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

KHShadowrunner's page

165 posts. No reviews. 1 list. No wishlists. 1 alias.


RSS

1 to 50 of 165 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

It all depends on how you plan to portray your bard.

A random game of dice (life vs wealth) with the chieftan of a goblin tribe.
Singing to the nobles to solve a conflict between two nations
Putting a horde of bandits to sleep with whatever perform skill you have

The beauty of a story is.. it doesn't necessarily have to be completely believable. At least that's how I'm portraying my bard. The audience doesn't want to hear about the one guy who did the one thing to that one other guy. They want legends, they want the unbelievable, the unexpected. So give it to em!

In our last campaign, our monk was knocked out and the ranger went for help. What was actually a completely uneventful night of me walking between two nearly dead people and making sure they were safe actually was a story about an additional 8 goblins and a hobgoblin returning from near death to seek revenge. And me, being a halfling, pushing the hobgoblin off the edge of the cliff to his inevitable doom.

Man I looked good with my rapier.


I'd argue that if it's a bluff attempt (If he's threatening to damage his store when he, at this point, has no intention of actually doing), make it a bluff.

If it's peaceful transaction that he's just trying to get the upper hand on, it'd be diplomacy.

In the end?

Most def. a Bluff check. The Kobold doesn't know if he's telling the truth or not about this supposed beating, regardless of if he is or not. Bluff it up, and let's hear what horrible fate awaits the silly thing who "calls his bluff"


Wouldn't most DMs force a knowledge roll prior to combat? At least... in another Knowledge related thread I remember, someone was asking about how people handled knowledge checks (whether or not you tell them which knowledge check to roll), and it was brought up that most people feel it's appropriate to simply tell them randomly when to roll which knowledge, rather than let them guess.

Which would imply that the only reason the Bard's Take 10 would really be unique is in a surprise round. I suppose that makes sense though.


blue_the_wolf wrote:


EVEN IF... the spell ONLY makes you friendly, is that so much better? I mean.. once again if you totally despise this person and he hits you with a drug or spell that suddenly makes you think of him as a friend... when it wheres off wont you feel a bit violated? remember, when it wheres off your going to remember all of it and once again the fact remains its not that nothing horrible happened... its that you didnt even have the ability to not like it.

Nope, I would think of it like I really hate how this guy tends to drink a lot and cause mischief when he does. But then pow, I think to myself hey, this guy's at least offering to spend some time with me, he's a pretty cool guy. We go out, we party. I get plastered. Sick. Come the next morning I can't stop vommiting and I can't help but think to myself...

That guy is a jerk. And I chose pretty poorly. I'll do better next time.

Violated? Not at all. Deceived? Absolutely.

How many cartoony bad guys get double crossed by their leader (or someone) and then go into mental fits about it? Pretty much none of em. They just get angry (er). Lol


I guess the main reason is that the impression that I get from the GM is that this particular campaign (homebrew) frowns greatly on magic. It's not viewed in the greatest light, even if there is a court mage. So my character is trying to keep it unnoticed.

Taking it into the actual Pathfinder game is just curiousity. Seems that the majority rules that you have to make it audible, even if it's not supposed to affect it.

I'll just try to wrap it up in my songs somehow and pretend i'm singing all the time. And thus - why people find bards so annoying. It's secretly so they can cast spells all day.


I'm bumping this back up as it's related to my silent image question.

I'm assuming this strong voice is coming from the core RB: to which it says:

"To provide a verbal component, you must be able to speak in a strong voice."

Note that it says you must be able to, not that you must.

What I inferred from this is, you can't be in a position where speaking strongly is inhibited by 'something', or in other words you can't use verbal components if for any reason you can't speak regularly. This is further encouraged by the next line:

"A silence spell or a gag spoils the incantation (and thus the spell)"

I'm pretty sure my GM takes it as you can't whisper it either, but I'm still confused as to why not. If the spell -needs- to be heard then it makes perfect sense, such as any bardic performance or mind-influencing effect. But if I'm casting silent image, I fail to see where me whispering would affect my ability to create an image.

I'd like pointers though. This influences how I play my character so :\.

As an example, when I cast Detect Magic, my GM has it as me pretty much openly speaking the chant and waving my arms. This was around two guards, so to get around it the players stood in front of me and I faced away. But, in my mind my character would turn his back (sans friends) and just sort of whisper it so that he can see the auras, in a whisper so as not to draw too much attention (make it look like I'm just observing what it is i'm looking at.


vuron wrote:
johnlocke90 wrote:


This won't work. You can at most slow time by half. It sounds like the problem is you aren't reading the rules correctly.

You can also give it the erratic time setting which allows for 1 round = 1 day settings.

Just curious, because I honestly don't know what the spell is or does, but wouldn't you need to bring food or starve in like.. 4 rounds? or would your hunger still be based on the plane you're in, in which case wouldn't something happen when you jumped back in and out of the plane?

I dunno. It sounds awesome, and yet it sounds like death everywhere.


I think as a player, for fun obviously after consulting a little OOC, I'd role play the crud out of this. lol.

"Hey shopkeep! I've been honing my skills, and working hard to learn this awesome stuff. But here, I've made my first sword. Whadda ya think?"

"Hey, looks like it'll hit when it counts"

"How much you think I could get for this? I happen to already have one from some bandit that tried to take me down, so figured I'd just help out and have a back up for you all"

"Welp, I'd say that's worth about.. 10g"

"10g? How much is that sword over there?"

