Kelvar Silvermace's page

I'm glad I found this thread. I have a different question about wands. Suppose you have a character who is *not* a spellcaster of any sort. And this character has UMD as a skill. My understanding is that he can use a wand, provided that he makes the skill check. Is this correct?

Number two, it appears to me that the difficulty for this character to use a wand is always "20". It doesn't matter what type of spell it is (i.e. what class) or what *level* spell (1-4), the difficulty remains the same. Is this correct?

Thanks in advance for any clarity!

Colonel, not "Cornal." Besides which, he was an Admiral.

Ahh! You make a great point, Aelryinth! I'll crack open the rules and see if I can price this ability.

Thanks!!

You are indeed mistaken. I just looked through the base magic of the MIC and there is no magic property to increase the Dex mod and lower the penalty.

The nearest thing I can think of is the Nimbleness enhancement, which isn't in the MIC, which was a +1 Enhancement that increased the dex limit by 2, I believe.

STILL not as good as celestial armor. Although it might be very, very close to the equal of mithral armor +4.

For your Hawkfeather property, you'd...

/Best Emperor Palpatine voice I can muster--"*Actually* it is *you* who are mistaken about a great many things!" /Voice

Ahem. Well, I was wrong on only one point--it *does* cost you an extra +1 to your armor. However, on page 13 of the 3.5 Magic Item Compendium (First Printing, March 2007), I clearly see the Nimbleness enhancement, right between "Mobility" and "Quickness."

Nimbleness
Price: +1 bonus
Property: Armor
Caster Level: 8th
Aura: Moderate; (DC 19) transmutation
Activation: --

(Flavor text) "This suit of armor looks much less restrictive than others of its type."
(Description) "A suit of armor that has this property has a maximum Dexterity bonus 1 higher than normal, *and* its armor check penalty is reduced by 2."

Prerequisites: Craft Magic Arms and Armor, cat's grace.
Cost to Create: Varies.

So, there *is* such a property, it *is* in the MIC, it *does* increase the maximum dex mod and *does* decrease the armor check penalty. It may not be what the OP is looking for, or as good as other suggestions, but I do think it sounds like a fairly useful property, especially for a lot of Dex-based characters.

As for your suggestions on pricing that Hawkfeather property (and I'll note you were the only one to try to help me on this so far--so thank you!), I'm curious why you'd price it as a level 2 flight spell when (to my knowledge) there *is* no second level flight spell. Right? As for figuring it as a fifth level caster using the "Fly" spell, with the duration split up, I'm pretty sure that the duration is a minute per level--so by the time, say, a wizard, can cast it, he gets 5 minutes right out of the gate. Even if I assumed only 3 minutes, divided up evenly, this is still much longer than 5 rounds at a time (and thus more expensive!)

Am I just being obtuse here? Can anyone do the math (and show your work!)?

BTW--is there anything comparable to the Nimbleness property in the Pathfinder rules? (Where else have you seen it printed?) What about Hawkfeather Armor?

If your GM will allow it, I'm pretty sure there is an armor ability from 3.5's "Magic Item Compendium" that increases a suit of armor's max dex bonus (and also decreases the armor check penalty). If I remember correctly, it doesn't even cost you an extra +1, it is just an extra expense, but I could be mistaken.

I actually have a quasi-related question for you magic item expense gurus: I have a suit of +1 Studded Leather Armor. I would like *one* particular ability from 3.5's "Hawkfeather Armor." It is a suit of +1 Studded Leather Armor that allows one to Fly (as the spell) 3 times a day, for *only* 5 rounds each time. It also has some other decent features, but they don't really interest me. Is there any method by the RAW, or by the Rules as Implied, (by "rules" I do mean Pathfinder, naturally) to add that limited flight ability to my existing suit of +1 Studded Leather, without adding the other--unrelated--features? (This also appears in the Magic Item Compendium, among other places). Under the old rules, this suit with all of its abilities costs just over 12,000gp, which sounds about right, but I'm not sure how to cherry pick the limited flight power in a way that complies with Pathfinder.

