It's like if a person IRL was like "I can throw a ball, tie my shoelaces, and run in circles some days, but other days I forget how to do all of that. But then I can use a fork, blow my nose, and brush my hair instead.".
I don't see it this way at all. First off, I don't see the magic as some inherent thing they should automatically be able to do (like throw a ball or tie shoelaces), and second, I don't really see wizard's magic as part of _themselves_ that much either. For me, it's more like a bag of tools - the bag can only hold so many tools, and when you have time you can pack it with whatever tools you have, so that when you need them you only need to reach within your bag and get them.
I like vancian spellcasting because it feels unique. There's so g+%@*!n many spell point/mana systems, it feels nice that there is something with a different flavor.
However, I think it could be cleaned up a bit to be easier to understand, and I think that there should be a more explicit explanation of what happens IN-game. Though of course the drawback with that is that it isn't open to people's interpretation as much, so that would be a double-edged sword.
These are pretty extreme though. There is no connection at all between constitution and fatness, and there's nothing in the strength description that ties it to looking like a body builder (and in fact, people who are very strong generally don't look as much as body builders... body building and strength training are to a large degree different).
No-one's claiming a dex5 character shouldn't be able to pour himself a cup of tea. We're claiming they shouldn't be able to juggle 8 balls at a time (unless there is some specific background reason for being able to do specifically that).
No-one's claiming a wis5 character should be forced to charge head first into anything, just that he haven't got batman's intuitivity.
Someone with 5 should not be generally able to do something that most regular people can't. Of course there might be exception if the person has trained really well for that task. If it's something nearly everyone can do (like NOT charging headfirst into everything - I mean, our characters aren't cariactures) of course they should be able to do it.
But I want it to be the same for PC's and NPC's. If the claim "ability scores shouldn't affect behaviour" is taken for granted, there's nothing preventing the Giant Spiders for coming up with intrinsic plans on how to kill those intruding PC's, putting out complex chains of traps etc.
This is one possible interpretation of the rules, however, it isn't the only one (elves being immune to it is clearly RAW though). However, it does not say "this ability works like the sleep spell", it says they _fall asleep_ as the sleep spell. This could just as easily be interpreted as the specific sleep effect (there's not an "asleep" condition, which is why sleep abilities generally refer to the sleep spell) of the ability working like it does with sleep, in regards to waking and such. It does not necessitate that the school, subschool and designations of the ability are the same as that of the spell.
(Su) abilities that are effects of a certain school are fairly rare in the game and seem to be explicitly stated as such where they appear. It would not be unreasonable to rule that Slumber is a supernatural ability without a school, subschool, designation or spell level.
Because most acts that people actually consider evil are more evil than most acts people consider good. Using a [good] spell to kill an innocent totals out to evil because casting the good spell does not make up for killing an infant. Using an [evil] spell to help an old lady over the street is more vague as helping someone over the street is a much lesser virtue.
Basically, I think actions can be both good and evil at the same time, or rather, several events that are tied together (for example the casting of an Infernal Healing and the saving of a life that comes with it) can be differently aligned and come out to either good or bad.
If someone uses infernal healing, coating a dying child in devil's blood to save it from dying, I think the evil in that event is much lesser than the good. If it's used regularly to patch up the fighter of random bruises, I think the evil is a bit larger than the good.
Casting [Evil] spells won't turn you evil(or neutral). There isn't a magical number of infernal healings that makes you unbelievably evil. Any concept of it turning you evil is fluff.
That depends on if you regard the words of the creative director as relevant or not. James Jacobs have explicitly stated that casting an evil spell is an evil action (however, as you say, there is no set number that will make a person evil - that is up to the GM/group).
So it's not more of a house rule than "murdering babies will make you evil" is a house rule; both are evil actions. HOW evil they are is up to the GM, and I sure hope they aren't considered equal.
I'm very happy with pathfinder. I'm not happy with GURPS. That's why I'm here discussing what rules work well and what rules don't work well in pathfinder, rather than being over at the GURPS forum (if there is such a thing).
Pathfinder is fantastic in many ways, it's my preferred system for action-focused games and I love analyzing it's rules far more than any other system. It's also fantastic in that you can change certain aspects of the rules and generally predict how that will change the gameplay; it's a very "modular" system in my opinion. And that is another reason why I love it, and a reason why I post here about things I feel are improvements to the game at my table.