"That? Oh it's 20g!"

"... so what's the difference?"

"Well, you see. That one hasn't had to withstand any.. um... less... crude...? means of creation? It's also not bloodied"

"Yes it is, I mean look right here..."

"That's just paint. It doesn't matter. I wage your sword to be 10, take it or leave it"

"I mean... who do you buy these swords from? If I can fence him 12g, maybe even 15, I see everyone winning in the end"

"12g? I bought that thing for 8, turning a profit can be so .. invigorating"

"..."


I took another look and I have the feeling that the answer is: No, because the ability to change it would be in line with Programmed Image which is a level 6 bard spell.

It might not be the same, because Programmed Image does not require concentration, and triggers upon a command word or action, but .. I'm not sure still what would be allowed.


I guess you can cast Ghost sounds first, since that would then give you a few rounds to cast the image. But I'm more interested in the interaction part. As I could see myself trying to negotiate (instead of destroy) an enemy by bribing him with treasure, creating the illusion of a chest and opening it to show gold inside.

But I also don't understand the idea of concentration, would I not be able to talk while keeping concentrated, if it's non-threatening?

:( A lot to learn it seems.

Also: With Verbal Components to a spell, the restriction is that you must be able to speak in a strong voice. Does that imply loud? Or does it simply mean you can't be inebriated or otherwise very poor at speaking (can you whisper verbal components in order to conceal that you are actually casting)


I think I'm going to take my bard down an illusion path, preferring to trick his enemies rather than find ways to deal damage (or mind affecting abilities too, which means that I'll have horrible luck against undead).

I'm deciding between Silent Image and Charm Person, and after the invigorating debate with Charm Person, I had some questions about Silent Image.

The description of Silent Image doesn't say it doesn't, and most people seem to do it, but:

Are illusions created by Silent Image able to be animated? For instance, If I create the illusion of a treasure chest or a scroll, could I attempt to mimic the action of the chest opening, or the scroll being unraveled?

Can you expand on an illusion without recasting silent image? Continuing on the above, if I create the image of a treasure chest and animate it opening, can I then add the details of what's in the chest without recasting?


This is IC. If your character would be genuinely interested in figuring this out, role play it up!

It reminds me of the topic about the wizard who kept getting robbed by his GM (well not the GM, but NPCs stealing stuff while the party was adventuring).

It's the GM's style of playing. And that's fine. But it's not your style, which is ok too. That's the whole point, for everyone to have fun and everyone to do their thing, 90% of the time together. I feel that you've stumbled into that 10%.

Firstly, I find it really hard to believe that, in character, your two partners whom you are traveling with literally do not give a care to the fact that you most brutally cleaved a hole in your other partner's chest. It's not like "oh this is another orc we were sent to fight and hopefully will get some gold", this is someone you've been adventuring with

(or maybe not! I dunno how long this campaign has been going)

and should be treated as such. If your character, interested as to why your old partner is screaming about murdering someone (if this is not their characters way?), wants to pursue it further, do so. Throw em for a loop. Go to the guy yourself and try to talk to him about what happened.

I fear that doing this in character is only going to get your character killed. Which sucks :(. But I see potential for infinite fun here. You have a story about revenge/avenge, you have a story about regret, you have a story about fear and trust issues, or.. you have a "let's forget it and bed it" story. If you get the hint more and more that they are going to railroad you away from the mystery as much as they can, then.. I dunno, I still say you can RP it into your character. lol.


This sounds like an attempt at a good story plot that just got AXED!

... eh? ... nothin? ...

No more seriously, if it truly bothers you out of character, take it to the DM and explain that this is seriously something that is bothersome and metagaming is off, you're not having fun. Tell em that you don't want a hint, or spoilers, but you want, no.. , need to know that this is not her actual nature OOC. If they continue to remain quiet, your answer speaks for its self.

If this is all only IC, I really do think it was just an attempt at a great plot twist (and to be fair, it still is if you RP that your character has now gone insane because she just killed her friend and traveling partner over some "guy" who did "something"), and you should just live by it, live in it, and live on it.

My character would develop a severe fear of trust, and an even stronger fear of charming men. Axe'd.

EDIT: I think I've just come to learn that deep inside, I'm an evil guy. Why not try to talk-to-dead? Or resurrect? If she holds -that- much of a grudge against you (do mind-influencing spells affect the deceased? Would someone who wants to kill someone due to a spell reject being risen because the spell still affects the character, even in death?), you must finish what you have started, and Axe that fiend into oblivion.


Jiggy wrote:
Quandary wrote:
Saying that Forewarned somehow gives you a sense that combat has begun is just beyond the scope of what it actually says. Sure, you CAN spontaneously decide to cast a generic defensive spell or whatever, but WHY did your character decide to do that in just that moment, and not the previous moment or a moment later? There isn't any such reason beyond meta-gaming.

Let's start with the assumption that Forewarned is supposed to do something beneficial. It's supposed to actually function. There should be a practical difference between someone who has the ability and someone who doesn't.

If you rule that the Forewarned PC can't take any combat-related action because it would be metagaming to do so, then what's the difference between the guy who doesn't get to act, and the guy who technically has a turn but doesn't get to spend it doing anything combat-related?

A GM who reduces an ability to nothing more than a word on a character sheet is doing something wrong.

From a role play perspective, the absolute fear, yet endearing satisfaction that the wolf didn't coup-de-gras you because you were helpless.