Can anyone point to something in the rules, or give me a ballpark idea what it would cost to upgrade my current armor with this one ability? I guess it would start by figuring in use of the "Fly" spell, but then should be discounted for the 5 round flight limit. (Albeit, 3x/day).

Can anyone help?

Blasting spells is like investing in the stock market. Go big or go home.

If you are paying full price to metamagic your favorite spell, you aren't serious about it. If you aren't picking feats and traits that reduce the metamagic cost, increase the save DC/damage output or increase the versatility of the spell, you are wasting your time. Spell Specialization, Greater Spell Specialization, Magical Lineage, Spell Perfection, Elemental Spell, Selective Spell etc etc all change the game. 5d6 fire damage at 5th level is piddly. 7d6+3 fire/cold/acid/electrical (as needed, see admixture speciallist) damage at 5th level is not.

^This. On its own I still think it is a very good spell--just remember it isn't for the BBEG, it is for the mooks. Especially when they cluster up. Fireball time for sure.

But it really shines if you have the right feats. Even something as basic as a single "Sudden Maximize" or even "Sudden Empower" can brighten any mage's day. (I haven't closely examined these in Pathfinder, but I'm assuming they still work like they used to). Sure, you can only do it once per day, but if you *save* it for situations where it is actually needed, it can be a game-changer.

While I'm on the topic, I have never encountered the problem some folks here describe wherein the party goes out and blows their entire wad on the first freakin' encounter of the day (and then camps? Really?) Maybe it is because we're old school, but in the games I both play and GM, people hold onto their most powerful stuff until the situation looks pretty bad and then they unleash on the threats that actually merit it. If they tried that whole, "Yeah, I know it is only 10am, but we just unloaded everything we had on that level 1 commoner who threatened us with a rusty screwdriver, so we're going to camp" business, then they could pretty much expect something far, FAR worse to come visit them while they were camping. And just to add insult to injury, I'd make it something against which an empowered fireball would have been *really* helpful...

To waste everything and to give no thought to conservation of resources just sounds like something a 14 year old, with no ability to plan ahead, would do. There's a reason it works differently than it does in computer games. Plan ahead. Know when to hold 'em and when to fold 'em. . .or something like that.

I would require everyone to use the same method. If dice are involved, I would insist that I personally observe the rolls.

It isn't that I don't trust my friends, I just know that I, myself, would be tempted to re-roll if I got crappy scores. I doubt I'm unusual in that regard.

I vastly prefer 25 point buy, but then, none of us are "power gamers" and we aren't looking to squeeze out every advantage. We don't have any 7 charisma guys wandering around with us...

For me it usually yields an 18 in my primary stat and +1s in most everything else, maybe a +2 somewhere, and probably one stat at a 10. That just how I roll. (No pun intended)

Sheadunne & Jiggy--Thanks for answering my questions!

(It turns out *Shield* was the one I was thinking of, not Mage Armor--you cannot make a Potion of Shield).

I'd love to see a set based on Second Darkness, personally. (Now that RotRL is going to happen--that would've been my #1 choice!) I may need to go back through my old APs and see which ones would make for good sets...

Of course, Skull and Shackles sounds really promising in that regard as well...

Yeah, the official word is that it rhymes with "Cow."

I always thought it would sound more mysterious (and less comical) if it rhymed with "Snow." But they never asked me. :-(

Vermin repellant

Potion of Mage Armor (class dependent)

Not to derail, but I didn't think it was possible to make a potion of Mage Armor because it has a range of "personal." Am I way off base here? (Note, Potions of Shield of Faith are a different story).

Also, I have scoured the books looking for a list of potions but haven't found one. Am I just completely overlooking it, or is it omitted because there are too many possibilities to make it worth listing?

Thanks! Purchased! (With the Pathfinder Advantage, no less!)

I'm going to go download it now.

(I hate Pdfs, but having it in Pdf form is better than not having it at all. Maybe I can print it off so I can leaf through it like a regular book...)

Given the circumstances, I'm not too concerned about the other two goblins being re-paints. You can never have too many Goblins anyway. Ever. Perhaps the absence of the Goblin Mystic in this set just means we'll see him or her at a later date. Meanwhile, we have more Goblin mooks to throw at the PCs. I call it a win-win situation.

