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

J. Cayne's page

128 posts (495 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 7 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 128 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

Name Violation wrote:

the question is can you enhance a blackblade.

I'm, of the "no upgrades to the black blade" camp, because it technically a class feature, and you cant enhance class features.

Why not? It is also an item after all.


Lloyd Jackson wrote:


@DM Patcher: I like the idea of multiple groups, but only if you're up to it. It's going take quite a bit of work to prevent things from bogging down and/or getting out of sync between groups. Personally, I like things to progress fast, which means frequent posting. I don't want to spend 6 months at level one.

Somewhat related to that point I once again suggest this: http://seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/misc/AlternativeLevelAdvancement.pdf

It won't get you to level two any faster, but it will break up the wait some.


DM Patcher wrote:
J. Cayne wrote:

Actually I was just finishing writing up my backstory for submission. If I'm not too late I'll slide it in under the wire, otherwise I'll have to simply wish everyone else best of luck.

I nixed the summoner, in the end though it was mechanically very powerful, especially at this point buy level, I couldn't come up with a build that I found very exciting. To that end I had in mind a magus instead. I've not written up the character sheet yet, I'll do that tomorrow if you give me the go ahead, but he'll be pretty much a bog standard strength magus, likely going the the bladebound archetype.

Horray. Am glad. Go ahead and finish your character sheet, you've given enough technically to be part of the submissions.

What race and class will he be?

Human (or possible half-elf, but probably human) magus. :)


Actually I was just finishing writing up my backstory for submission. If I'm not too late I'll slide it in under the wire, otherwise I'll have to simply wish everyone else best of luck.

I nixed the summoner, in the end though it was mechanically very powerful, especially at this point buy level, I couldn't come up with a build that I found very exciting. To that end I had in mind a magus instead. I've not written up the character sheet yet, I'll do that tomorrow if you give me the go ahead, but he'll be pretty much a bog standard strength magus, likely going the the bladebound archetype.

Falger Ortio:

Falger Ortio had grown up hearing his grandfather spin tales
of that brief, shining moment that had been Celtara. A
place of wonder and promise that had been wiped from the
face of Golarion out of envy and fear. Of course his
grandfather hadn't been there, that was before his time, the
old man had heard the tales of that place from his own
grandfather. By all accounts his grandfather's grandfather
had been there at the fall of Celtara, fought in its armies,
defended the kingdom with blade and spell until there was
nothing left but to run and hide.

Eventually Falger's forebearer had ended up in Brevoy, in
the wilder places near the border of the lands that had once
more been stolen. In time he had a family and he taught
them what had been lost, he told them they must never
forget, that one day they or their children must resurrect
the dream that was Celtara. Falger's grandfather had heard
the stories from the old man himself, even learned how to
cast a spell or two from him before he died. That was all
before Falger's time though.

An expedition had been mounted to establish a settlement in
the Stolen Lands while Falger was a kid. His parents had
joined, dreams of vanished Celtara dancing in their eyes.
They had left Falger with his grandfather with the hope that
they would send for him later once a settlement had been
established. Word never came though, eventually the
expedition had been presumed lost, it had simply vanished
without a trace. And so Falger came to be raised by his
grandfather, who was at once a hard man and a dreamer. Many
years before Falger had been born his grandfather had stood
amoungst the ruins of Celtara, had searched for some secret
that might help restore the kingdom, all he found were the
terrible injuries with which he had barely escaped from that
overgrown place with. True to the legacy that had been left
him though, he taught Falger as best he could, handing down
what remained of the secrets of the Celtaran Spellguard as
had been taught him years before.

Such was Falger's life for quite some time, studying under
his grandfather, and though he would daydream of a once
great kingdom he was content with his lot in life. Of
course such a state of affairs could not continue forever,
life has a way of catching up to people and making them move
on, and so it was with Falger Ortio. The situation in
Brevoy had grown worse and worse over the years, and finally
the touch of the uprisings began to reach even their
isolated home, and more and more refuges began to flee
south, looking to make a new home away from the coming civil
war. Falger's grandfather, sensing the time was right,
declared they would be going south as well, that they would
make one last try to bring back old Celtara or die in the
process. Visions of childhood tales dancing in his head,
Falger could not help but share his grandfather's
enthusiasm.