But I actually side with it playing out some crazy awesome dream and them waking up in time to sense danger and act on it.


Quandary wrote:
KHShadowrunner wrote:
I'm confused. The sleep spell should cover sleeping no? If in doubt? And the sleep spell clearly labels a sleeping character as helpless.
You don't need to rely on the Sleep spell to know that all sleeping characters are Helpless, that is in the definition of Helpless. But Helpless is not identical to Unconscious and neither is Sleeping (they are separately mentioned in Helpless). This was already discussed up-thread.

Sorry, for some reason I thought Helpless stated that you were unable to act. In which case it would be an argument of what happens when someone who cannot act always acts, much like how if you ask someone who can only say yes and cannot lie if he can say no.

But it doesn't! So... I really can't go further without finding the quotation that states that helpless state means unable to act.


Acting, I would assume. Or Comedy. To be honest, it could be what you want to make it, just OK it with the DM.


Ssalarn wrote:
KHShadowrunner wrote:
Nicos wrote:

The FoB issue is a big mess so i understand that paizo team have not reached a consensus or whatever. But simple things like "is sunder a standard action?" should be easy to answer.

a) yes
b) No.

Is it not? I'm pretty sure that's outlined as early as Core... Maybe there's something I'm not seeing though that throws it into question.
The Sunder issue ties back into the "attack action" vs. "attack" issue, due to the horrendous phrasing in the ability "You can attempt to sunder an item held or worn by your opponent as part of an attack action in place of a melee attack". Some people think that this means that Sundering must be done as part of a standard action, others that it could be used whenever you would make an attack. Paizo so far has offered little insight into this, though whether that's because it's up for debate or part of an ongoing discussion, or they don't feel it needs clarification hasn't been specified.

Just looking for an example of an attack action that is not a standard action? like maybe during an immediate action? But I don't know of anything off the top of my head that allows it.


Nicos wrote:

The FoB issue is a big mess so i understand that paizo team have not reached a consensus or whatever. But simple things like "is sunder a standard action?" should be easy to answer.

a) yes
b) No.

Is it not? I'm pretty sure that's outlined as early as Core... Maybe there's something I'm not seeing though that throws it into question.


Roberta Yang wrote:
KHShadowrunner wrote:
The spell doesn't make you believe them more, it just makes you trust them
Beep boop the humans are obviously illogical

And this, ladies and gentlemen, brings me to my final point. That as I said in my first post:

As a bystander, I'd honestly just be glad that the commotion has died down and people are talking in a friendly manner. I see nothing bad or evil about it.


Bill Dunn wrote:

Things that becoming a trusted friend and ally should entirely reasonably do:

1) Make Diplomacy checks easier. You've basically shifted someone from Indifferent to Hostile up to Friendly.

2) Make Bluff checks easier. He trusts you, so there's a +5 modifier because he wants to believe you.

3) Make you eligible for any effects the target has going that affect his allies.

4) And, of course, you get to try to order the target around with an opposed Charisma check as long as it is something the target would normally consider doing. Like trying to stop the fight if one of his actual allies tries to target you.

Is that about right for a first level spell? I think so.

And I think this is why I bow out of this one, as this ties into the Social aspect thread and the idea that yes, it increases your Bluff and your Diplomacy. But you can still completely botch those even if you're trying and as such, regardless of what status you are you pretty much have to play it right or fail miserable.

It's a social spell. It has inherent ability to lose.

1) is true. But the DM can state that the Diplomacy check is still +15 for difficulty (I .. haven't had a chance to actually use Diplomacy yet. I have a feeling it's a skill I've invested in that will go nowhere)

2) is true. Though I don't really see why. A bluff is independent of whatever the disposition is towards your character, depending on what kind of bluff you tell. Now, you'd get -less- bluff checks? Maybe? Because they believe you more? I don't really see that either. The spell doesn't make you believe them more, it just makes you trust them as an ally. I can have an ally and not believe a word they say (In fact, it happens to be the image I'm trying to convey to my two partners... that everything I say is pretty much not the whole truth)

3) is probably the real benefit I see getting out of it. But would be incredibly circumstancial and

4) is up to interpretation.

I'll probably still take it at 4, but I'm not a huge fan of spells that are like "I cast it, now tell me what it is I -actually- get out of the deal". Kind of like how most people avoid spells that actually have saves, because it's great to have this super awesome spell that kills the enemies in 2 or so casts. But when you don't have the ability to know that you're going to do it, you opt for something without a save.


I think I've been convinced. I'm taking Silent Image. The risk is just too great that Charm Person is pretty much useless. If you can successfully cast it, you might as well just intimidate/diplomacy your way to victory. lol.


The GM probably did not know how the NPC would act toward their friend. He probably kablamma-poped this guy into existance when we realized that we wanted encounter x to occur. Maybe he has a light backstory. But not enough to tell me if he'd tell me anything.

Charming an important NPC is even more worthless because you pretty much KNOW they're not going to do anything.


Bill Dunn wrote:
KHShadowrunner wrote:
Black_Lantern wrote:
I don't understand why you think charm person makes you able to interrogate them. Do all of your friends tell you everything?

My really good ones tell me everything, from their sex lives and how they live to drive their husbands to climax to their tax records, debt issues, and fears of financial catastrophes, to their darker days and horrible thoughts, to dreams, to aspirations, to confessions that they loved me themselves for years.

In short:

Yes.