I'm playing in a level 3 campaign where 3 out of the first 4 encounters have been totally immune to mind affecting effects. Slumber would not have been very helpful...
Whether Slumber Hex is a mind-affecting ability isn't clear, though. It does reference the sleep spell, but it doesn't say the ability as a whole is the same except for X. It's very much a case of interpretation, but by hard RAW I would say it isn't a mind-affecting effect.
Now, most creature types immune to mind-affecting are also immune to sleep so that doesn't always matter; the only exception seems to be vermin. Vermin are quite common at low levels though.
We give out full Hp per level. But its funny when the players in the game complain when I give the monsters full HP (especially when theres a two handed fighter doing 2d6+13 damage a hit)
See, these are the kind of things one needs to take into account when discussing class balance.
If monster HP is maxed, it takes 25-75% more time for the martials to kill someone. The amount of full attacks to kill a mook might go from one to two, and for bosses it might go from 2-3 to 3-5. Meanwhile, save or sucks can still kill anyone in a single action with a little luck.
When playing with maxed HP (which we sometimes do and sometimes don't), it's IMO necessary to give everyone a bonus to saves to to match it. That doesn't solve no-save-you-suck spells but at least balances it somewhat.
That it would require the market value in materials as a target. So if you want to make a full plate, you need 1500 gp worth of material, rather than the 500 it would cost to craft it the regular way.
That way, fabricate doesn't allow you get stuff cheap, but it allows you to quickly get access to equipment if you have the raw materials for them.
In other words, it becomes a spell for versatility rather than economic gain.
Also, right now the materials are spelled out in the "component" section. Some people argue that because of that it can be bypassed with Blood Money and similar stuff - so creating a full plate is just casting the spell and taking 1d6 damage and 4 strength damage (which are easily cured with a 750 gp wand of lesser restoration). Now, this of course is not RAI, but from a RAWy-RAW RAWiness perspective it isn't an impossible interpretation, which means some munchkins will argue it.
If it did not appear in the component line and instead just appeared in the target line, this would be impossible.
EDIT: This is how I'd word it, roughly:
Fabricate v. 1.I:
You convert material of one sort into products of the same material. You gain finished products of a market value equal to the market value of the materials used. Creatures or magic items cannot be created or transmuted by the fabricate spell. The quality of items made by this spell is commensurate with the quality of material used as the basis for the new fabrication. If you work with a mineral, the target is reduced to 1 cubic foot per level instead of 10 cubic feet.
You must make an appropriate Craft check to fabricate articles requiring a high degree of craftsmanship.
Casting requires 1 round per 10 cubic feet of material to be affected by the spell.
I think the rogue could have a class feature (or talent, though it's a very strong talent) that looks like this:
Professional (EX) - A rogue is a master of skills. She gains a bonus on all her skills equal to half her rank in that skill or half her rogue level, whichever is less.
So for single-classed rogues it's simply "add half your ranks as a bonus". At 6th level rogue with 6 ranks in perception and 4 ranks in bluff will gain +3 perception, +2 buff. If they multiclass, it's the least of that and rogue level, to prevent dipping.
Love the fighter fix. Really great.
Like the rogue talents too. Not sure on giving a talent at level 1 though - rogue is already a good dip class, IMO the best together with monk. Giving a free combat feat or some other rogue talent at 1st level seems a bit over the top.
Taason the Black wrote:
YOU choose if you want to play Darth Vader-evil. It's also very possible to play Dexter-evil, or any other variant that doesn't kick every puppy she sees.
Honestly, evil characters feel much more real and believable when they have friends that they genuinely care about, and/or when they have morals, just bad morals.
At the same time when it's okay in a group of good or neutral characters:
On the other hand, I don't allow evil characters in-game. Most of my regular players wouldn't want to play them, and I find the few times I've allowed it with newer players, it's often been used as an excuse to act sexist and racist and expect to get away with it.
An evil campaign has a tendency to romantizise horrible things, or sometimes even frame them as good, so I stay far away from that.
Ah, if you're half-elf, half-dragon you should pick the elf race and apply the half-dragon template, not the half-elf race.
Half-elf is specifically half-elf/half-human. So halfdragon on a halfelf would be 50% dragon, 25% elf, 25% human.