As others have said, there are many better, more efficient and reliable ways to gain information. As I noted, torture has a well-documented history of yielding false information, because it reaches a point where the victim will tell you whatever he thinks you want to hear just to make it stop--even if he doesn't know the answer to your questions. So, I'd say torture has a very marginal reliability rate.

But, maybe your BBEG prefers it over more reliable methods just because he or she enjoys harming other people. As I said, I would probably give a circumstance bonus, +2 at least, possibly more, to an intimidate check, but I'd also consider having the torture yield some false answers.

However, given that all this apparently takes place "off screen," I'd decide that the BBEG learns whatever information would make the story most interesting. Or if I think it would be more interesting for him or her to gain some false information, that's how it would go in that case. I certainly wouldn't leave something up to the dice if it happens off screen--not in this case anyway. Perhaps the victim gives false info out of fear and lack of actual knowledge and then dies from the torture. Maybe the villain's preferred method of torture accidentally destroyed the mouth and jaw, so speak with the dead is not an option and the BBEG is left with whatever she gleaned before the victim died. (BTW, finding the mangled corpse of the victim can be a powerful motivator for Good characters to want to lay the smack down on the BBEG).

i would have to say my personal beef is not necessarily with any particular option, BUT when a lower level PC (ie below 5th) has mutil-classed already with multiple archetypes slapped on top as well and then won't go into combat without boosting their characters with potions, aargh. talk about slowing down and complicating combat.

Won't go into combat...what if combat comes to them? An adventurer's life is full of peril--certainly he shouldn't be able to casually decide, "Gee, I guess I'll enter combat now that I can do it on my own terms." Sometimes (read: usually) sh*t happens. What about ambushes? What about Archers or Arcanists? The party's opponents aren't pawns on a chess board--they can think for themselves. If I were GM, many of their opponents--even the lower intelligence ones--would think, "What's that one doing? Just standing there drinking potions? Easy prey!!! Let's take him out first and thin their numbers!!! C'mon everyone!! Get him!!!" And then I'd have them dog-pile on him. Painfully and with much enthusiasm. Guess what? The very next time he tried that--same thing, baby. Wash, rinse, repeat until he gets the message that battle is f*cking battle--it is messy and chaotic, not casual or (usually) optional. What kind of support is he giving his "allies" while they risk their necks as he quaffs his potions? I'd nip that in the bud.

To answer the original question, though, *Options* never bother me. That's why they're called "Options." If anything, what I don't like is the *absence* of options. But that's why I steal wholsale ideas and classes from my 3.5 books. They were around for years, with a metric buttload of options. So if I feel constrained, I look no farther than my own bookshelf.

Kelvar Silvermace wrote:

No offense, but I hope there aren't any aquatic elves in Golarion. They just seem...silly. Plus, I do like a distinction between Grey, High and Wood Elves, but so far (AFAIK) there hasn't been any official recognition of any such distinctions. IMO, that's where the whole sub-race thing ought to start.

I'm sure that James Jacobs has stated somewhere that Golarion's Elves are all basically the same (apart from cultural, and minor size and coloration differences).

That sounds familiar. Unfortunate, but familiar. My buddy and I are taking turns GMing, and I think we're going to modify this to suit our preferences (and as a nod to 30 some years of history of the game that came before). I don't think they necessarily need anything to distinguish them in terms of the numbers or rules, we're just looking for fluff, cultural distinctions, etc.

One thing I think we've decided is that when some of the Elves departed Golarion way back when, only to return much later, the Elves that left were probably Grey Elves and the ones who stayed are probably the Wood Elves. Not sure about High Elves, though...

Yes, it's out of print. Available in PDF form, though.

Joana, thanks for the info! I couldn't find it, though. Would you mind giving me a link? (I'm totally going to buy this and comb through it for ideas for the Elf "Scout" I'm currently playing). :-) Thanks again for the info!!!!

I'd still love to see Favoured Soul myself. Love the fluff on them. If you gave them a single casting stat and toned down the spells known and castable, I think they'd be really cool.

