its prerequisites. Then, I make available the Deadly Agility feat from Path of War by Dreamscarred Press. No need to change the weapon listings or change the rules. The Deadly Agility feat is also the most balanced and well designed approach to Dex-to-damage I've seen.
Paizo's a good company. If you like the game, show your support and buy the book from them or your local game store (they deserve love, too!) I don't think it's an unreasonable requirement. PDFs of the hardcover books are ridiculous cheap. I think they're on sale, too. If you want to play Pathfinder, it's probably a good idea to have a copy of the main rulebooks anyway.
It still strikes me as just a tiefling with a few bizarre design decisions. If it's not a creature with the chaotic subtype, then it shouldn't have an alignment restriction. Even evil races don't have alignment restrictions.
The only reason at-will charm monster isn't fully broken is it DOES have a will save DC of 10 + caster level (which is character level in this case) + CHA Mod.
You're giving a player race an at-will 1st level spell. That alone makes it broken. This is why the race builder lists it as a monstrous trait. On top of it, it's a powerful spell designed to trivialize social encounters.
I want to give my thanks to everyone who gave me honest feedback on windpath razor. I appreciate the time you took to do so and I am happy that many of you did enjoy the item. I see I need to gain a better grasp on pricing magic items.
I want to give back by responding to some items that caught my attention.
This item feels way too SAK for me, but the powers for modifying spells caught my attention and I really liked them. I always hated the design space of rods -- rods are basically just wondrous items that get their own category. I always wished they had more of a niche. I really support the idea of rods being all about modifying spellcasting.
I love the powers of this item, but the writing needs a lot of work. In writing game rules, it's very important to be clear and concise. There's a lot of unnecessary text that gets in the way of describing how cool the item is.
I once ran an encounter where the party had to use an experimental potion that granted them the powers of a mimic. When I saw this item, I got really excited, but I think you made the adhesive mechanics a little too complicated when you could have used an existing spell, which would have let you figure a way to give it a bit more original twists. I personally would have played more with the idea of turning into objects.
I love the premise, not the execution. While choosing self-buffs was not a bad idea, I'm disappointed there's no monk spells like ki arrow in this staff.
I have to be honest. I'm jealous of the praise for this item, because one of my candidate items was almost just like this--a cloak that turned you into a swarm of ravens that came inspired by an NPC in my campaign. Raven Leather is cool, but it's tragic that it falls short for the same reason I decided not to use my version of it. The armor is essentially a spell-in-a-can that turns you into a monster. It needed a bit more to it than that, even though the writing is very evocative.
The item deserves the praise it got. I'm surprised it did not get into the top 32, but I'd guess it lacks enough meat on its bones. I do like that it avoids the trap that many on-death items have by providing a useful benefit each day. My favorite aspect is the very last line: a dead-man's switch that notifies your next of kin. I'm honestly surprised an item like this does not exist already, especially considering that recovering pathfinders is a common scenario in PFS. Such an item would be a great plot hook.
Skinwalkers don't take a -4 penalty to Charisma. Read this again.
While in bestial form, a skinwalker takes a –4 penalty on Charisma and Charisma-based checks when interacting with humanoids that lack the shapechanger subtype.
The text means they take a penalty on Charisma checks and Charisma-based skill checks. They have to use this language because Charisma checks are not skill checks---they're ability checks. Charisma checks are used for things such as charm person and Command Undead. If the author meant the bestial form grants a Charisma penalty, then the text would say "to Charisma" and the penalty would be mentioned in the Ability Score racial trait heading. Additionally, it doesn't make any lick of sense why some heritages would give you Charisma bonuses when you shapeshift despite having a penalty.
Just a Guess wrote:
No early access, just a way to circumvent the strangeness that alchemy is not magic. And it gets the ban-hammer.
Alchemy isn't magic, but the alchemist's alchemy is magic. However, many feats like Arcane Strike and item creation feats only care if you can cast spells, even if the feat itself doesn't have anything to do with casting a spell.
You could just reflavor the alchemist. They're already good at throwing improvised weapons. I always wanted to play a dwarven alchemist who's a brewmaster that drinks a specially made strength-augmenting brew and throws exploding bottles of booze at people.
An alchemist archetype might work as well.
ErisAcolyte-Chaos jester wrote:
It's more a hobby right now but I would like to make it a career if I end up being good at it.
For serious learning in game design, I always recommend Art of Game Design: Book of Lenses by Jesse Schell and Fundamentals of Game Design and Advanced Game Mechanics by Ernest Adams. Jesse Schell's a Disney Imagineer and lead designer of Toontown. Ernest Adams is a professor that teaches game design, which is why his books are much more technical and expensive. Game design is kind of like writing narratives. It seems fairly simple at a glance, but it's a subject that requires an ample amount of creative and technical skill.