That said, it's rare to play with such powerful templates on - but the game seems quite high-powered.
IF half-dragon is allowed, the other players will get something equally powerful. In that case I'd say go full summoner because while the eidolon is very powerful compared to standard characters, your characters are very high-powered and will meet high-powered opponents and then the eidolon will feel "meh" if you've multiclassed.
If your DM doesn't okay half-dragon, consider making a Synthesist summoner, taking on evolutions that will turn you more and more into a dragon for each level.
The stat boosters in the core book are HEAVILY favored towards casters, who only need their one mental stat high as fast as possible. It punishes noncasters, who will basically always want 2 if not all 3 physical stats boosted, but thanks to the belt have to pay 1.5x the cost on the 2nd stat and aren't allowed to "stagger" the upgrades (ie, at a given level have +4 str, but only +2 con) at all to make them affordable earlier. Instead you have to save up, wait another level or 2, and buy it all en masse. That you could do so in 3E is what makes it especially heinous and insulting. Only allowing the core PF stat boosters is a straight up nerf to noncasters.
Well... A nerf compared to 3.x maybe - disallowing custom items are hardly a nerf compared to the default assumptions.
That said, I agree with what the balance consequences are.
Lincoln Hills wrote:
I think the result should be the same as someone crafting it non-masterwork in the regular way, regardless of how it's interpreted.
I think there are two possible interpretations of this when it comes to the rules; either, being masterwork is an ability of special material armors or you cannot craft special material armors unless you craft them as masterwork.
In the first interpretation, crafting mithril armor do not require any masterwork check and stays at a DC of 10+AC; it isn't harder to craft than regular armor, just takes more time.
In the second interpretation, mithril cannot be crafted unless crafted as masterwork. In that case, if you cannot craft the item of masterwork quality you aren't skilled enough to make it into useful armor; if you ask a random teenager to build you a formula 1 car, the teenager might be able to make something that kinda looks like a car, but won't be able to make it useful even as a regular car, much less a F1.
The Craft skills specifically says high-quality items take a DC 15 to craft, exemplifying with a bell. So a bell is definately a high-quality item.
Well, in my games greatclub is a simple weapon (because who the frakk made _that_ martial? :S) so that's not an issue in my home games. And the others, of course there are exceptions, and if a player asked to fabricate a sap I'd say nothing against it.
No ruling ever is perfect - setting the limit at DC18 would mean objects clearly denoted as "high quality" wouldn't be treated as such. 15 seems a good average.
The game itself defines high-quality items as having DC15, so that part's also not really on me.
I share Aelryinth's viewpoint that there are no and cannot be any non-masterwork special material armors. I believe this is both RAW and RAI. However, I do not think that necessarily means that the rules require you to craft them as masterwork items; another interpretation that is possible (but unlikely) is that they have masterworkiness as a special ability but are no harder to craft than normal armors.
I would say that one interpretation of Fabricate's "high degree of craftsmanship" clause would be looking at the craft skill, which lists:
Of course this is just one possible interpretation of many, but if it comes up in my games, that's what I'll go with.
So, as it's vague and much open to interpretation, these are how I'll use the rules:
I think there's some merit to what Aelryinth's saying. Their claim, from what I understood it, is that crafting a masterwork item is basically crafting two items - the regular item and the masterwork part. Fabricate only allows you to craft one item, so wouldn't be able to create the masterwork part. The fact that it refers to a single craft check reinforces this.
I'm not sure what the correct interpretation is, neither from a RAW or RAI standpoint, but I think it's worth hitting the FAQ on as it is unclear and affects the usefulness of the spell drastically.
Custom items are always up to the DM - any custom items can be seen as kind of a houserule in itself, though there are guidelines for creating them (just like for monsters).
Regardless, while there aren't any rules on it (there's very little rules on item creation at all; mostly guidelines), most DM's prefer if custom items are as close as possible to core items and will generally encourage those who want to design custom items to keep the bonuses in the same slots they are in core.
So it's not so much law as it is a norm.
Since the question has been answered, I'll go a little off-rules and suggest a band-aid that works decently. This:
The accellerated crafting rule can be applied more than once. Each time you apply it, double the amount of sp worth of items produced per week.
A half-plate is DC18, so if you have get to +18 (assistants? masterwork tools?) and can take 10, you can produce 28*28*2=1568 sp per week.
