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

Quatar's page

Goblin Squad Member. 1,687 posts (2,576 including aliases). No reviews. 1 list. No wishlists. 5 aliases.


1 to 50 of 1,687 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Can you take the +2 in Cha then still while taking the +2 Cha option, essentially getting a +4?

Ok so I think the Background skills are an amazing idea.

Now however there's the bard. And while Perform being a Background skill seems ok for every other class, those get Versatile Performance, and use Perform for two other skills which are usually not Background ones.

Is that fair, or should I make an adjustment there?

1 person marked this as a favorite.

There are certain things that even a result of 50 or 100 on a knowledge check won't tell you, especially about things that are actively guarded/kept secret or that are so obscure that only very few know about.

I'd say you were right to say "no", but I also understand the PC being bummed.

The fun thing is he might actually know things, more than he thought, but in a completely different context, and has never made a connection to this artifact, and it will eventually become clearer that he knows more than he initially did, when they learn more about it.
Just an idea.

I would agree that those two metamagics have no effect on the outcome, pretty much for the reasons CalethosVB said.

Easiest way is probably just to give it a +1 enhancement bonus, which essentially is a +1 AC. (It makes the shield masterwork too though, so be careful there)

As a GM if someone wanted to play a custom race, I'd build it for them. I've been building a few races myself with the rules to know how broken they can be if a person can build a race specifically to support his build.

But more than 20 RP I'd never give, more like 15ish

I think the best crafter for such stuff is a wizard with the Fabricate spell.
If you argue you can't craft masterwork that way... cast Masterwork Transformation on it when you're done.

And you don't even have to be level 20 for it.

Oh that's true, I was assuming a medium/small craftsman.
If you go into a settlement with tiny people (or to a tiny smith), then tiny would be the baseline, and medium would cost 2x.

It all needs some sort of handwaving though, we don't want a 100% logical economic simulation.

I'd just say every step away from Small/Medium (no matter what direction) is double the price.
So Large/Tiny is 2x, Huge/Diminutive 4x etc.

While for larger weapons you need far more material and that justifies the increase in price, for smaller weapons you need far more delicate craftmanship (aka more time)

EldonG wrote:
Oh, it's very railroady in places, especially the beginning, but there are other places where it has a sandbox feel, within the preset framework. That framework is what makes it work, though - without it, evil parties (lawful or not) end up being just too much chaos. :p

I agree that you need some sort of framework for an evil game.

I just found it far to restrictive for my tastes.

I've only ever played WotW through the first part of the first book. Multiple times, with different GMs

Every time I found it extremely railroady. And I felt "well it doesn't matter what my character wants. Only what Asmodeus wants." It's even there right in the beginning. Maybe I was playing the wrong characters. But I usually build characters with some sort of goal and personallity, but I had the feeling as long as those goals are not "I want to see Asmodeus as the supreme overlord of everything" you'll have problems.

Yes sure you have some freedom on how you do something, but the overall path is set in stone. That's usually the case in APs of course, but most I've played so far at least seem to disguise it better.
They leave the impression that it was the players choice to go through the snake infested canyon (by giving three more alternatives that are much worse), not a pregone conclusion by having an NPC make that decission.

in WotW it was really "You make this blood contract with Asmodeus and now you're his b$*!!". It's just "go into that canyon!" - "Yes, my master!"

Maybe it was the GMs, but as I said, multiple ones, so I'm not sure they were all bad.

5 people marked this as a favorite.

DM is the same as GM, just different names.

Your buddy is just terrible at either. And apparently as player too.

Talk to him. That's really the only thing you can do, if you don't wanna toss him out.

Reduce Animal spell

Try getting a custom made item for it. Or if that's not possible, a wand.

I would say so, yes.

alexd1976 wrote:
Quatar wrote:
alexd1976 wrote:

I see the situation this way:

Is the Two Handed sword a one handed weapon? Yes or No?


Does not qualify.

Being able to treat something as something else does not alter the state of that thing, it simply changes how YOU interact with it.

The feat requires something specific, the Two Handed sword is not that thing, thus it doesn't qualify.