But if either of you had a job that had a security clearance or trade secrets, would you share them? That may be a closer equivalent for sensitivity of information - personally sensitive or official, job responsibility sensitive. A lot of people who will share (or overshare) personal details can successfully compartmentalize that info from job-based info.

But it also comes down to personality. There are people who will not talk about such issues with friends, even close ones. This makes, I think, charm person a useful tool because it forges an instant relationship but not an automatic info dump.

Again, the bond between me and my friend? Yes. We have. We know the consequences of if it is shared. We know each other well enough to know we wouldn't.

And I guess I agree. But that pretty much completely screws the spell over. Or, it puts a complete trust in the DM's hands. Half the DM's will be in favor, half wont. That's ok, I trust the DM. But it still makes the spell worthless. Because now you have to analyze what the spell is, who the character is that you are using it on, and how the DM both interprets the spell, the character, and your character.

It is ultimately the DM's decision. Which is why this ties into the fact that it's a social aspect spell, and as such, at nearly a great risk of being completely useless.

At let it be known that this is not an instance in my case, as I'm either going to pick up the spell this level or next. I don't know how our DM is going to play it out. But there's no confessing that it's irritating to know that while I cast grease on the ground, they save or fall, If I cast charm on them, they save or they (may help me out if the enemy attacks or may not because they do not see any harm in letting their friend get attacked (or they may help out but they will help out both parties because they're both friends (or they will help you out by disarming you preventing anyone from doing any damgage))) and then will stare at you with idle content (not discontent, mind you) because this person happens to be (a social outcast / a rejected degenerate / a person of a race that happens to hate yours / a person who cannot speak / a person who fears for his life at everything / a person who just watched his good friend attack his other good friend and is not sure of what to make of the situation)


Sitri wrote:


If you are of the determinism philosophy, the difference between controlling someone and making them want to do something they are capable of is just a matter of vocabulary.

Fair enough, you could argue that one is manipulation, while the other is domination. And some times manipulation is pretty bad, even evil. It's a side of the coin I'm willing to say exists and is real.

That doesn't mean that manipulative people are bad at what they do, and usually get away with a hell of a lot of evil things because that's just how manipulation works.

You might not -think- you'd give away your credit card number to someone. But careful manipulation makes you give over that, your security number, AND the name of your mother. Manipulative people.

Man I want to roll evil now. True Neutral just doesn't feel as good as NE.

At least for my bard.


So to tie this back to the original question. Would any of you truly describe what i'm doing as evil. because I am attempting to 'convince' you that this topic should be discussed and revised. And you are doing so! I wouldn't say I'm doing it that charmingly, but it's what the spell in effect does.

I'll take the bank example:

Caster: Hey buddy!
Banker: How's it goin man!
Caster: Pretty good! Hey! So I couldn't help but notice you're really enjoying workin at this place huh. What's the deal?
Banker: Yeah man, they pay well (info on what kind of rewards you get from being in the field), the boss man is pretty lenient (useful?), and overall I'm having a good time.
Caster: Sound awesome, how's your co-workers? Annoying or are we talkin about some pretty cool people. The place sounds pretty bumpin.
Banker: Well, I talk to so and so (Name given of someone) and he usually works with me at my shift (Position of person at given time). He's pretty cool. But the assistant manager can be a real dirt bag (useful? agressive attitude of a person).
Caster: Well, sounds like a person to avoid. What's her name? Hey, what's the bosses name? I wanna put in a good resume and knowing names sounds like a great way to spice things up. I'll keep it professional of course. Who would want to go slapping a person's name in a resume unless it was to convey respect.
Banker: Totally dude, his name is xyzabcd. Put my name in there too if you want, I'll reference ya. Avoid efghijkl in HR, they're pretty meticulous about who they hire and what those hiree's do.

All of this typical information transferred during a regular conversation with a good friend. Does your friend know he's going to get his head chopped off for calling his assistant manager a dirt bag? He'd probably get fired. That's pretty hurtful. But friends do those kinds of things.

In regards to brothers: No. But you can say that you'd be influenced by my words and start monitoring things much more carefully. You're all taking things to an absolute extreme. Charm person does not dominate. It does not override their memory and take over their mind. It does not bestow compulsion them into believing your every word and whim. In fact, I'd argue that you STILL need to make bluff checks if you bluff! But it DOES make them trust you. It makes them believe that you are a person that they would talk to on a regular basis on pretty much anything. It doesn't mean I can tell them that chugging chloroform is something we did in the past as a great past time and he'll start doing it. It does allow me to talk to my good friend about .. well.. anything.

Finally, you cast a spell against pretty much everything. You cast a healing spell on your ally when he is hurt. Is this attacking? Obviously not, because the goal is good! It's to heal! Charm person is in a grey area. I'm not doing it to attack them. I'm not bending their will. I'm (forcibly) making them believe that I'm a good person. Sort of like how doing someone a favor or a quest makes them think about you in a different light. Doing quests for people does not mean you are attacking them.

I like Charm Person. It brings out a world of thought and consequence. But I see more practical use with Silent Image. I guess.


This ties back to the social aspect in my mind. It's like everything that allows for role play gets severely penalized because you have to accurately act out exactly what is happening or else you're doomed.

The character becomes your good friend. Good friends are closer and better than bosses! I don't see how it is possible to say that they form a bond of trust that is more realistic and personal than the bond to their boss, but that very bond is NOT strong enough to deter away from that bond with their boss. Which would then imply that the bond between your boss is stronger than the bond between your best friend. Which would then make your boss your best friend, which would then mean that the bond you create should be equal to your boss!