Once you're a real master with +28, you can produce 38*38*2*2=5776 sp per week.
PFSRD, my bolding wrote:
The ability very clearly spells out that it explicitly CANNOT DIE. It does not state death effects are an exception, and regeneration only doesn't heal other attack forms - not that those can kill it. In other words, drain it to 0 con and it will have 0 con and regen won't do anything, but it won't die either.
The only way to kill a creature with regeneration is to remove or disable it's regeneration. When it comes to trolls there are a few ways to do this though, including polymorph effects, flesh to stone etc. And of course trolls can be killed with fire and acid.
So you are saying that those lines in the tarrasque entry are complete hypotheticals that the designers added to no purpose, despite knowing that there was no spell or effect anywhere in the game that could possibly cause the siutation which they nonetheless spent the page space to describe the hypothetical effects of? That just seems... highly implausible to me.
I'm saying that's what the lines do by the rules. I do not think it was intended, but since the whole discussion is reliant on RAW rather than RAI (if we go by RAI, there's still no discovered way to kill the big T; as said in the regeneration entry "the method to truly kill it has yet to be discovered")
So if we go by RAI first and foremost, there's no way to kill the big T since the method to kill it hasn't been discovered.
If we go by RAW first and foremost, there's no way to kill the big T as the only effects that could do so are not yet existing.
Not necessarily, as I noted in a post above the one you quoted. It depends on the form of override. If the killing ability would have "the target loses it's regeneration" then it would override the three rounds thingy, but if it had "this effect can kill a creature with regeneration even if cannot normally be killed by death effects" or similar it would kill the big T if it failed the saving throw, and T would rise again 3 rounds later.
But neither of those variants exist in the game AFAIK.
Note also that the Regeneration section states that "Attack forms that don’t deal hit point damage are not healed by regeneration." In other words, death due to pure, non-HP-based death effects wouldn't usually get healed by (ordinary) Regeneration.
Yes, it is true that effects are not healed. That is not the same thing as "can be killed" by them. As long as regeneration is active, you cannot be killed. Regeneration won't heal for example constitution drain, so you can get drained to 0 or a negative (if you can have negative ability scores, unsure) and regen won't heal it, but you still cannot die since you have regeneration and thus you'll run around with a -5 con modifier.
"Normal" regenerative creatures like trolls and similar can't be killed by death effects either, you know. So while I agree that it's expanding the scope beyond what normal regeneration is capable of (since it can revive T if killed by an effect that can specifically kill creatures with regen), you're mistaken about what the scope of normal regeneration is.
Again, regenerative creatures, and I quote, cannot die as long as regeneration is active. Most creatures have some kind of damage that can override this, big T does not. A troll cannot die except for fire and acid - no starvation, no con drain, no circle of death can kill it (though the first two will put it in a very uncomfortable situation) unless it has taken fire or acid damage. A troll that would become immune to fire and acid would be completely immortal by the rules and known methods, just like the tarrasque. Some people have tried finding methods to get both, but seemed to only be able to get one of them naturally, being forced to get the second from an item, but that was a few splatbooks ago so it might be possible now.
No it's not that it isn't technically dead for those three rounds, it is, but to get that to happen you need to kill it. See this bolding:
PFSRD Terrasque Monster Entry wrote:
PFSRD Universal Monster Rules wrote:
For it to die and be dead for three rounds before rising, you must first find some effect that can actually kill it. Something like CdG or Wail of the Banshee can't kill it, since it has an active regeneration - thus, even if it fails it save against the effect, that is not an effect that would instantly kill it, since it can't be killed.
For it to work the way you think it does, the wording on the tarrasque would have to be:
PFSRD Terrasque Monster Entry wrote:
Since the wording isn't like that, what you need is something that can specifically override Regeneration. If you have that, you can kill it (and if it's a save or die effect it will rise again in three rounds unless you sunder it's corpse).
Atarlost: Or one could simply empower the MAD classes more. The Paladin is a good example of a quite MAD class that seems to do well (has two high priority and two medium priority ability scores, comparable with rogue and monk in that respect) because it's been given enough power.