The night before they set off south, Falger's grandfather
had dug something up from an old chest, a worn old sword
that looked at least a hundred years out of fashion. He
said it had been there, that it has seen the last days of
that ill-fated kingdom. That now Falger should use it to
help win it back. It was under the awesome weight of that
charge that Falger began his journey south, adventure, pain,
promise, and loss all lying before him like a crooked trail
where it was impossible to see past the next bend.


Would it be possible to enchant a Magus' black blade with transformative?


DM Patcher wrote:


I might end recruitment later today since there is no influx of new submissions.

Gah, I haven't had a chance to do my submission because of the Thanksgiving holiday.


4 people marked this as FAQ candidate.

It says each time you cast a summon spell that summons more than one creature, you can add an additional creature. So does this mean if you use a summoning spell that can summon 1d3 of a creature the possible outcomes are 1,3,4, or 2,3,4? I'm assuming the first one, but there is a little voice in the back of my head that keeps saying it doesn't feel right.


I'm interested. I was in your previous go at Kingmaker (Peregrine Fetch), and I thought the game had a lot of potential, so I would like to give this a try. I'm currently thinking some kind of summoner, maybe a master summoner or maybe just the vanilla one.


If you do have any extra spots, I'd be very happy to take a crack at one.

This character was for another Kingmaker game that died at only a couple of days out of Oleg's when the DM became overwhelmed with real life and running so many games at once and dropped it. He would need a few mechanical tweaks, but not much I'd imagine.

Peregrine Fetch

I don't know what classes you may already have, but I've been really wanting to do Kingmaker, and if making a character of a different class became absolutely necessary to have a chance, I would be willing to.


I am interested. It is quite late here, so I'll give you my basic idea and hopefully you'll be leaving this open long enough that I can come back and flesh it out better in the next 24hours or so.

I want to play Shalelu's younger sister. Though deep down she loves her sister she is also resentful of her talent and adventures. She views Shalelu as trying to hold her back, so she is very competitive with her, always wanting to prove herself or show Shalelu up. She tends to be rebellious towards Shalelu, and living in her shadow has left a dark cloud over her personality, leaving someone a little more concerned with winning than how she achieves the result. Little sis's talents lie in a different area, she has studied wizardry, though her rebelliousness has pushed her toward darker magics (strongly considering making her a necromancer). This has actually become a bone of contention between them, making the the relationship tenser than ever. The more Shalelu says she shouldn't the more rashly little sis plunges on ahead. Of course when she finds out that Shalelu has joined the caravan, little sis isn't going to let her have all the fun and adventures to herself this time, any protestations from Shalelu well, of course, only make little sis more insistent on going.

Obviously a little refinement is needed, but if you think the idea has legs I think it would be fun to flesh out.


Circle of life, buddy. Circle of life.

Seriously I'm sure with some effort you could come up with real life examples of people being forced to eat a beloved animal due to circumstances. I doubt most people would condemn them as evil if they made the choice of their own life over an animal's, even a well loved one.


Savant1974 wrote:


I concur, so I'll be turning druids into sorcs, and enforcing spellbooks for clerics and wizards. It'll be less insane then :P

I've though about this before, but a lot of the spells that seem very druid like in flavor are kind of situational.

It would take a little work, but something I've considered before is dividing the druid spell list in two. Some spells would become natural abilities of the druid, and other would become ones they could prep. In a way make them the inverse of the witch. More spontaneous abilities (like hexes) and fewer prepared spells.

For your purposes, you could make them spontaneous, but separate out some of the more iconic but situational spells and make them rituals that could be learned, but only able to be performed like once per day per spell level.