Plus I wanted to dot this. Some great stuff here.

Why not change the fluff on Oracles and replace it with the fluff from Favored Souls? Easy peasy. (It's what I plan to do).

No offense, but I hope there aren't any aquatic elves in Golarion. They just seem...silly. Plus, I do like a distinction between Grey, High and Wood Elves, but so far (AFAIK) there hasn't been any official recognition of any such distinctions. IMO, that's where the whole sub-race thing ought to start.

This sounds like a really good resource--I'd like to pick it up. What's the deal? Is it out of print? I checked online here and couldn't find it. What gives?

Why buy Adamantine/Silver Arrows? Because I'm worth it. :-)

Okay, I'm a lawyer by trade and I think I can clear up something by reading it like a lawyer*: Looking at the description of Cold Iron weapons on page 154 of the Core Rulebook it says that "Weapons made of cold iron cost *twice* as much to make as their normal counterparts."

On page 143 we see that 20 arrows cost 1gp. Therefore, 20 cold iron arrows cost 2gp. (This was sort of acknowledged above).

Looking now at page 155, under alchemical silver items, it says "Ammunition +2gp." Hmm. Hence the question of whether it is per arrow or per 20. Ah! But we see under the description of Adamantine items it specifically says, "Ammunition +60gp *per missile*" This tells us the good people at Paizo know how to clarify and when they mean *per arrow* they explicitly say so.

Therefore, the logical conclusion is that 20 Alchemical Silver Arrows cost 3gp.

You're welcome. ;-)

Btw, if you're curious, by the same logic, 20 Mithral Arrows cost 1,500gp. Ouch!

*I recently had to figure this out myself, because I'm playing a Scout that I "converted" from 3.5.

As GM, I would give you a circumstance bonus depending on the type and extent of torture. As with the others, I wouldn't need a detailed description, just a general idea.

As GM, I would also keep in mind that torture has an amazing tendency to produce false confessions, so I'd make the NPC particularly likely to say anything (even if he doesn't know the answer to your question) just to make the torture end.

As GM, I would also take a close look at your Alignment. If the second word isn't "Evil," I would mentally nudge it a few solid steps in that direction--maybe not irredeemably so, but it would definitely impact your "karma," if you will.

I'll have to post my full kit later, but I almost always carry a change of clothes. And I like a winter blanket *in addition to* a bedroll. (I've done enough winter camping in real life to know that anyone who isn't a masochist wants all the snivel gear he can reasonably carry--at least, in the winter months or cooler climates).

ETA: Oh! I didn't see any mention of Iron Spikes, door stops or Mallets. Just a few of these can come in really handy in the right circumstances. (Of course, not all my characters have the same take on the adventuring life, so the list can vary a bit).

Still hoping for a Favored Soul. (Oracle is, less than ideal, sort of in the "ok, just ok" spot).

Hopefully someone will take this quest up and look to the PF Sorcerer for inspiration on the class, as well as ideas for a lot of the 3E flaw designs.

:)

I was a fan of the Favored Soul as well, but I think in most respects the Oracle is better. The only thing I don't like is the requirement to have a "curse" or whatever it is called. I certainly don't think the class is unbalanced without it. (Or maybe the list is woefully short?).

The worst thing about the Favored Soul was that it had a bad case of MAD. The Oracle fixes that, at least.

That's just a videogame trope. Tell them to suck it up and put their big boy pants on. (Politely).

Of *where* own???

No, I'm pretty sure they've said the rest will be sprinkled here and there, one or two at a time, in the upcoming Heroes and Monsters sets (like they have done with Seelah in the first set).

Let's see...

Five 5th Level PCs:
Human (or Half-Orc?) Fighter, wielding an Earthbreaker;

Human Wizard (Universalist), Quarterstaff wielding;

Half-Elf Oracle of Flame, Heavy Mace & Shield wielding;

Elf Scout (from 3.5's "Complete Adventurer") Longbow user;

Half-Elf Factotum (from 3.5's "Dugeonscape") with Longsword---OR---Elf Spellthief (from 3.5's "Complete Adventurer") with Rapier.