Abilities having less and less chance to work doesn't necessarily have to break the game for a class, if it's chances to use that ability increases. If, for example, stunning blow was usable on every single attack (which I think would be overkill, but just as an example), then it starts out with maybe 50% chance to work and two tries per round if flurrying (75% chance of success), and ends up with 20% chance to work and seven tries per round if flurrying (79% chance of success). Of course if it doesn't get more uses per day they would run out very quickly, but it was just an example of how it can easily be compensated for in class design.
Being SAD is a benefit, but it's not a benefit that can't be compensated for with other things. Thus, it's not as simple as "the issue is the class is MAD" just as saying about lacking melee classes "the issue is that it's medium BAB", because you can have a medium BAB class that can do fine in melee (synthesist, alchemist, druid). Increasing BAB is one possible solution, but isn't the only one and not necessarily the preferable one.
EDIT: One more thing to note in respect to save DC's is that the SAD classes such as casters generally have more ways to boost their DC's than the MAD classes such as monks. Ability focus is rules-fuzzy, and other than that there's nearly nothing. Meanwhile, like half of the popular arcane schools and bloodlines have a save DC-boosting effect and there's feats and rods of persistance that make it even more powerful.
I really don't think the issue is that some classes are single ability dependant and some are multiple ability dependant. The issue is that the game design treats the value of a score as equal for SAD and MAD classes.
Currently, for example, the DC of a class ability is usually equal to 10+1/2 level+Ability Score. The effect of class abilities are usually within the same range and mostly are save for no effect.
This means the misfortune hex of a witch, which is SAD and can buff it's intelligence to about 18+1/2 level without large issues, will be much much harder to resist than the stunning blow of a Monk, which is MAD and has a wis of maybe 16+1/3 level (or less). The effects are both save or no effect and I think they're about equal in power level WHEN THEY WORK.
To abstract things a bit more, if classes mainly get offense, defense and utility (in different amounts of course) from their class abilities, the issue is that a SAD character like a wizard gets offense, defense and utility from it's Intelligence. Meanwhile, someone like the monk relies on it's strength for offense, dex and wisdom for defense and wisdom for utility. Both of course also require a decent amount of con, but let's ignore that for the moment as they're equal in that.
The issue is that if the wizard gets X offense, X defense and X utility from Int, and the monk gets X offense from str, 1/2X defense from wis, 1/2X defense from dex, and X utility from wis, there's a disparity. For it to work well, the monk needs to get 2X offense from str, X defense from wis and dex each and 2X utility from wis (or some similar inflated value).
A MAD character needs to get more from each score, or more abilities not tied to ability scores, than a SAD character.
For example, in the case above about special abilities of the classes, there are four main ways to do this:
Now, PF has done a little of that, but also reduced the MAD of classes (for example dropping Wis as a relevant ability score for paladins). I generally like MAD classes more than SAD, and honestly think all ability scores should be useful (though not mandatory) for all classes. But that's kind of a different topic and relates to the general weakness of skills. Well well.
To further clarify: NOTHING in the big ts regen description says it can be killed with death effects. It says that IF yottu use an instakill ability which COULD kill it (without saying if or where such abilities exist) it rises again in 3 rounds.
To have it work as you think it does, the text should have been like "if the tarrasque fails a saving throw against a death effect that could have killedit had it not had regeneration, it dies but rises in three rounds". Instead it says "that would kill it" which is a different thing.
I think you are missing the point. As long as regeneration is active, NO effect will insantly kill it becase it cant die. Big Ts regen doesmt say death effects are an excpetion to the cant die, they say if you find a way ro bypass normal regen (withou deactivating it) that wont work either.
Its a case of general vs specific, and you need something more specifuc than the regen. Exactly how its prioritized is of course affected by DM judgement, but in general youd need something that mentions regeneration or creatures that cannot die.
However animate dead wouldnt be needed. It only rises if no further damage is done to the corpse. IF you can somehow kill it, a single sunder on the corpse would be enough to make it stay dead.on the other hand, if it didnt, its very rules gray if animate dead would keep it dead (depends on if you read the 3-round dead as a casting tine for the abilit or as a delay so to speak). But these are all moot points since we dont have anything in the rules (at least we havent found anything) that disables the regen.
I think this is a fair race. It has several decent bonuses and no really bad penalties. They look like they could perform decently in most roles, but there's no class that just screams I WANNA MATE!. This is good; many homebrewed races seem to be made for a certain class which I find boring.