I don't think it's a terrible idea, in some ways I kind of like it because it encourages the wizard with great power, but who is frugal with hit. However on the flip side, it does seem to encourage the 15 minute adventuring day even more. Also I'm not sure about divine casters having such wide spell access, I think it might be better to give them a spellbook like mechanics (make them learn the appropriate rites), but give them a slightly increased number of cast per day to make up for the slots they have to give over to patching up other people in all the various ways that they have to.


LilithsThrall wrote:


And an outsider who isn't interested in that kind of power is an outsider who isn't interested enough in earth to give many people the ability to repeatedly do 9th level magic. (yes, there might be isolated exceptions, but that's exactly what they are - exceptions)

And this assertion is based on what?

Still awaiting your explanation from earlier, BTW. Here is the post for easy reference.


If you want to emulate a specific anime/manga then Pathfinder/D&D is a poor choice, outside of a few series that are based on the game to start with, because Pathfinder/D&D simply has too many assumptions built into it to make it well suited to modeling a specific universe that isn't Pathfinder/D&D. However, if you're not trying to emulate a specific series, there isn't any reason that you bring an anime feel into your game. Adding anime to Pathfinder/D&D is infinitely doable as series like Record of Lodoss War, Slayers, et c. so ably demonstrate. Pathfinder/D&D only works for games that fall into a fairly narrow range of assumptions, if you want to work outside those assumptions you either need something that is generic (Pathfinder/D&D certainly isn't), or you need something built specifically to the assumptions you are trying to model.


tetrasodium wrote:
Dexter's sanity (or lack of) is specifically called out as something that doesn'y matter in the alignment rules where it says "Being good or evil can be a conscious choice" in the Good/Evil section. I presume the law/chaos section has similar but lack access to the book/PDF right now, the nonchoice for Law/Chaos seems more applicable to someone like The Joker than Dexter though. It wasn't his "damaged" nature that led to him following The Code of Harry once that nature caused it to be introduced

Except it very well might as I pointed out on the first page of this thread. If his condition renders him incapable of understanding right and wrong, if it renders him incapable of moral action, then the rules in fact do specifically call that out as making him neutral. He's not making the conscious desicion to be good, he's making the decision to follow a set of rules that have been handing to him, it's just that in following those rules he takes on the appearance of moral action, the appearance of choosing to do good. But he's not, he's choosing to follow the rules that were handed to him.


Anguish wrote:
ProfessorCirno wrote:
There's no benefit to alignment as it stands now.

Strongly disagree.

The system has serious benefit; everything from smite evil through protection from law can only exist while there's such a system. Just because a few people play devil's advocate (literally) and make an argument for nonsensical alignments on real-life or TV figures doesn't change that in-game the system works remarkably well. It's only when we drag it off of the gaming table that things really fall apart.

You could limit those spells and abilities to supernatural incarnations of alignment and the game would work much smoother IMHO.


Fozbek wrote:
ProfessorCirno wrote:
Fozbek wrote:
There's nothing wrong with the alignment system if you don't approach it as a straitjacket. No need to "smash" it.
There's no benefit to alignment as it stands now.
There's no benefit to prices on gear, either. Just smash it or remove the mechanical enforcement!

Sure there is, it helps determine wealth by level, it helps determine crafting times. It allows you to subtract gold from your PC's character sheets. Those things make the game easier to run.

While alignment has mechanical bits to it, I'm not really sure they actually enhance, or make the game easier to run. I mean when summoning celestial creatures to slay orphans is actually ever so slightly less evil than summoning demons to do the same thanks to the mechanics, then you kind of have to wonder.


Play by Post is very simple. Participants all post their actions and reactions. The players for their characters, the GM for the world around them. Resolving die rolls can be handled by the GM, the honor system, or by a impartial mediator like the board's die roller or something like Invisible Castle. PbP tends to have a much slower pace, as posting once a day per participant is a pretty common pace. This slow pacing does have its affect on the game. For instance there is much more opportunity to elaborate and convey mood. If you want it can allow for much greater exploration of a character's inner thoughts and motivations, that simply are much harder to get across in a more first person format like face to face gaming. Another thing because of the length of time it can take to resolve things mechanically, a lot of GM's may call for the dice a lot less, and resolution might become a little more storytelling focused.