Just my personal dream team.

I'd really like to learn more about Ketephys...

I realize this book may mention Riddleport to some degree or another, but am I correct that there is no full-blown book on Riddleport (e.g. in the same manner as Korvosa, Absolam, Kaer Maga, etc.)?

Either way, this one is on my "must buy" list.

Oh, he is still quite limited. Note that he can only add a grant total of NINE spells to his spells known over his entire career. The rest are fixed. And if you run that list by any player of a God-style wizard he will look at you in horror, and ask you, "Are you joking? This is complete and utter c***."

But then I have always thought the original warmage was too focused on damage and not on the other elements so vital to a military spellcaster: battlefield control, terrain alteration, and logistics. Damage is only one part of the equation.

Master Arminas

No, I agree with you, the original Warmage is *very* limited in his spell list. But for me, that's part of the appeal. He is pretty much a one-trick pony--but arguably, so is the Fighter or the Scout and a number of other classes--but they're still fun to play. I think the folks who created the class saw his limitations as part of the "balance" in allowing him to cast in armor--eventually in medium armor.

When you talk about "god wizards" I *think* I know what you mean--if I were GM I'd prevent that by requiring the player to provide me with a list of spells prepared for each day. If it isn't on the list, he can't cast it. Period. Problem solved.

Of course, at some point--and I'm not sure where that point is; I think it is a sliding scale--a "Warmage" stops being a "Warmage" if he can cast all sorts of spells with few limitations. Then he's just a Sorcerer who can cast in Armor. *shrug*.

As I always say, though, to each his own. I like my Warmages limited and my Wizards "limited" to the list they give me.

I think with the changes you've made it is a totally different class--which is okay, obviously.

I would prefer more of a 1:1 conversion--which also happens to be easier.

Let's see...take the standard Warmage, update the skill list to the Pathfinder skill list, calculate CMB & CMD...hmm...Then I think you're done. :-)

That's what *I* would do, but I like the Warmage as is--limitations and all--I think that's part of the charm. And that's (in my mind) what the Advanced Learning Class Feature is for--to get those two or three spells that the particular Warmage feels he just can't do without.

I wonder if by expanding the spell list as you do, does his power also increase? If so, is that a bad thing?

I may take a look at my books and see if I can post a more specific "conversion" later on.

Kelvar Silvermace wrote:

Who are fantasy?

My who point was that, anacronism or no, there are valid reasons to include them or not, based on one's personal preference.

I addressed that point...

So...it sounds like we agree, then. If the reason is that guns are "anachronistic," then that's not a very valid reason. If it is simply a matter of personal taste, then that's good enough. Is that what you're saying?

As a follow up question:

Assuming normal Two Weapon Fighting--e.g. Two Shortswords, Longsword & Shortsword, Quarterstaff, etc. Is there any way under the rules to do better than -2, -2 on one's attacks? I've been pouring over the rules and the best I can find seems to be -2, -2, if the character has the Two Weapon Fighting Feat and the off-hand weapon is light. (And with a quarter staff, the opposite end is treated as a "light" weapon, right?)

I think Selune is similar to Desna in some respects--both have to do with the moon, at least.
I think the Elven god Ketephys fills the role of Ehlonna.
I'm pretty sure there are counterparts to Mielikki and Wee Jas, but I don't have my books in front of me.

I've never heard of Kossuth or Joramy.

Who are fantasy?

My who point was that, anacronism or no, there are valid reasons to include them or not, based on one's personal preference.

When someone mentions that he doesn't like firearms in his fantasy campaign, I think it is not very helpful to point out when they were used in Earth's history. I think most people have no problem with female characters being equals to their male counterparts and being able to take on roles such as Knight, or business owner, or what have you. Isn't the mayor of Sandpoint a woman? If we were to compare this to Earth's history, this would be a huge anacronism. But we're not bothered by this because it doesn't interfere with our notions of the types of fantasy worlds we like to envision--if anything, it makes *more* sense. But, while guns might make sense, even apart from any references to Earth, for many of us, guns just don't feel right. There is no right or wrong answer to this. It is more a question of aesthetics. If you like them in your campaign, with swaggering gunslingers on every corner, ready to test their skill against anyone who looks at them sideways, that's cool. Similarly, if you disallow them entirely, that's cool, too--as long as your players know that going in.

