|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
If all the characters die on a quest, this is called a TPK (total party kill) and you have the option of everyone rolling up new characters and starting over, or having something or someone bring them back for some reason, maybe years later. Or you could treat it like a video game and say they start over at a previous point, but I don't like doing that.
A paladin can respect an evil deity for the aspects of that deity's portfolio that a paladin feels are worthy of respect. For example, the Order of the Godclaw Hellknights in Golarion have many paladins among them, and do not worship any deity in particular, but give honor and respect to several of the lawful core deities. Such a paladin would respect Asmodeus as a paragon of lawfulness, but not worship him.
I meant that the writing implies you can't take a swift action without this class feature.
The wording does not at all imply that. It says that you can take a move, standard, and swift action in a surprise round, whereas normally you couldn't take a move, standard, and swift action in a surprise round. That does not imply that you cannot normally take a swift and a move action, or a swift and a standard action, in a surprise round.
The combat chapter says:
You can take a swift action anytime you would normally be allowed to take a free action.
You certainly can use one in a surprise round.
So, the options to use this talent include being at least a 4th level rogue with the Bandit archetype or having a spring-loaded wrist sheath with a dagger in it. I'm not sure about charging in the surprise round, though, it's not clear to me whether you can draw a concealed weapon as part of a charge.
The only reason feminism is loaded with negativity is that opponents of equality have loaded negativity onto it until people who, based on their actual views, are ardently outspoken feminists, think that the word means something other than what it actually does, something about oppressing men, forcing women to become lesbians, stop shaving their legs, and use men's restrooms. Screw them. They don't get to redefine the word. It's important to fight their attempts to rebrand feminism by being proud of the word, unapologetic for identifying as one, and making sure people know it.
As for the infighting -- yes, unfortunately it exists. We can't ignore it, but it's completely unproductive to say that feminism as a philosophy, as opposed to the individuals and groups within the feminist movement who are doing bad things, is entirely tainted with anti-trans, anti-LGBTQ actions.
In addition, the whole 'equalitarian' thing is a tool used by anti-woman groups to say, "You just want to make things worse for men, we don't want to do that, we're the REAL feminists!" which obfuscates the truth of the matter. In order to make things equal for women in societies where men have an advantage, it is ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY to take things away from men, to make men on average less well off than they were in the past, to make things harder for men on average, to make it so men are more likely to be passed over for a job in favor of a woman of equal ability than they were in the past, to make it so that the ratio of women's voices being heard to men's voices being heard is much higher than it was in the past. All of these things are necessary, and men who see this and recognize it for what it is aren't wrong. SOme of them are reacting to this saying that feminism is punishing men for being men, but they aren't providing any way of making the playing field even without removing the advantages that men have, because there isn't any. If from this point forward we treated everyone exactly equal regardless of their gender, there would STILL be an unequal outcome that favored men and disadvantaged women because of the accumulated advantages that men gained for centuries of dominance.
Men who are truly equality minded see that their advantages are unearned, and that it is unethical to refuse to give them up in order to make things equal for everyone.
Extra cheese: Inquisitor of Ragathiel. Free exotic weapon proficiency with your Bastard sword.
Not particularly cheesy. It's only a difference of 1 point of damage on average than a longsword, and Ragathiel is a logical diety for many characters especially for the WoTR AP and similar fiend-enemy campaigns.
If there were an obscure demon lord or great old one or something who gave weapon proficiency in a falcata and people were stretching credibility as to why there were suddenly so many clerics and inquisitors and warpriest of Fred the demon lord of biscuits around, now that would be cheesy.
The process I used for extending the PB system into the lower single digits was based on the logic of the PB numbers in the normal range, comprising the following:
To get the pb value of a number, start at 10 = 0, 11 = 1, and from those points add the bonus or penalty associated with an ability score at each increasing or decreasing number. So, 12 gives a +1 bonus; add +1 to the pb of 11 to get 2. 13 gives a +1 bonus; add +1 to the pb of 12 to get 3. 14 gives a +2; add +2 to the pb of 13 to get 5. And so on.