If you want to check out what play is like in a play by post there is a for here on the boards dedicated to them. PbP Forum


First off let me say that I agree the way the alignment system is currently presented is dumb, though I think the two axises themselves are its tentpoles are pretty reasonable.

I'm not super familiar with Dexter but there are some things I think that might be worth considering.

Quote:
Animals and other creatures incapable of moral action are neutral rather than good or evil. Even deadly vipers and tigers that eat people are neutral because they lack the capacity for morally right or wrong behavior.

Does Dexter's condition render him incapable of moral action? While some of his actions may appear to have a moral component, do they actually or are they just a result of his adherence to to the code that was given to him, his programming?

Secondly does Dexter actually have "altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings" or is that just a function of following his code. Especially if you accept the first argument that his condition makes him incapable of moral action then, it's not really much different than having commanding a skeleton or summoned monster to behave in certain ways that their alignment would normally preclude. According to a little research on the internet, one of the rules of the Code of Harry is as follows, "Fake emotion and normality to fit in."

Finally if we do accept that doing good actions regardless of motivation is objectively good, then perhaps the Code of Harry is meant to eventually make Dexter good. There isn't to my knowledge any indication in the rules of just how many good actions it takes to make someone good rather than whatever their currently alignment is. Perhaps it follows the notion that if you go through the motions enough times, it will eventually take hold and become the real thing. Just like if someone fakes a laugh or a smile enough it will eventually become the real deal, or repeat an affirmation enough and it begins to take on weight.


In order to flurry your opponent needs to be within your reach. High maneuverability allows you close faster and have the option to bring that flurry to bear on a greater number of possible targets. That might be the difference between getting hung up in the front line fighting hard targets versus getting to the back line and fighting soft targets. So while you might not use the high maneuverability and flurry at the exact same time, they do work together.


Uthak wrote:

Ok so upon looking at the 3.5 EPIC item rules....an item that gives a +30 bonus to a skill check or is priced over 200,000 gp was an EPIC item....still creating that +30 with the pathfinder rules can still be done at 4th lvl if he can get his hands on 45,000 gp ....So for 5,000 more than a ring of freeddom of movement he would never have to roll a spellcraft check again as there is no nat 1 on skill checks is a fail rule.

Am i the only person that sees a problem with this?

How many skills is auto-succeeding at really going to mess up your game? Besides that's a decent chunk of change to be super good at a skill, and a low level character isn't realistically going to have the means to do it financially. And really, just to compare, would you rather have a ring of freedom or a +30 bonus to escape artist?


LilithsThrall wrote:
And if we're not going to discuss the kinds of people that represent high int and high charisma, then there's no basis for discussing whether these beings would prefer, in general, characters with high int or high charisma to grant these incredible powers to. That is to say, there's no basis for saying that these beings should prefer high int characters (the kinds of characters that they do, in fact, prefer) - that the rules as they currently stand are entirely arbitrary.

All well and good, but I would dearly love to see the explanation of how you came to the conclusion that 4 out of 5 otherworldly beings prefer George W. Bush to Dick Cheney. I mean, what could you possibly be basing this on, and how does it actually prove you point? Literally all you did was make a list of people and then arbitrarily declared it somehow proved your point with not on jot logic or argument to bridge between the two.

Please explain how non-existent otherworldly beings prefer George W. Bush to Dick Cheney, and how you come to know this secret knowledge. They are your examples after all, so this should be no problem.


LilithsThrall wrote:


Charisma isn't ability to kiss butt.
Charisma measures a character's personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance.

Butt kissing would probably be a function of diplomacy, which does make it fall under the umbrella of charisma.