Is your boss a trusted ally? If you were willing to tell your boss that x party invaded his fortress and he should consider putting guards here and here because where they are currently placed, here and here, is no good, why would it be harmful or suicidal to tell 'another boss'?

You cannot control the person. I cannot say "You will do this" and it is done. I can slyly convince him that it is a good action, and as someone else pointed out he will most likely be convinced to do it. But will he go through with it all the way? Will he actually do it? Maybe. But the point of the spell is typically NOT to force someone to do something (I also learned that 80% of the populus hate evil characters, and I guess I'm a partially evil guy), but to get them to reveal things to you as if they were your friend.


mcv wrote:

@KHShadowrunner: My race is human. Is there any reason why STR for a whip is bad? I thought I needed Weapon Finesse and Agile Maneuvers to use it with Dex, which suggests STR is better.

It being an all or nothing deal is good advice. That means if I don't want to spend 6 feats on it, I'd better spend none on it. Maybe try the occasional lucky unenhanced trip against a suitable target when circumstances are right or there's really nothing else for me to do, and just stick to my longsword in the majority of combats? Or just drop the entire idea completely?

I do need Weapon Focus for Dazzling Display. I could put that on whip to help me a little bit, but if tripping is so unlikely anyway, it's probably better on my longsword.

Human's a good race, and if your DEX score is lower than your STR, there's literally no reason to bother with Agile/Finesse. If it were higher, you still wouldn't need Agile to be a whip-master.

Your idea about the occasional lucky trip sounds spot on. You can even role play it up a bit. Some sneaky guy trying to flank your partner while your back is turned? Screw that, whip around and flail him to the ground with X

and I say X, because you can save a lot of time by simply using a reach weapon rather than the whip if that's what you're after. The whip gives you benefits, but as you can see to really reap those benefits you have to invest, and investing means it's going to come much later in the game.

I mean, why try to trip from 15ft away when you could move next to the person (no AoO), Trip him, and provide a flanking bonus to your partner as well? you won't provide this for a while with your whip until the feats start trickling in. And by then you'll start running into issues with what you're facing.

Don't get me wrong, whips are great. My character uses a whip. But my character has a strength score of a wimp, so I can't wield a trusty longsword or rapier and actually hope to do some serious damage to the do-dopper. If I had the opporutnity to, I would have saved myself a feat (Finesse), and stuck to longsword (my original goal was to dual wield rapiers, but.. dreams were dashed that day)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Charlie Bell wrote:
KHShadowrunner wrote:
how they live to drive their husbands to climax
I'd like to meet your friends.

She's a very interesting, and great, person. I pretty much share every aspect of my life with her too. It's the most relieving feeling ever imaginable when you can say literally everything and anything about how you feel to a person and know that even if they disagree with you, they will at least listen, and even try to rationalize with you, about whatever it is.

An ultimate stress relief if you will.


I see it as an all or nothing deal when it comes to investment. As others have mentioned, further on even with the "all" aspect of tripping, your likelihood of actually doing so is slim. Which means if you don't have the "all", you're dipping from slim to none.

But maybe it's not what you want your character to be about. Personally, from a RP perspective, I don't see a person who has more raw power (STR) over agility (DEX) favoring a whip over, say, a sword of some type. Rapier even if you want. But that's me. Also don't know race, as it would make more sense for an Orc or Dwarf to grapple and such over say, a halfling or gnome.


ciretose wrote:

Two separate issues.

1. Making someone who is your "I will kill you on sight" enemy magically become your friend, is in and of itself pretty powerful. It is just wrong to state otherwise.

2. Casting that kind of spell on someone is an attack. Casting magic missile on someone is an attack.

Players attack enemies.

If you use charm on someone, you are compelling them to do something they would not otherwise do if not under the influence of the charm.

Interpret that as you will.

You are not compelling.

You are convincing.

EDIT: Also, I disagree with #2. You can Charm Person civilians and kings if you so choose. You don't -have- to take someone who is against you as the target of Charm Person. You can use it on an indifferent, or even slightly friendly person to make them your 'trusted ally'.

I don't see it as an attack. I suppose it 'can' be used as an attack. But I don't see it as such.

I really need to iron this out for my character, because I need to pick a level 1 spell and it's either this or silent image. And I want to have fun with it. I'm thinking I'll take this, if it brings up this much discussion, it's gotta be a good one for RP.


Roberta Yang wrote:
KHShadowrunner wrote:
equally, how many times have you been with a really close friend and been talking about "someone else" in a negative tone. Or talked about how "worked sucked today, so much crappy labor and my boss is a jerk". If your boss or your friends heard you talking about them behind their back, it could be catastrophic. Yet people do it daily, maybe minute-ly.
This would be more along the lines of casually violating NDA's with your friends. And your boss is a serial killer with access to divination.

How many bosses have access to divination to overhear anything that is said? And who would willingly work for someone who had that power or ability? Truthfully, if someone worked for someone who had this power, they could commit suicide the moment they lost, regardless of the outcome. Why? Because the boss ALREADY KNOWS HE FAILED. And better yet, he would tell everything he knows, because he's already dead. In fact, he'd trade that information beyond willingly, without a charm spell, for protection against the very man who sent him out to kill.


Black_Lantern wrote:
I don't understand why you think charm person makes you able to interrogate them. Do all of your friends tell you everything?