For the lower numbers that have an established pb value, this pattern holds: 9 gives a -1 penalty; add -1 to the pb of 10 to get -1. 8 gives a -1 penalty; add -1 to the pb of 9 to get -2. 7 gives a -2 penalty, add -2 to the pb of 8 to get -4. Continuing this pattern downward results in the values I posted.
I'm not saying these values are better, just that they are the logical result of extrapolating the pb system to 3.
It's not one point per score. The farther you deviate from the average, the greater the point totals are.
17 = 13 pts
3 is not defined in the book, but if you extend the point buy system out, it would be a -16. (7 = -4, 6 = -6, 5 = -9, 4 = -12)
So your total is a 22 point buy, not out of range of a normal game (pathfinder NPCs are built on a 15 point buy, and PFSOP specifies a 20 pb for PCs). Let him change points around based on that point buy.
Okay. That made sense. I still have a hard time understanding why Paizo would make a feat that you could be eligible for but that would do you absolutely no good. Does this happen a lot and I've just never noticed?
Well, anyone could take weapon focus in a weapon they don't use. Someone who never uses ranged weapons can take point-blank shot, even though it wouldn't do them any good. This is about the same; you take a feat that says if you do such and such (use X weapon; make a ranged attack within 30 ft; take a level of Rakasha or Shadow sorceror) you get certain benefits (+1 to hit; +1 to hit and damage; an effective Charisma bonus of 2 for that class).
The game has rules for falling objects. Real life considerations should not have been used, although I understand the desire to do that.
Let's assume the statue was Colossal, and was made of particularly dense material (the rules don't mention this, but if stone is the baseline, gold which is much denser than stone would probably do more damage), and was dropped from much higher than 150 feet.
Higher than 150 feet indicates double damage, and much higher could be houseruled to double it again. Very high density could also be ruled to double it further.
So 160d6 is a hell of a lot of damage, and impractical to roll, so you could assume the average, 560 damage to anything or anyone underneath the object when it hit. That's enough to kill everyone in the palace, if it hits the palace, and demolish the palace, but not enough to do a nuke-style explosion.
Consecrate doesn't care who created a magic item that is used to cast the spell. Whoever activates a magic item, whether that's a scroll or a wondrous item, is considered the caster. Whoever the caster is, is "you" for the purposes of the rules of the consecrate spell. Therefore, your priest of Groetus is consecrating the area for his own faith, not Sarenrae's.
Some people in threads like this have made the assertion that they see the restrictions as saying that if you already have an aasimar or Tiefling character, you shouldn't make one now to get it in before the deadline, and that doing so (even one) would be abusive.
Clearly there's a wide range of interpretations about what is or is not abusive.
You should make sure to award XP if the characters use diplomacy or intimidation to turn a hostile NPC friendly (or submissive), knock out an NPC but do not kill it, use nonlethal means to capture it, or stealthily sneak around it and completely avoid it. (The last should be a situation where the party is aware of the NPC and actively takes steps to avoid it, as opposed to where they make successful stealth rolls and the NPC never pokes its head out of its lair, and they bypass it without succeeding on a perception check to notice it as well.)
I mean, it's not like they're going to design an adventure where some guy in full plate mail armor is able to make his standing 10 foot jump across a moat full of acid.
Is that sarcasm? Because a fighter of at least 7th level with mithril full plate and armor training to allow movement at full speed, who has invested ranks into acrobatics could quite possibly do that.
Having someone in a square between you and your target doesn't break line of sight. It gives a soft cover bonus, but you can still shoot.
Op attack = attack of opportunity? Snap Shot lets you threaten at 5ft with a ranged weapon, and lets you take attacks of opportunity with it. Zen archer monks also get an ability that allows something similar.
If you're looking for something that will let you send an arrow at a wizard who starts casting 30ft away from you, sorry, no way to do that except with a readied action.
Create undead has no HD limit. Its downside is that the undead you create aren't automatically under your control, and Control Undead does have limits. However, if you use people that are loyal to you already, you can turn them into skeletal champions or juju zombies and they will retain their class, attributes (other than constitution) and memories of their life, and will presumably continue to be loyal to you.