You said it. You see it that way.

I don't. For me, if I treat X as Y in certain situations or for certain things, then it is Y for these things.

I'm still sure a straight up two-handed weapon Fighter or Barbarian using a greatsword with Enlarge and Lead Blades will be FAR MORE terrifying than what the OP is trying to accomplish.

If there was a feat that allowed you to treat Crows as Monkeys, would your pet Crow now be a Monkey?


Being able to treat something as something else does not transform the item into that thing.

Also, of course I said "I see it...", I only have one viewpoint, my own. I'm not going to say "You see it..."

If I can treat Crows as Monkey for a specific thing that usually does not apply to Crows, than one of two things happen for that specific thing:

a) Crows are indeed Monkeys
b) the specific thing applies to crows too

Which one of the two apply depends on the circumstance, and which makes more sense. I would guess usually b) applies. But honestly it's completely irrelevant which of the two apply, since the result is the same.

Favorite Enemy (Monkeys) now applies to Crows too. Or Crows are Monkeys and therefore Favorite Enemy (Monkeys) of course applies.

Slashing Grace now applies to two-handed slashing weapons too, as long as they're carried in one hand. Or two-handed slashing weapons that are carried in one hand are now one-handed and therefore Slashing Grace applies to them.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I wouldn't allow it, and I would hit you over the head with the Unchained rulebook for suggesting it.

The PCs in my game were very close to a young cleric acolyte of Callistria who traveled with them. And they really hate the nobleman, even threatening to leave him marooned on the island they're on right now.

When the acolyte died (it was totally unplanned, an unlucky crit in combat, as she was trying to heal the barbarian, who'd been dropped into negatives), it nearly broke one of the PCs.

There are a few more NPCs around, but they don't seem to have really strong feelings towards any of those.

So yes, you can't really plan for something like that. It just happens.

Though I guess there are a few points you can watch out for, to increase the chance:
- create a personality that you know will appeal to at least one of the PCs.
- make the NPC somewhat helpless/clumsy and in need of the PCs, at least when they first meet. Might either trigger a protector instinct or a maternal one
- avoid outright jerk personalities.

Those can help, but there's really no sure-fire way to do it

1 person marked this as a favorite.
alexd1976 wrote:

I see the situation this way:

Is the Two Handed sword a one handed weapon? Yes or No?


Does not qualify.

Being able to treat something as something else does not alter the state of that thing, it simply changes how YOU interact with it.

The feat requires something specific, the Two Handed sword is not that thing, thus it doesn't qualify.

You said it. You see it that way.

I don't. For me, if I treat X as Y in certain situations or for certain things, then it is Y for these things.

I'm still sure a straight up two-handed weapon Fighter or Barbarian using a greatsword with Enlarge and Lead Blades will be FAR MORE terrifying than what the OP is trying to accomplish.

cerhiannon wrote:
As long as we are on the topic. What about a Bastard sword or Katana with the related Exotic Weapon Proficiency making it into one-handed weapons; can they be used with slashing grace?

The Bastard Sword and Katana are not made into one-handed weapons. They are one-handed exotic weapons.

There is an option to use them as martial weapons, but you're forced to wield them in both hands then. That's a bonus feature these weapons have.

They're not starting out as martial two-handed weapons and with an EWP feat you can use them one-handed. It's the other way around.

TL;DR: Yes, you can use them with Slashing Grace.

I would allow it. "and the like" sound like it was written to support future feats and abilities that weren't available yet when the titan mauler was written.

Greatsword once it looses it's 2-hand properties isn't really much scarier than a bastard sword or Katana or any of the "true one-handed weapons" really, and you're paying with at least two class level for what is essentially a +1.5 to average damage per hit (1d0 = 5.5, 2d6 = 7).

So I see no problem.
In fact I don't think the benefit is worth it, but that's maybe just me.

Not quite bow, but the Gunslinger archetype Bolt Ace gives Dex to damage with crossbows.

I think it's ok for him to help them.

Just ramping up the oposition, I don't know. It feels cheap. Here's why:
So they save that guy against all odds. The Warlock made a huge sacrifice. And now you take all that away but just making stuff harder for everyone?
There should be a payoff.