Quote:
People who get things done by getting other people to do them (ex. cult leaders, psychological warfare ops, grifters, terrorists, politicians, etc.) are high charisma types. Are these otherwrldly beings going to be more interested in james Dobson, Patricia Pulling, Jim Jones, etc. or in Stephen Hawking, John von Neumann, etc.? Is that being going to be more interested in Al Gore (high Int) or Bill Clinton (high charisma)? Ronald Reagan (high charisma) or George Bush Sr. (high int)? George Bush the lesser (high charisma) or Dick Chenney (high int)? Is that otherworldly being going to be more interested in leaders of men (high charisma) or political advisors (high int)? The otherworldly being is going to be more interested in the leaders of men.

o_O

I'm not even sure where to start...

Will not make Dick Cheney jokes. Will not make Dick Cheney jokes. Will not make Dick Cheney jokes.

Okay, what in the heck are these supposed example supposed to prove? I mean seriously, how do you know who has and hasn't made deals with the giant flying spaghetti monster. I feel like we're about one step away from this...

Johnnie Cochran wrote:
Why would a Wookiee, an 8-foot-tall Wookiee, want to live on Endor, with a bunch of 2-foot-tall Ewoks? That does not make sense! But more important, you have to ask yourself: What does this have to do with this case? Nothing. Ladies and gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this case! It does not make sense! Look at me. I'm a lawyer defending a major record company, and I'm talkin' about Chewbacca! Does that make sense? Ladies and gentlemen, I am not making any sense! None of this makes sense! And so you have to remember, when you're in that jury room deliberatin' and conjugatin' the Emancipation Proclamation, does it make sense? No! Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, it does not make sense! If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must acquit! The defense rests

I mean in a reality where there were powerful beings that wanted to influence the world, wouldn't the attributes of the people they chose reflect what they they were trying to accomplish? And that is of course assuming that these beings are getting pick of the litter, that they're the ones getting to make the choice in the first place, that they weren't called upon themselves, or weren't simply just stuck with the person for any number of reasons.


LilithsThrall wrote:
tortiekat wrote:
Take the quintessential pact with a powerful being: selling your soul to the Devil. In just about every story about doing that, the trick for the seller is to find a way to weasel out of the contract without giving the Devil her soul. Again, that's not Charsima; that's having the Intelligence to find a loophole in the deal, or avoid the ones the Devil puts...
It's Bluff and Diplomacy - both of which are charisma based skills.

You have yet to explain how understanding a contract and exploiting a loophole is a function of bluff or diplomacy, or even charisma in general. Manipulating a set of rules and clauses and manipulating another entity are two entirely different things. If something is bound to a set of rules and your figure out a run around using those set of rules it doesn't matter how charming you are, it must abide.


I just knew this thread was eventually going to be worth it. :)


Unlock the secrets of immortality.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Pact making is influenced by both Int and Cha, and even Wis.

Careful, that level of nuance may cause this thread to implode.


LilithsThrall wrote:
J. Cayne wrote:
LilithsThrall wrote:

There's a common misunderstanding in this thread by several posters. That misunderstanding is that if someone says something brilliant, that people will agree with him and it doesn't matter if he's charismatic or not.

And while there are a lot of ways to point out the error in that thinking, the most devastating one is by pointing out all the examples from real world history where that has proven to be false. Frankly, it'd take too much time to do so. Some of them come from the long battle of scientific progress against the status quo - the new theory of stomach ulcers, the solar centric solar system, the round earth, the germ theory of disease, etc. all had substantial scientific support, but only gained wide acceptance when championed by charismatic people.

So, just to be clear, you are saying that force of personality is the best and only reason to enter a contract?

Still dodging.

I'm saying that entering a contract requires persuading others to agree with your arguements and this is a factor of your personal magnetism.

That's not a dodge.

No, entering into a contract requires persuading the other party that you have something they want, or actually having something they want. You'll note the latter doesn't require any great personal magnetism. I work in a business were nearly everything is done in one year contracts, and believe me when I say that the most socially retarded and uncharismatic people get signed on regularly, because they have something the person offering the contract wants.