My really good ones tell me everything, from their sex lives and how they live to drive their husbands to climax to their tax records, debt issues, and fears of financial catastrophes, to their darker days and horrible thoughts, to dreams, to aspirations, to confessions that they loved me themselves for years.

In short:

Yes.


Well yeah, but I try to take Super-MAD and make it just MAD. It turned out to be a very ... 'interesting' character.


Sissyl wrote:

Charm person is a level 1 spell. Has always been so. It is supposedly equal in power to things like magic missile, hold portal, alarm, spider climb and chill touch. It's not going to be magic that reshapes the person's entire life, folks.

If someone makes a good Bluff check, they can probably do just as much as the charm person makes possible, if nothing else they can pretend to be someone you know well enough to get you to play along for a while.

Much like Intimidate, you "sidestep" the Diplomacy check to make them friendly for a while. When the magic is up, you may think it weird how you felt about them and why you chose to trust them, and you will return to what you felt about them before the spell, but you will not automatically feel your entire mind has been seriously violated.

Think about it: An old friend of yours asks you to do something you're not allowed to do at your job. Something that will, if discovered, certainly bring serious repercussions. Would you play along? Depending on the circumstances, you might, but asking such a thing would put your friendship into question. I am firmly in the camp of "Sorry man, I really can't do that, it would be my ass on the line. Take this advice, though: Security inside the Evil Fortress here is very tight. You guys REALLY don't want to go inside, okay? I am telling you as a friend here..."

But this makes the spell almost completely useless. It doesn't even negate diplomacy or intimidate. It just makes someone your friend for like.. a few minutes. It's the lonely guy's way to have a social interaction it seems. Or the non-charismatic.

equally, how many times have you been with a really close friend and been talking about "someone else" in a negative tone. Or talked about how "worked sucked today, so much crappy labor and my boss is a jerk". If your boss or your friends heard you talking about them behind their back, it could be catastrophic. Yet people do it daily, maybe minute-ly.

An old friend asked me to do something I'm not allowed to at my job, like say... print something for them using company resources, or using their CC to pay for a dinner for the both of us. It COULD have serious repercussions, but most likely wouldn't because it's not like I'm going to rake up a 10,000 debt, and i'm not going to print a 5000 page paper for the guy. Would I question him for wanting these things? No, it makes perfect sense and if the tables were turned I'd hope for the same sort of luck.

Now sure, there are extremes. Asking for a name is NOT one of them, unless again, seriously, the person KNOWS that absolutely no one ever talks to each other about anything because they know that death looms as soon as the magic beans are spilled.

If i were told sorry man, I'd ask him about that security. Clearly he is open enough to share that there IS security, so he's not going to die for mentioning that the security is there. Give an outline.

I'd still be very hard pressed that in this world, people would be doing these outrageous things (assassinating and killing tyrants), but are literally scared to DEATH of talking.


Or DEX! But Bard is already MAD.


Mathmuse wrote:
If people roleplay Charm Person as a compulsion effect that sometimes fails randomly based on an opposed Charisma check roll, then it is a compulsion effect and has the full moral weight of compulsion. Compulsion can get as bad as torture, though it is not necessarily as bad as torture. For example, the main alternative to Charm Person is Zone of Truth, which forces a person to speak the truth if he or she speaks at all. Zone of Truth is compulsion, but its limited scope prevents it from being a violation of human rights.

It also states in "Zone of Truth" that the person is aware of the enchantment.

It does not do so in Charm Person.


Avatar-1 wrote:
KHShadowrunner wrote:

You don't need agile maneuvers if you're planning to go with whip (and that continues if you plan to have a light weapon off hand).

My bard was doomed to literally never do damage. So I took Weapon Finesse, slapped on a whip and a spiked gauntlet. You don't get the threat range of the whip until much much later, but you still get to threaten the area around you and that feels pretty fun.

Not sure where you get that you don't need agile manuevers if you're using a whip. If you have a low str, a high dex and you're planning to use combat maneuvers, you need agile manuevers (regardless of weapon). Whip's no exception.

Not sure if the rest of your quote explains it, but if it does, I don't see it?

I had a lengthy discussion to confirm this, so I'll refer to the FAQ on it:

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/weapon-finesse-combat---final

But, the quick and easy is - since you are using your weapon to do the trip/disarm (or sunder? but that's not gonna happen, for me at least), you apply your DEX mod instead of your STR. If you were to somehow wind up disarmed (the spiked gauntlet would rather difficult to pull that off with, but possible), then you would be in trouble. But otherwise it'd be a wasted feat.


You don't need agile maneuvers if you're planning to go with whip (and that continues if you plan to have a light weapon off hand).

My bard was doomed to literally never do damage. So I took Weapon Finesse, slapped on a whip and a spiked gauntlet. You don't get the threat range of the whip until much much later, but you still get to threaten the area around you and that feels pretty fun.


Vrischika111 wrote:
KHShadowrunner wrote:
Vrischika111 wrote:

...

note that figments cannot "hide" items, only make new one appears.
Glamers can alter/hide items.

The illusionist crated a very thin piece of paper, the size of a wall, that looks remarkably like a picture of a hallway that exists in this very castle.

There, you didn't hide anything. You created a painting. A damn good one.
...

so I'd give a straight ST disbelieve: it's not a 3D illusion anymore but a 2D illusion, on an additional layer on the wall.

that's why illusonary terrain is this high level, as it hides the existing and replaces with something else.