THEY asked him to come along. If it makes stuff too easy, they got themselves to blame, not you.

Just make sure he's not taking over the party, like giving commands as to where to go, what to do, etc. Let the party still be in charge. He's just the support.

Alternatively give temporary command of him to one of the players (or multiple players) but with the option that you can veto any action they take (he wouldn't do anything suicidal for example). That way the players decide just how effective he is.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Cold Iron is the weakness of Fey and some other nature-y magical creatures.

It seems feasible to me to say that iron (cold or not) is somehow disrupting the magic.

It's also a common thing in fantasy literature that people accidentally or against their will get saddled with items that weaken them, especially if taken prisoner and the enemy knows how to combat that type of foe.

So I would let it work at my table. Though I might require a Knowledge Religion check to see if the Characters would actually know about this weakness.

By that definition show me any character that isn't min-maxed. Because by that logic I can surely point my fingers at something that you min-ed...

3 people marked this as a favorite.

"Hey big guy, yes you, Mr Half Ork in Heavy Armor. Could you maybe carry this stuff for me? Please? I'll put in a good word with that nice barmaid in the tavern for you in return"

Pathfinder isn't a solo game. Ask your group for help. Especially those with 50+ pounds of free encumbrance.

Seems correct. I wasn't sure about b5 and d5, but the line seems to go through the corner and that counts.

However none of the others would receiver a Flanking bonus from the rogue because Whips don't threaten.

Natural Attacks don't get itterative attacks like weapons, that's why the +12/7 is only a +12 for the natural attacks. However as you notice you attack with all of your NA with +12. Not +12/+7/+2 like a weapon user would.

And yes attacking with more than one attack is a full-attack action. So your GM was right there.

Claw x2 just means 2 claws, not 2 claws as one weapon.

I went through the Wizard spell list on the SRD, and went through all Enchantment spells there. 8 (eight) were (charm) spells, I've not counted all the others but it felt at least 10 times that.

Just feels weird to split the whole school into two sub schools and then basically give everything to one.

Am I missing something?

Would SR also apply to potions?

Say I'd tell my party "if I ever go unconscious, I got a potion of CMW in my left pocket, just pour it down my throat", would that work, or would the potion have to go through the SR too?

Yes thats what I thought too. It sounds amazing at first, but I do believe the negatives far outweight the benefit.

We have an Oracle in the group, so my Sorcerer probably isn't going to be the only buffer at least.

Is it a good thing to have 6+level or 11+level SR as a PC, or does it mess you up more often than it saves your bacon?

Thank you.

Yes, obviously I need two halves to make a whole creature. I figured the other half to be a human, so the human's contribution was mostly to lowering the stats towards the average, and soften most of the abilities somehow

Yes, I started with a tiefling as base creature, but since I ended up switching pretty much everything out anyway, I figured I could just start from scratch too.

4 RP for Flight is only 30 ft and Clumsy maneuverability (which is a -8 on FLy checks). So you probably don't want to try using it in anything but perfect weather, and maybe not in combat. Even the DC 10 check to avoid falling after getting damaged can be trouble.

1 person marked this as a favorite.


I'm trying to build a half-succubus character for an upcoming game, using the ARG rules. I'm not 100% positive yet on how many RP I have to play with, but assume either 10 or 20.

Class is going to be an Enchantress, so a Bard or Sorceress or something along those lines. Spellcaster definitely.

This is mostly to gather options for abilities, feats etc. that are fitting to the idea. Not necessarily make the full race yet. Though if you want to, I won't stop you of course.