And if you have something a patron wants enough to offer you a pact (a soul, first born, championing their cause, the number of licks it takes to get to the center of a tootsie pop, et c.) , then that brings us full circle back to my original questions. So if you would like to actually address them now, by all means.


LilithsThrall wrote:

There's a common misunderstanding in this thread by several posters. That misunderstanding is that if someone says something brilliant, that people will agree with him and it doesn't matter if he's charismatic or not.

And while there are a lot of ways to point out the error in that thinking, the most devastating one is by pointing out all the examples from real world history where that has proven to be false. Frankly, it'd take too much time to do so. Some of them come from the long battle of scientific progress against the status quo - the new theory of stomach ulcers, the solar centric solar system, the round earth, the germ theory of disease, etc. all had substantial scientific support, but only gained wide acceptance when championed by charismatic people.

So, just to be clear, you are saying that force of personality is the best and only reason to enter a contract?

Still dodging.


LilithsThrall wrote:
J. Cayne wrote:
LilithsThrall wrote:
J. Cayne wrote:

Aren't the people making pacts, and surviving them, going to be the ones that know the rules and how to manipulate them. That seems to me to be a function of intelligence. You don't come out on top of pact by being charming, you do it be being clever, that's holds true in pretty much any story I've ever seen concerning such. Now I'm not saying you can't make a perfectly reasonable case for another stat, but to just get locked into one and say it has to be that way is a bit silly IMHO.

I see this error FAR too often. Yes, people making facts and surviving them is a function of intelligence - social intelligence - which, in this game is measured by charisma.

I'm sorry, rather than just shouting 'you're wrong', could you please explain then how charisma allows a person to understand a contract, how it makes a person better able to manipulate the wording of a contract (not bypassing it by manipulating the other party), or perhaps how charisma allows one to better know the procedures necessary for contacting the other party and establishing a contract in the first place. I mean if you don't know that you need to sacrifice a goat on the new moon in a circle of toadstools just to talk to the Dark Lord (or whoever else you're trying to ring up), or that you need need to sing his praises while walking backwards in a circle sprinkling ash to placate him, then no amount of batting your eyelashes and being winsome is going to help.

The wording of a contract is of no consequence if the contract isn't signed by both parties. The game has established (in the example set by Diplomacy) that that is based on charisma.

Because force of personality is the best and only reason to enter into a contract, right?

Nice dodge.


LilithsThrall wrote:
J. Cayne wrote:

Aren't the people making pacts, and surviving them, going to be the ones that know the rules and how to manipulate them. That seems to me to be a function of intelligence. You don't come out on top of pact by being charming, you do it be being clever, that's holds true in pretty much any story I've ever seen concerning such. Now I'm not saying you can't make a perfectly reasonable case for another stat, but to just get locked into one and say it has to be that way is a bit silly IMHO.

I see this error FAR too often. Yes, people making facts and surviving them is a function of intelligence - social intelligence - which, in this game is measured by charisma.

I'm sorry, rather than just shouting 'you're wrong', could you please explain then how charisma allows a person to understand a contract, how it makes a person better able to manipulate the wording of a contract (not bypassing it by manipulating the other party), or perhaps how charisma allows one to better know the procedures necessary for contacting the other party and establishing a contract in the first place. I mean if you don't know that you need to sacrifice a goat on the new moon in a circle of toadstools just to talk to the Dark Lord (or whoever else you're trying to ring up), or that you need need to sing his praises while walking backwards in a circle sprinkling ash to placate him, then no amount of batting your eyelashes and being winsome is going to help.


Aren't the people making pacts, and surviving them, going to be the ones that know the rules and how to manipulate them. That seems to me to be a function of intelligence. You don't come out on top of pact by being charming, you do it be being clever, that's holds true in pretty much any story I've ever seen concerning such. Now I'm not saying you can't make a perfectly reasonable case for another stat, but to just get locked into one and say it has to be that way is a bit silly IMHO.

Frankly, I'd like to see class abilities mostly divorced stats, or have the importance of stats greatly reduced, like in the oldest version of D&D. It would make it a lot easier to do things like the charming fighter, the sagely intelligent cleric, or whatever have you without the having to settle with being somewhere between subpar to completely undoable.