For writing content for Pathfinder, I recommend just writing new archetypes. Get a feel for what has been done before and find a niche to itch. Like any skill, you get better at it the more you do it.
I made a thread about this ages ago.
Despite the fact Paizo advertised the Swashbuckler could get easy Dexterity-to-damage in ACG, that feature was added to Slashing Grace as an after thought. They said they would remedy the situation, but all we got was Fencing Grace, which only works for rapiers. We still have the situation where a character can add their Dexterity to battleaxe damage, but not dagger damage.
I'm honestly not sure what the stance of the design team has about this. I thought they were adamant against Dex-to-damage, but then they make Slashing Grace and completely botch it up. Many have been begging them to errata the feat since the release of ACG.
Dreamscarred Press made a really well done version of the feat called Deadly Agility. A nice touch is that Dervish Dance still has a reason to exist.
Deadly Agility (Combat) wrote:
Unlike Slashing Grace, it has less feat tax while still preventing gish classes (like kensai magi) from getting it right away. Dex-to-Damage greatly benefits gish classes because it allows them to offset their MAD limitations.
I'm not a fan of 5th Edition, but I do have to concede the following things I like about it.
Backgrounds: Backgrounds feel like what Pathfinder traits should have been like.
Feats: I really like how each feat helps encompass a character concept, and having them bigger and more meaningful reduces the bloat. I do wish they had a level progression, though.
Sorcerer and Monk: Both these classes strike me as very well done. It feels natural that the sorcerer is the metamagic master. The monk is designed so you can pick between being a mystical warrior, a ki blaster, or a ninja with shadow powers. I've honestly been tempted to homebrew Pathfinder versions of these.
Skill & Saves: I like how skills and saves are simplified, though I do wish they left more room for customization.
Advantage/Disadvantage (as a concept): I think advantage/disadvantage was really poorly implemented for so many reasons I've listed elsewhere. However, I really like the idea of encapsulating all circumstantial bonuses into one mechanic. I'm implementing a different version of it in my own RPG projects.
This was one of the things I learned from Sean K. Reynolds's advice PDFs. After I read it, I immediately went to my homebrew folder and did all the necessary replacements.
Many word processors will let you program them to automatically certain character combinations with special characters. I set my Google Docs to replace -- with – and -+- with —
Most of my opinions remain the same from my first impressions.
However, I do believe that the arcanist is fairly balanced with the wizard and sorcerer. I did the math and found that the arcanist and wizard are fairly on par with one another. Having fewer spell slots than the sorcerer does hurt arcanist. While the arcanist does get cool toys, the wizard can pick them up, too. My only problem with the arcanist is that I think their spellcasting is way too complicated. You have to keep track of three different lists: spells in their spell list, spells they prepared, and how many spells they can cast. That and their resource pool makes them a bookkeeping nightmare.
I always roll my eyes when I see someone complain about "power creep" with ACG. The feat that gives you divine grace is really the only major power increase worth worrying about. And that feat was banned before the book hit the table.
The warpriest still feels like a huge disappointment. They just have way too many class features I don't care about. The sacred fist archetype is the big saving grace
I'm developing a class called "artiforged,"* which is what people call half-constructs in my campaign setting. The entire class centers around augmenting one's body with devices. My big design goal is to make artiforged setting neutral so they can fit in most campaign settings. They have a class feature that works similar to a sorcerer bloodline that determines the flavor of their augmentations. For example, there's one where your augmentations are magical devices attached to your body, another where you're "frankensteining" yourself with undead limbs, one where you're mutating yourself with alchemically grown organs, and one where your augmentations are actually symbiotic plants. This way, you can play a cyborg-like character that fits in your GM's campaign setting. Unfortunately, while I finished most of it, I got stumped with a couple of mechanics and had to put the project aside for my Master's thesis and RPG Superstar.
In my campaign, artiforged are rather rare. The only ones the party has seen come from a runari city. Like other runari technology, false limbs are magically enhanced stone with little to no moving parts. Runari artiforged look something like this.
If you're trying to brainstorm some kind of cyborg race, I can picture a race where each member (or the descendants of each member) is like the 6 Million Dollar Man or like Android #17 and #18 from Dragon Ball. At one point, they were a member of a different race, but got "rebuilt" so they're functionally an entirely new race. Maybe there's a racial trait that differs depending on how they were rebuilt. Maybe the only way members of this race can reproduce is by sharding a part of their personality into a new cyborg or by creating a "new version" of themselves.
*I can't decide whether to call them "artiforged" or "artiforge."
Zelda Marie Jacobs-Donovan wrote:
You're absolutely justified to reacting that way. As Sean K Reynold says, spell research is meant to will new spells into existance, not cheat your class limitations. Ultimate Campaign's spell research rules should be FAQ'd, eratta'd, and completely rewritten. They and many other downtime rules were haphazardly made. One should take anything from the downtime rules with a grain of salt and a few shots of Tequila.