I'm more in the latter camp. Of course, my concept of fantasy has always been heavily influenced by Tolkien more than anything else. But, as I say, to each his own. You can have ray guns and trains and sentient robots as pcs if you want--it just isn't my cup of tea. But neither way is "correct" or "incorrect."

Just my opinion. :-)

Can't you just take it apart, put it back together and "solve" it that way? ;-)

How about a Tarrasque "mini," size...(what are they?) Gargantuan?!

A contest, wherein the winner's PC becomes a rare mini in a future set of Heroes & Monsters...(would only be cool if *I* won, though).

Kelvar Silvermace wrote:

Trinam wrote:

Bag of Devouring?

I've been saying this for years! (Literally). That's why I don't even view a Bag of Devouring as a negative. I think they're quite useful as toilets--if you set it up right.

Just don't put it too close to your exposed rear...its got teeth.

Hence why I said, "if you set it up right." I think I would just install it in the character's permanent home. Long ago there were chairs designed to accommodate a chamber pot--take one of those chairs, have a six foot pipe leading down to a place where the Bag of Devouring is fixed over the end of the pipe, place the chamber pot chair (whatever they're called) above the pipe (maybe have a funnel below the chair to catch any...you get what I'm saying), and there you go! Easy peasy. Permanent Toilet, no smell, no waste to worry about--in some ways it is better than a moden toilet. Now, if they only made an Endless Roll of TP...

. If you already have the Dungeon Master's Guide from 3.5 or you're already a seasoned GM, you won't need the Gamemastery Guide. It's a decent read and has some fun tables and lists, but it's probably the most disappointing book so far.

I really like the various NPCs of various levels, all statted up and everything. I expect that could come in handy...

Bag of Devouring?

I've been saying this for years! (Literally). That's why I don't even view a Bag of Devouring as a negative. I think they're quite useful as toilets--if you set it up right.

Kelvar Silvermace wrote:

I know this is far from canon as Pathfinder legal, but 3.5's Dungeonscape (page 30) has:

Adamantine Drill 200gp, weight 1 lb.
Adamantine Hacksaw 600gp, weight 1 lb.
Adamantine Manacles 2,000gp weight 5 lb.

I don't know if this helps, but perhaps one could extrapolate from here?

Hmm, dungeonscape, the book Jason Buhlman wrote?

Yes. Along with Rich Burlew, it appears. Great book, in my opinion.

I know this is far from canon as Pathfinder legal, but 3.5's Dungeonscape (page 30) has:
Adamantine Drill 200gp, weight 1 lb.
Adamantine Hacksaw 600gp, weight 1 lb.
Adamantine Manacles 2,000gp weight 5 lb.

I don't know if this helps, but perhaps one could extrapolate from here?

Assuming this thread isn't *entirely* in jest, I expect Humans on Golarion, much like those on Earth, come in many varieties, with outliers in nearly every conceivable category. Therefore, there will be really tall humans and really short humans. I doubt such Humans would be called "Dwarves" in a world with *actual* Dwarves. I believe such people don't like the term in *this* world. I think they prefer to be called "Little People." (I know the condition is called "Dwarfism, but that shouldn't dictate how we describe or treat other people).

But as for what they might be called for Pathfinder purposes, I don't think there is an official word. I say go with what works for you.

Have you taken a look at the Factotum from 3.5's "Dungeonscape"? He's designed to be the consummate 5th character. He wouldn't be difficult to "convert" either.

He has a number of points per encounter, and he can use them to boost skill checks, attack & damage rolls, cast arcane spells, etc. He also has a rudimentary understanding of how to channel positive or negative energy (though just one or the other, naturally), and can use it to heal. I think intelligence is his prime attribute. I can post a proposed build later if you're interested.