I would say it's maaaybe a little on the weak side, at least in a standard campaign - dexterity is one of the harshest ability scores to have a penalty in. But it also matters a lot on the campaign, if you're constantly around water they'll be very strong, otherwise not.
Their most powerful ability is their good swimming speed and being amphibious and those are very environment-dependant.
@ilja I'm not saying we coup de gras to keep it down permanently. That's what the animate dead trick is for. We just want to turn off the regeneration.
Yes, but there is no way by RAW to turn off the regeneration (unless there is and I've missed it, of course).
Instead he has the clause for effects with a failed save that kill him instantly. I think we should count this as an exception to the standard form/notation that supersedes the norms. Specifics > generalities.
It doesn't say regeneration is overridden or that it can be killed by death effects. It says that IF you manage to kill it with a death effect or similar, it rises again in three rounds. Note the wording:
No form of attack can suppress the tarrasque's regeneration—it regenerates even if disintegrated or slain by a death effect. If the tarrasque fails a save against an effect that would kill it instantly, it rises from death 3 rounds later with 1 hit point if no further damage is inflicted upon its remains. It can be banished or otherwise transported as a means to save a region, but the method to truly kill it has yet to be discovered.
Take for example Phantasmal Killer, and ignore that it's mind-affecting. (I couldn't think of any insta-kill effect that wasn't mindaffecting so we'll have to settle for this.
If the big T is the target of PK, and has less than 100 hit points, nothing happens. Why? Because:
If, however, there was a spell with this effect:
then that spell WOULD work on big T. It has to save against a spell that will kill it, and if it fails, it dies, and rises again after three rounds.
To get big T to STAY dead, you'd need an effect that does the following:
So far I know of no published way to actually trigger the "kill and it's dead for 3 rounds" thingy, which is probably why it says that the means to kill big T has yet to be found.
How would using a death effect, feeding the soul on round 1 to a cacodaemon, and then feeding the soul gem to a dretch or something on round 2 work? Does the Tarrasque get sucked down to the lower planes after that?
Which death effect? I know no death effect that works on big T but I might have missed some. However, you can send the tarrasque to the lower planes while alive - that would probably be much easier, and is a completely valid tactic to save a region from it.
Nope. All ways to disable regeneration is mentioned in the monster's regeneration entry. Look at trolls; it says "regeneration 5 (acid or fire)". If CdG bypassed for big T, it'd say "regeneration 40 (coup de grace)". It says "regeneration 40", thus there is no RAW way to bypass the regeneration.
And even if there where, the special clause in regeneration means if you kill it it'd probably get back in three rounds (depends on the wording of the killing ability though, whether it disables regeneration or if it's just a specific case of "can kill creatures with regeneration").
There seems to be some misconceptions about how regeneration and damage works; just thought I'd clear that up.
When the tarrasque reaches -34 hp, it doesn't die and regenerate in three rounds. Nothing happens when T reaches -34 hp, as long as regeneration is active - this regardless of the source of damage. Note that regeneration says it doesn't _heal_ damage from starvation etc; not that those kinds of damage can override the "a creature with active regeneration cannot die" clause. Thus, a drowning or starving T won't die and regenerate; it'll simply be unconscious with -14241347923478234234 hp after some centuries. The same is true for lowering it's ability scores - even if you ability drain it to 0 (or -50? can ability scores go to negatives?) con, it won't die; it will be alive and kicking with 30d10-150 (30 hp). If reduced to 0 or negative strength it'll be powerless and just lie down, but won't die.
As long as regeneration is active, big T _cannot die_ by the rules as written. IF (and IF) you find some way to make it die unless it saves, it revives in three rounds.
I would not recommend removing it, for thematic purposes.
But, if you want to make it work against more enemies, consider replacing it with a renamed Ranger's Focus:
At 1st level, once per day, the guide can focus on a single enemy within line of sight as a swift action. That creature remains the Ranger’s focus until it is reduced to 0 or fewer hit points or surrenders, or until the Ranger designates a new focus, whichever occurs first. The Ranger gains a +2 bonus on attack and damage rolls against the target of his focus. At 5th level, and every five levels thereafter, this bonus increases by +2.
At 4th level, and every 3 levels thereafter, the Ranger can use this ability one additional time per day.
Usable against any enemy, works equally often, but at say level 10 it's +6/+6 instead of +6/+10 (if a 10th level pala has +6 cha, which seems likely).