Let me expand on that. The way you're using the word 'stealth' it's as if there were a condition called 'stealthy' or 'in stealth', sort of an 'invisibility-light' where doing certain actions causes that condition to end. That's not the case.
Stealth is a skill that allows you to not be seen or heard. If you have concealment or cover you can make a stealth check to hide or move around without being detected.
If at any point you no longer have cover or concealment from someone, you can't use stealth to avoid being seen by them.
So, if your familiar has cover or concealment vs. All foes all the way to your team mate, including in the square the team mate is occupying, then with a successful stealth roll vs. Perception, your familiar can avoid being seen while delivering a touch spell.
By RAW, lost forever in the nothingness between the different planes of reality.
In the game, of course, the GM gets to decide whether this means "OK, Aster, time to roll up a new character," or "After a timeless interval spent in utter nothingness, you emerge into [insert description of whatever plane the GM wants the character to have ended up in]." Then have the other PCs find out, perhaps through an oracle or prophetic dream, that Aster's PC isn't dead and they have a goal to achieve -- rescue him from wherever. Aster could control an NPC ally during this time, or play solo for a while. They could even have a dual campaign -- Aster creates a new character to be with the existing PCs, and the other players create new characters to be the allies he meets in whatever place it is he ends up. Maybe axomites or proteans or who knows what.
I don't know anything about Constantine but my understanding is that his bisexuality plays little to no role in the comics. If that's the case then they could have it mentioned in passing once in a while and call it good.
Well, it's just another drop in the huge bucket of bisexual erasure.
The description of the tail evolution for eidolons doesn't say anything about it allowing manipulation of objects with it. Every race that has a prehensile tail has specific rules allowing them to use their tails that way. Using skills requiring fine manipulation would require at LEAST a tentacle evolution, if not Limbs. If you always play with the same PFS GM or group of GMs, you might be able to get them to form a consensus about it, and allow you to fluff a tentacle evolution on a serpentine eidolon as a prehensile tail -- but table variation is almost assured.
I've seen people try to do the same thing with a tongue. Any such idea always carries a distinct eau de limburger in my opinion.
What sort of creature? What spell does it act like? Beast shape (#)? Monstrous physique? Elemental body? Polymorph self?
If your GM allows you to, you could reach out of the bag's mouth with your arm to stab the inside of the Jotund's stomach with the dagger, or fire the pistol through it. He might rule against it, though.
The problems with morphing into something with lots of claws and jumping out of the bag to claw your way out is that you'll take bludgeoning damage, probably enough to kill you, as soon as you do. Do you have a good perception? The rules do include being able to identify potions by taste when taking a sip, using the perception skill, DC = 15+caster level. You could check the other potions, maybe one is a cure serious wounds potion or something.
I find that ferocity is one of those things where you always forget to use it until you're packing up to leave after the game session.
"Oh, wait, Zugzug the barbarian didn't have to die after all, I forgot about orc ferocity!"
"Well, it's a bit late -- the PCs already returned to town, found a priest to cast raise dead, and returned to the dungeon where the foes were more prepared this time. No retcon."
The dragon could have set up a contingency spell with the necessary spells to capture his soul upon his death and bind it to the phylactery, which had previously been completed, prepared, and hidden.
Or the Lich could have prepared the phylactery, and made a contingency scroll for the dragon to use if the dragon wasn't at high enough CL to cast the spell.
Why is the dragon in the lair of a lich, anyway? Is it an ally? Maybe they're friends (or lovers? that would be weird enough that none of the players would see it coming, I bet) and the lich was planning to assist the dragon to achieve lichdom anyway.
Uncomfortable and uncertain what questions to ask is different than assuming who you're talking to is required to divulge intimate details of their body and habits on demand. The latter assumes that your own curiosity is more important than their privacy or comfort, in a way that would not be assumed when talking to a percieved social equal.
It's entirely understandable once you comprehend that the person asking the question doesn't actually consider the trans* person they're asking to actually be, you know, a real person.