ST?

You mean you haven't seen the chalk-drawings on the floor that give the illusion that there is actually a man-hole in the road when there isn't?

Sure, I'd make them circumstantially explain what direction someone is coming from, and how observant they are. But if they play it right (IE, the person being fooled is running directly in one direction at said wall, no turns) and the created image is DESIGNED to fool something running in that direction, I fail to see how you'd be running from a hobgoblin, start racing down the hall and suddenly stop and go "nope, that clearly looks like a piece of paper somehow strapped to the wall". It's even built into the check (Will save if interacted with)


I still stick with:

Do whatever the heck you want. As long as you're having fun doing it.

You might not be able to level mountains with your heroic manliness of trip-dom, but you'll still remember the good times while you play in the tavern.


I'm confused. The sleep spell should cover sleeping no? If in doubt? And the sleep spell clearly labels a sleeping character as helpless.

I'd rule that the character is helpless until something breaks him out of sleep (perception) or he becomes in immediate danger.


AaronOfBarbaria wrote:

Then what is the second half of the spell? Who, in your opinion, should be determining exactly how far the NPC would go for a trusted ally?

Are you saying that we should take "trusted ally" as far as it could possibly extend in every case just so that we don't "nerf" the spell or something?

The second part of the stipulation. The part where you -can- coerce someone into doing something they typically would not do but know that it wouldn't mean that they are spearing themselves in the heart.

"Hey let's go in the haunted house!"

"well... I dunno... I don't really like scary things" <~~~~~~~ CHR check.


It's fun at lower levels. I haven't gotten very far yet but I'm having a good time with it.

Now I fear higher levels, for a million reasons, but at least for now it seems like a fun thing to do.

At the very least, play it because you want to and it's fun! If you decide it's not fun, your character feels that emotion too and decides to cast it out. If you think it's screwed you over forever, ask your DM about possible changes, role-play a life-changing event and see if he'll let you make some changes, or, roll a new character! retire as the greatest bull-whipper in the area.


Sitri wrote:
BuzzardB wrote:


Maybe I am just not understanding your position or something.
What am I doing to tell a player they are wrong?

If the npc knows he will die for divulging the information to the player then the player cannot make an opposed charisma check because the spell says obviously suicidal commands are not followed.
And as the GM I decide whether the NPC would know or think that correct?

However if the npc is pretty confidant he can tell the info to the player and get away with it because he assumes the boss-man will never find out or hes confident in his ability to lie his way out of it because he does this kind of thing all the time (hes a terrible henchman) then the player doesn't need to make an opposed charisma check because it's not even something that the charmed npc wouldn't normally do. Again this is decided by the GM....

My issue is that I would think it an extremely rare circumstance that they would "know they will die". There are so many other things that could happen between when they talk and when they die. If there is a demon god hanging on their every word ok, but I can see this line of argument used as a cop out for simply not wanting your normal thug with an normal boss to reveal something.

I have to agree with him. Unless the person knows full well that by uttering the name of his boss a spell will trigger that will instantly OKO him into the night, can you truly say it's suicidal?

If the boss-man has literally told all henchmen that if they utter his name to EACHOTHER then they would BOTH die, it's not suicidal. It's what friendly grunk-evil-doers do when they're not waiting to ambush you. Now, maybe he's a social outcast and doesn't 'like' to talk about business. Sure. But that's where the last part of the stipulation comes into effect and you charisma-check to see if you can coerce him into doing something he doesn't usually do.

You cannot tell a charmed person to stab themselves.
You cannot tell a charmed person to jump off a cliff.
You can tell a charmed person to sheathe the weapon he planned to stab with.
You can tell a charmed person to totally walk down that corridor in search of the enemy, that you know full well is booby-trapped to all hell (throw in a bluff check to fool em good), because he doesn't know better (or if he does, he'd just dodge the traps or say "You know as well as I do that there's totally an unavoidable death trap yo"

Can you use Silent Image to make the illusion of an extended cliff off an edge, and charm the person to look over the edge to try and spot people over the edge? I'd throw that one to the DM. I'd hope so though, that sounds hilarious (and evil)


I'd see it, from a victim's perspective, as forgetting the very reason I hated this guy in the first place, and instead I just remembered that he bought me my favorite x, where x is most likely a puppy, a few years back and I hadn't seen him in forever. I'd have a nice chat, we'd buy drinks, share stories, even share a laugh of two. As soon as the spell wears off, I'd suddenly remember the incident that caused me to hate the guy, or my direct reason for hating this guy, and would throw down for fisticuffs. I wouldn't feel probed or raped, it would just be a remembrance of oh hey, I can't be chummy with this guy, he cut into my disco bit and made me look the fool. Or boss man really does want him dead and boss man is probably right, he's gotta have some evil in him. "Don't you fool me young man" kind of deal.

From a bystander POV, someone else hit it really well. I'd most likely see this brawl, I'd be moderately upset that weapons were involved, judging the area. Once things looked like it had calmed down I'd be nervous and just hoping that things would calm down so I could eat my meal and try to forget that I have work the next day. If I happened to notice that two of the individuals fighting were now laughing it up, I'd either 1) sigh because it really does look like I'll be eating and dreaming of not working or 2) be content that I'm witnessing a sour situation turn to the better.

IE - I'm in the "It'd be really hard to fathom Charm Person as anything even remotely close to evil/bad/wrong" crowd.