I haven't played one yet, but I'd like to. That being said, you'll never find any character who can fight as well as a Fighter, Cast as well as a Wizard, Heal as well as a Cleric or be a skill monkey/sneak attacker as well as a Rogue. It is usually one of those "Jack of All Trades, Master of None" situations. But the Factotum could probably fill in *briefly* for most of his friends. I suspect the class is a bit underpowered, but never having played one, I can't say for sure.

I'm pretty sure they've said that we'll be lucky to see them even in the *last* week of December, but more likely January. :-(

I don't think there is *any* chance we'll see them any sooner (much to my chagrin).

Laurefindel wrote:

Kelvar Silvermace wrote:

The Law/Chaos axis is Ethics. The Good/Evil axis is Morality. If your players don't know the difference, hand them a dictionary--or send them a link to wikipedia

From Wikipedia:

"Ethics (...) is a branch of philosophy that addresses questions about morality"

I know what you mean, but adding the dictionary to our discussion only heated the arguments...

'findel

Precisely. They're both essentially the same thing.

*Sigh* No, no they're not. I think I have a copy of Webster's Dictionary in my office. I'll try to remember to dig it out tomorrow. The problem that occurs when we allow words to become fuzzy and overly expansive in their meanings is that they cease to mean *anything.*

I really liked Spelljammer, even though I don't care for SciFi--Spelljammer was just High Fantasy in Space--no science about it.

I liked the deal about the atmospheric envelope and the open decks. Very creative, IMO.

I'd be jazzed for Pathfinder to offer something like that. Obviously, they'd have to call it something else.

A smokey gray Glass Shield +3, enchanted to be as strong as steel and light as mithral. When looking through the shield, the wielder is immune to gaze attacks and gains a +2 bonus versus illusions or any spell effect that depends on vision. Possibly, it may also grant a bonus to Perception checks to detect traps and/or secret doors.

A collection of six stained glass windows, approximately nine feet wide and eighteen feet high, crafted in an abstract manner, taken from ancient churches to long-forgotten (and somewhat inhuman-looking...) gods on a sunken island unknown to the modern world. How they were moved to this location is a mystery. (Shrink Item, it was easy, but he won't tell anyone that.)

A clattering 'mobile' composed...

In response to the spoiler, and not actually an idea for a hoard, but could baleful polymorph be used to transform the adulterous couple so that each became an exact duplicate of the other? In other words, they'd seemingly "switch bodies"? That could be the start of an interesting story. Maybe they have to find some way to atone to have things set right again, I don't know. I know such stories have been done by Hollywood, but they've all been poorly done, IMO.

For the hoard, sometimes low magic and seemingly pointless items can be the most memorable. How about a Mug that chills any beverage placed in it? How about a Bottomless Cup of Coffee? How about a delicate ice sculpture of a pixie and a frog precariously perched on bending lily pads, but it never melts...

(Not my idea, but a good one): A razor that is wicked sharp, but incapable of cutting flesh? If you shave with it, you get a crazy close shave and you get a +1 Circumstance bonus to Charisma for 8 hours?

(Not my idea): A belt pouch that--if ever stolen, Yells loudly, "Help! Help! I'm being STOLEN! Guards! Help!" continously until returned to its rightful owner.

A pan flute that allows the user, with a DC 15 Perform check to cast Sleep, Charm Person and Summon Nature's Ally I, each once per day, as a third level caster.

(Not my idea): A bejeweled, golden Dagger +3 that sounds a chime whenever struck against a magic item.

(Not my idea--old school D&D): A "Staff of Healing" that can cast Cure Light Wounds an infinite number of times per day, but *cannot* heal the same person more than once per day.

A Sword (of a type that would be really useful to one of the PCs,) with a matching scabbard--*but* it cannot be drawn in anger and it cannot be sheathed until it is cleaned of any blood.

A +3 Adamantine Earthbreaker, Construct Bane.

(Not my idea): A +2 Alchemical Silver Flanged Mace, where the flanges look like crescent moons, Lycanthrope Bane. Upon command it casts a bright, silvery light in a 30' radius, and any lycanthropes so illuminated are affected as if by a bane spell.

Of course, all of this would be easier if we knew:
1) the level of the party;
2)The type of dragon--size, age, color, etc.
3) the PC's races, classes and genders...