Anyway, as for the original post, the class with the most roleplaying potential and flavor is the one that works best with your concept. For some things the sorcerer will be better, for some things the wizard will be better, and for some things it might not even matter all that much.


Spanky the Leprechaun wrote:

I'm guessing that a "stone coat" is some kind of made up thing, and so there won't be a picture of it unless it is in Ultimate Combat; I could be wrong though.

Wow. Really neato armor assortment there though.
Heathy likee!!!

http://www3.uakron.edu/worldciv/china/ch-armor.html

Top of the page. Obviously not for actual use.


A sort of preemptive reroll, the Prescience ability of the Foresight subschool of Divination could let you know if you have a 20 coming to you before you decide you action.


DM Patcher:

I think the tone of this AP tends to encourage human characters, even more so than some of others. Can't explain all the halflings though.

Anyway, regarding Peregrine. I suppose that you could say that Igorius is somewhat of a foil to Peregrine, though to be honest I think what is interesting is not so much the ways they differ, but rather the ways in which they are similar. Even though he detest his uncle, Peregrine has become quite a bit like him, he as a tendency to treat people the way he was treated to an extent. It is clear though that Igorius is definitely the far crueler man, though whether this is the result of his nature, or simply the passing of time is not clear. Of course, I don't think that Igorius hates his nephew, he views his own cruelties as practicalities. In fact, I think it is likely he sees himself as grooming Peregrine for what is to come. Igorius has no children, and with Peregrine's father missing, that makes Peregrine next in line after Igorius. I think Igorius once had a wife whom he loved very deeply, but who died very soon after their marriage, after that he simple devoted himself to furthering the House, it is all he lives for and deeply colours his world view.

Regarding lawfulness and House Fetch. The Fetches tend to favor discipline, keeping their word (which often leaves them hesitant to give it in the first place), tradition, and being backed by the strength of law. However there is a tendency to see things as being very open to interpretation and if push comes to shove, skirting the law isn't out of the question. Placing bribes to secure a charter is a good example of how House Fetch operates. Now that might be considered more neutral, but I see the law as an important starting point in the Fetches decision making process. For instance it would be highly unlikely for them to bribe a jailor to let someone escape, they would, for example, be much more likely to bribe a magistrate to declare a pardon. The reason I mention all this is because this is what I have in mind when I say lawful neutral as Peregrine's alignment.


That sounds awful.

Here's hoping it sucks less than you think it will. Good luck.


What's your current party make-up? Personally I've not much interest in clerics, but if you're possibly accepting another spot beyond that, as you indicated you might be above, then I might have some interest.


I have to admit I am at a little of a loss as to what to do. Should I just assume that an acolyte will take me to the gravesite. I don't want to just commandeer an NPC. I kind of feel a little like I was written out of the scene before I had a chance to interact, to many interactions were laid out to roll things back a bit, and I don't want to make too many assumptions about the actions of NPC's.


I just noticed I'm a bit out of sync with everyone. Do you all mind terribly if I post in the past tense it is considerably more comfortable, but I don't want the mess up the flow of things for the rest of you.


Kingmaker. Very much Kingmaker.

Seems like recruitment threads for that AP are always swamped.


And what about all the people that went through the effort to make character submissions when you posted this recruitment thread under the name Erefine, and then didn't bother to respond?


J-Gal wrote:

In my campaign setting, the origins of humans are that they are a hybrid between elves and orcs. Seeing as Humans are comparable geneticly with both races, I thought it would make sense.

Good idea, or just really strange?

I figure you would get something more like this.


*sigh*

Maybe one day I'll actually get into a Kingmaker game.


Jim.DiGriz wrote:
J. Cayne wrote:
Jim.DiGriz wrote:
STR Ranger wrote:
Can a Glove of Storing, store and retrieve a weapon as a free action?
Wouldn't it have to be an immediate action to use it for an AOO? It's my understanding that free actions can still only be taken during the characters turn.
You can't speak when it's not your turn?