I not only allow my players to make their own spells, but I encourage it. My players do many downtime activities. The gunslinger recently built a galleon and commissioned a firearm research and development plant. He's traveling from city to city, searching for artificers to hire and build the most unique magitech guns the Inner Sea has ever seen. I don't use UC's downtime system, but I do the buildings and teams content. Those are pretty well done.
I played a magus that used spell research and had big discussions about the research rules with a friend about them.
Do not use the rules in Ultimate Campaign. As I explained in this thread, the rules were not well thought out and the math completely falls apart beyond the first spell level. A 4th level spell requires over 11k, 28 days, and 56 skill checks that you cannot take 10 on. Whoever wrote these rules obviously did not playtest them at all.
The GameMastery Guide has the best rules for spell research. It does allow a spontaneous caster to create a spell, but it doesn't allow them to cheat their spells known cap. That should be obvious. Spell research is supposed to let you customize your spellcaster.
I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:
Can I just pop in to mention that this thread has completely failed to go in any direction resembling any of the directions I'd initially intended it to go?
The discussion doesn't really have much to work with. You haven't really provided much clear support for your suggestion. So far, the only arguments to justify ability score requirements I've seen from you are:
1) Hinder munchkins (problem players that use their system mastery to build and play competitively in a non-competitive game at the expense of their fellow gamers' fun).
2) Preserve the integrity of classes.
3) Other editions of D&D do it.
In addition to the numerous reasons why the suggestion is a bad idea that strikes many as loathsome, the fine people of this discussion gave the following rebuttals to the above points.
1) It will do little to hinder munchkins. Even if it did, the problem with munchkins lie with their motivations, not their methods.
2) Class features define a class, not ability scores. So it's better to let the class features decide the minimums, which they do anyway. Class features are highly dependent on ability scores. Some class features (spellcasting, grit, etc) don't work without a minimum ability score. So even for the purpose of maintaining the integrity of classes, enforcing ability score minimums not only makes no sense, but is also redundant at best.
3) Pathfinder is not AD&D, 4th Edition, or 5th Edition. Pathfinder reinforces the idea of using the system to create character concepts with classes as a foundation. This is why Paizo introduced archetypes and hybrid classes and gave many classes talents or features like sorcerer bloodlines. Additionally, other editions had way better reasons to hinder multiclassing or remove it entirely. AD&D's multiclassing worked entirely different from 3rd Edition's. 4th Edition basically removed multiclassing because every class gets all their features at 1st level. 5th Edition centers everything around proficiencies and was deliberately designed for low-level play. As a result, multiclassing is very strong in 5th Edition, which is why the game made it an optional rule with many limitations.
"I'm Hiding In Your Closet," the discussion will obviously stagnate since you haven't provided any good counterarguments to the above rebuttals.
SO what's your opinion on the Summoner?
It's a class that encourages you to make a background story about your main class feature. That I really love about the class and enables many interesting character concepts.
However, my biggest problem with summoners lies with the fact they're incredibly self-sufficient. They can fulfill the role of a fighter and a wizard at the same time without either of their weaknesses. They can send summons or their immortal eidolon to do risky stuff a monk or a rogue might be tasked to do. They have poor skills, but they can easily make up for it by granting skills to their eidolon or granting evolutions that negate the need for skills altogether. Summoners can fulfill every role at the same time without the risks and sacrifices other classes make. It's incredibly easy for a player to optimize a summoner as a one-man party. For a game all about working as a team, that's a bad thing.
In addition, the eidolon is not only stronger than familiars and animal companions, but also they have none of the risks of possessing a companion. They're immortal. They're hard to kill. And there's little consequence to the summoner if they die. The eidolon comes back the next day. In the meantime, the summoner can use their standard action summon monster SLA.
Overall, I feel the class is flavorful, but broken. When I mean "broken," I mean it's not well designed to the point of running contrary to the game's overall design goals. The summoner is a class unhealthy for a team game. Honestly, I feel like this serves as the core reason why many people don't like summoners, even if they do not explicitly articulate this. I wouldn't necessarily ban the summoner from my campaigns. I only GM for trusted friends that I can count on to make the game fun for everyone.
I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:
The only effective way to stop a powergamer is don't invite them to your table. Pathfinder's a team game meant to be enjoyed with friends and fellow gamers. If a player's behavior comes at the expense of everyone else's fun, they need to leave. Don't play with them for the same reason you wouldn't play with a guy who acts like a competitive prick at any other tabletop game.
Limiting options won't stop someone that powergames the way you describe. Ability score requirements won't hinder them at all unless you make them really prohibitively high.