But see, I feel that this would deter people from ever taking a social route to solve problems.

Example:

Our group was tasked with finding a 'maiden' who had been 'kidnapped' by a band of individuals who broke out of jail. We went into the woods to find them and was guided to this tower which lays on the border of two neighboring provinces... the stipulation being that if she crossed over to this other province her need of rescue is invalidated.

We get to the tower and using stealthy means we hear that she is in there, laughing and can hear her 'captor' telling her to drink... something. Who knows what.

As a very high CHR based character, I see an opportunity to talk to this guy and maybe weasel him out of doing it without killing anyone, maybe even convincing him to either do good or find out more of the story or something. There's got to at least be some reason for this.

I think this, OOC, and I feel that my character wants to, he's certainly not the best at killing anything that moves. But then he realized that he is in companion with an elf ranger whose favored enemy is Orc and there 'just so happens' to be a lot of orcs in this tower (or so we're led to believe).

As such, without even thinking, I know this is going to turn into a bloodbath (and it did).

I dunno. It just feels like you're giving a lot more when there could be craftier solutions to the situations. Maybe they can become brawlers or mercenaries for hire to get gold to buy these things that the want. Or intimidate instead of persuade to get the information they need. Or ... something. Anything. Rather than just throwing them a bone.

------------

If the ranger is truly a good Bowyer, he would have taken the feat and skills to be so. If combat is so intense that they do not get to spec this way, then take a look at how you're handling combat.

Right now, I see him as a regular old joe who knows how to string and craft a bow. I don't expect him to craft like the crafters, unless his feats and skills indicate that he can. Just as much as I do not expect the crafters to be as accurate and as strong as this guy.


Atlanta huh? :) Same here lol. I'm sure there's a few areas around, don't know if you're north side or south but titans does every Sunday (on the north side).

Online groups sound promising, I'm debating if I will start (I already have a homebrew group every sunday as is), but I'm sure the market there is quite open.

EDIT: Absolute worst case senario, there's always D*Con :D. Just a year to go


What I would say do is find some local shops that are running tabletop gamings and ask as a beginner to sit in for a session. Pathfinder (and table-topping in general) is more about how you as players (dare I say, as friends?) interact with each other to tell a compelling story or live an unrealistic experience.

Oh, and then you throw in a bunch of dice and numbers...

But the point is, that if it's completely new to you, sit in a session. Get a feel for it and say "Is this something I think I could pick up and run with?". For some, it's a yes, in which the CRB and online guides will get you into creating goodness knows what beastly adventurer is soon to cross the fields of battle. If not, hey, it's all good. Everyone thinks monopoly is just some guy with a mustache until you sit in the drivers seat. The BB will be like the first few rounds; just getting you warmed up and set off on a scripted adventure or two before you ignore the clear signs that this game will inevitably make you question your desire to play such a cruel yet rewarding experience...

Regardless though. The outcome is usually totally worth it. :)


KHShadowrunner wrote:

Personally, and I could be (and hope to be) very wrong, but I feel it's the opposite. From what I've heard, everything post level 10 is pretty much large+, which means you're not only not able to trip/grapple/sunder/anything related to CMB, but you run the risk of being picked up by your head and tossed like a cabbage (Which almost happened on my very first combat round, but I dodged a bullet)

Sure, you can enlarge person or find some other means to be counted as a medium character, but those same means can usually be applied to the NPC which means that the issue is all the same.

There are strong halflings just like there are nimble paladins with the right feats

Not to mention everything is pretty much human sized. Walking into a tavern to play my flute is not only a difficulty, but a chore. I'm surprised climb checks aren't involved, and I tip my hat and coin to the man who created the halfling stairs.

And that's just to see what's on top of the table I try to play on.

Life in the short lane is rough. Sure, I can try to crawl into smaller holes to avoid potential death. But there's no benefit to it. I can (well my character can't but some can) haul 3x my own body weight, but I'm still light enough to be used in a cannon (if so enforced).

Life is rough, bein big pimpinnnnn

I know this topic died, but just wanted to say that on my second encounter, I almost got picked up and tossed out a window like a cabbage. My lucky pick on the dice roll made the the enemy grapple the other person.

But we sure are flingable.


LostWormOnItsWayHome wrote:

This is a balancing mechanism of DnD/Pathfinder that I don't agree with. It's inherent in the system, but it rationalises such things as "Class Y does not have to be as good in combat as class X because class X is better out of combat than class Y."

I just don't think that's great game design. What it does is creates a scenario where it is okay for a player(s)/character(s) to be useless/less useful in one scene because they will be useful in another scene. I believe this detracts from the enjoyment and involvement in the game. Ideally the game should be balanced around each character receiving various opportunities to shine WITHIN a scene at different junctions, rather than different character shining in different scenes. I believe this would be more exciting and hold the attention of players better than what is currently provided.

That's just my own philosophy, of course.

To which I agree. It's not the optimal way of handling a situation. But it's one way.

Plus, there's only so many was you can handle a situation when you have one character who excels at melee combat, one character who excels at ranged combat, one character who excels at healing, one character who excels at controlling, and one character who does nothing during combat and excels at social skills.

I don't know how many times (well, 2, but to be fair that's 100% so far) I've been with my party of 2, have come up to an area full of mobs, and while I see an opportunity for diplomacy, they ready their bow and swords. There's only so much you can do. :)

1 to 50 of 165 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 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.