Actually you can speak when it's not your turn because there's a specific exception in the rules that allows it, but that's beside the point. Activating an item--even when it involves a command word--isn't merely speaking, it's an action of whatever type is specified in the item description, which in this case states "Storing or retrieving the item is a free action" (the "On command. . ." and "With a snap of the fingers. . ." parts are merely fluff). Actions of all types, including free actions, are taken only on the character's own turn unless the rules for that action type clearly state otherwise, as with immediate actions and the aforementioned exception for speaking out of turn.

A quick search turned up this thread in which this is discussed in more detail.

Hah, learn something new every day. :)

Thanks for the link.


Jim.DiGriz wrote:
STR Ranger wrote:
Can a Glove of Storing, store and retrieve a weapon as a free action?
Wouldn't it have to be an immediate action to use it for an AOO? It's my understanding that free actions can still only be taken during the characters turn.

You can't speak when it's not your turn?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
ciretose wrote:
ProfessorCirno wrote:
Maddigan wrote:
I imagine it is a tightrope they're walking in monk design. They're hands do 2d10 damage at max level which they can get about lvl 15. Which is more than any weapon a fighter or any other melee type can use. They eventually get 7 attacks and with a ki point 8 attacks on their own. Toss in haste and they can get up to 9 attacks per round. Full Power Attack for every attack.

Honestly? That's not a whole lot.

2d10 is 11 damage. That's what and all it is. 2d10 is an average of 11 damage.

You claim that's more then any weapon a fighter can use but that's not true. Even a fighter who has taken no feats at all can hit 10.5 with a greatsword, and he has a much higher power attack to boot. That's without adding in any of the feats that then go on to increase his damage even more, and he's already going to be hitting the same stride that the monk hits.

Big dice do not neccissarily equate to big damage.

As for monks, I think it was in Evolved Arcana that Monte Cook outright said monks could have their "natural attack" enchanted as if it were a weapon. That always seemed one of the best solutions to me, alongside letting monks do "monk damage" with all monk weapons rather then just "unarmed damage."

I think you would have to make that a mid-level monk ability/feat lest it become a dip and abuse thing.

The reason the amulet is so expensive is it allows you to functionally enchant two weapons (both your hands) or more in the case of monsters.

I agree that enchanting hands is important (which was the intent of the brass knuckles) but it is a fine line.

Let monk's enchant their own bodies (as one weapon) as though they had the Craft Arms and Armor feat, using their monk level as their spellcraft check. For each 1000gp in the enchantment cost they have to spend one day in a training montage.


Howie23 wrote:
J. Cayne wrote:
But you only get your feats at odd levels. So you take Craft Staff at 11th level because you delayed the acquisition of the 10th level wizard bonus feat, but where do you get the next feat slot of Staff-like Wand at level 12?
Delaying acquisition of a feat would fall in the realm of house rule.

Not if you take a level of a full spellcasting progression PrC as was suggested. Then your 11th level would be level 10 for a wizard so you get the level 10 bonus feat, but have a Caster level of 11 thus meeting the Pre-Req for Craft Staff, unfortunately you don't meet the Pre-req for Staff-like Wands because that requires Wizard level 11.


james maissen wrote:
Abraham spalding wrote:
If you take a level in a prestige class then you don't have 11 levels of wizard which is what is required for the discovery -- not a caster level of 11.

Ah that's what I get for not looking it up! Mea culpa.

Guess the best would be 12th level then as they can be taken as feats.

-James

But you only get your feats at odd levels. So you take Craft Staff at 11th level because you delayed the acquisition of the 10th level wizard bonus feat, but where do you get the next feat slot of Staff-like Wand at level 12?


This is why tying game effects to alignment sucks. Every DM will interpret the exact same actions differently, and differently from the player who their ruling will affect. So far in this thread we have had people claim the above actions were neutral on both axis, chaotic, lawful, evil, and good.

1 to 50 of 128 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com 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.