DM Under The Bridge wrote:
Surprised at the hostility and complete rejection myself.
We attack the idea, not the person -- though I think Rynjin was jesting. The OP's explicitly said they want to do this to punish players for 1-level dipping. Any house rule designed to make the game less fun will receive very harsh criticism. That should go without saying.
DM Under The Bridge wrote:
Is it such a terrible idea that a fighter should at least have high-average strength and coordination, or a gunslinger really quick on the draw?
Yes, because there's no good reason to gate classes like that. Why have a minimum Dexterity when a low-DEX character makes for an awful gunslinger anyway? And some classes already have abilities with minimum ability scores to be useful or work at all, like grit and spellcasting. Like I said earlier, it's redundant at best and a punch in the face at worst.
DM Under The Bridge wrote:
I think it is an excellent idea, but ninja should have a wis requirement, not int. Although most of their "real-world" work involved cha, pathfinder doesn't really push it that way.
Really? Do me a favor. Look up the ninja class on a PRD. Press CTRL+F on your web browser and type in the word "Wisdom" to see how many times in appears in the ninja's class description. Then do the same for Charisma.
I absolutely hated that they added this back to 5th Edition.
The beauty of the game lies with the fact you can play any class a number of different ways. For example, you can play an alchemist as a melee fighter, a blaster, a ranged fighter, a pseudo-caster, or a combination of them. Why ruin that with pointless ability score requirements? Some classes, like spellcasters and swashbucklers, already have ability score requirements for some of their class features.
Pathfinder does a rather good job rewarding characters that don't multiclass. The game already cripples you if you lack the ability scores relevant to your class. As a result, I can't see any good reason to implement ability score requirements. It's redundant at best and a giant punch in the face at worst.
Magic in the blood is kind of broken. Being able to cast all your kitsune SLAs up to 7 or 8 times per day? Ew.
I highly recommend the Kitsune Compendium. It's really well done, and with exception to the monk archetype, fairly balanced, too. It also has some content that do what you're trying to do here and better. There's one oracle/sorcerer archetype called the "nine-tailed mystic" where you gain Magical Tail as a bonus feat instead of gaining a bloodline spell.
I personally houseruled that a kitsune has a number of tails equal to the highest spell level they can cast. It's purely cosmetic, but something my kitsune players really appreciate. Yes, I have a lot of friends who play kitsunes.
Honestly, I think Mark Seifter's diligent feedback provided a very awesome alternative to the top 100. His and voter feedback strike me as a better measurement of how well your item faired and how you can improve than some arbitrary top X items list.
I do feel that the strongest argument for showing the list lies with less golden ticketing since getting those few more votes than the other item in the top 50 is more important than simply making an item great enough to catch the eye of the judges. However, I do agree the arguments against showing the list outweigh this.
Shimmering air continues to briskly flow within this 30 foot line for 1 round. Allies that perform the charge, move, run, or withdraw actions through at least two squares of this wind trail begin hovering 1 foot above the ground and ignore difficult terrain for the remainder of the movement. These allies must land on a solid surface at the end of their turn.
Jacob Kellogg wrote:
As Petty Alchemy says, the recharge mechanic is a very significant difference. So much that I wrote this article answering the question "Why does grit/panache "feel" different than ki?" To summarize the article, grit is a dynamic engine whereas ki is a static engine. As a result, grit generates a feedback loop that gives rise to emergent gameplay differing from ki.
I'm not saying a unified pool is inherently a bad thing, only that it comes with trade offs. These trade offs do exist, even in a system as you propose. You would still have to figure out a way to make all classes and their interactions work in the same framework, either by disabling multiclassing or by providing/barring recharge mechanics for all classes. This inherently limits the design space.
So as someone who is only a casual visitor to Golarion, what HAS been mapped already?
I recommend looking through the Inner Sea World Guide for a city or some place on the map that looks interesting. Then do a search for it, even if just google, and see if any module or adventure path takes place there. If not, there's likely no map for it. Many modules have the place's name in the module's title (Doom Comes to Dustspawn, Fangwood Keep, Carrion Hill, etc) so it should be easy to find whether a map exists of it.
On a related note, I have a character who comes from a tribe that reveres ancestors. She strongly frowns upon grave robbing as her tribe tends to bury a few useful items with their fallen kin so can continue to serve the tribe in the afterlife. However, it's also customary for the deceased to leave their best possessions to their kin. This means that while the character opposes grave robbing, she's fine with looting tombs or taking equipment from fallen foes. The kin of entombed dead are usually way long gone and most of the valuable tombs come from arrogant materialistic kings. As a result, she feels like their possessions serve no use being buried.
She's not a Pharasmin, but this might be a good example of a character that respects the dead, but is fine with taking stuff from the slain.