For quick reference, full Succubus is here

The Abilities should either mimic those of a Succubus or be somehow related to one they have. They can be the same power level but should not be stronger.
Here's a few ideas I've been tossing around in my head for abilities to use:

  • Limited Shapechange: Unlike the Succubus who can change into anyone, this one would have a fixed form she’d change to. So she could switch between “demon form” or “human form”, but it would be the same human every time. That would be the "lesser change shape" option. But it's not available to Outsiders, so my GM would have to allow it, or the character is a Monstrous Humanoid instead. I can live with that if necessary.
  • Wings: Either for actual flight mode (30 ft. clumsy or poor – nothing fancy it’s mostly for fluff), or simply vestigial/gliding wings. Would only be available in “demon form” (ARG: Flight or Gliding/verstigial wings - depends how much RP are allowed)
  • Tail: Fairly obvious. Most likely Prehensile, not the slapping tail. Only in “Demon form”
  • Seduction/Temptation: This is what a Succubus does. (ARG options: This is where I'm not sure on. Bonus to Cha obviously. Seducer most likely. Maybe Object of Desire as well. Something that gives me bonus to Bluff or Diplomacy, like Silver Tongue. Any other ideas to do this?)
  • Energy draining kiss: Another thing that’s pretty iconic for Succubi, though the full version is clearly way too overpowered for PCs. So here’s my idea. Basically a normal Bite Attack, following all the normal rules for it, like requiring an attack roll, damage dice etc. But instead of physical damage it does Negative Energy damage and does not add Str into the mix? This would clearly require the GM to make a houserule. Alternatively just a normal bite attack, that's called a Kiss. (I'm a spellcaster, so honestly how often am I going to bite people anyway?)

So, what do you think? Any ideas on other abilities that would make sense and I could use?

2 people marked this as a favorite.

While most people have some "free feats" somewhere in their progression where they have finished their "must haves" and don't qualify for the next tier of feats yet, players don't always have those at the same time.

So one player would have to take the teamwork feat at level 5, just to then wait till level 7 or even level 9 when his buddy can finally pick it up as well.
First player also can't wait till level 7 or 9, because those feats are once again planned for different things he didn't qualify at 5 yet.

Now tell me, would you do this as player 1? I probably wouldn't.

That might not be the main reason TW feats aren't used often, but I figure it certainly contributes.

If you're pinned and still able to use a one handed weapon, then in PF terms you're grappled not pinned, because that's exactly what grappled is. Pinned specifically says you can't do anything but try to escape or cast spells without somatic or material components. Everything else is a no-go.

If tied up is helpless and tied up works like pinned, with the only exception that the bonds don't have to make a grapple check each turn, then pinned is helpless too.

However it takes 2-3 turns to pull off and needs 2 people working together. That's forever in a combat.
Also anyone who can easily be grappled and controlled/pinned for 2-3 turns is either a) a mook and not worth the trouble or b) being grappled by a combat monster who should be using his combat prowess more effectively.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I would say pinned would count, because you can't do anything and are at the mercy of whoever is pinning you. But I also don't think the grappler can deliver the CDG, another person would have to. (I'm pretty sure you need to spend a standard action to maintain the grapple. So if you spend a full round action instead on CDG you release the grapple, losing the condition for CDG to work)

So it takes at least two rounds, with multiple grapple rolls, and occupies two people. Guess that's why it's not standard tactics.

Yes, that's one of the strategies used for witches. Of course it means you can't move.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
ExiledMimic wrote:

This depends on several factors. I've played so many paladins in various campaigns that it's bar - none my favorite class of all time. Firstly check with the paladin player about their code. Some gods are able to give Paladins some wiggle room on how they are allowed to handle a situation like that.

The half orc archetype (Redeemer) is made for situations like this. It allows the Paladin to travel with any evil creature so long as the Paladin can justify their ability to be redeemed.

Secondly to this any Paladin may travel with an evil creature so long as their purpose aligns. If you both want to end an event that could wipe out life on the planet the Paladin is allowed to work with you so long as the common interest exists and the two of you come to terms on behavior.

Now if your GM is more liberal I suggest the 2nd Ed splat of "Ex-Patriot" for the Paladin. Basically the Paladin gives up all caring for the mortal laws of man and follows only his God's law. So the Paladin can ignore laws and church edicts (only the GOD can dictate to the Paladin) that prevent his actions or associates.

You may also want to look into a way to appear lawful neutral on the regular. It helps. Also makes the whole "I use undead to better understand the nature of life" jive sound less tyrant - esque. The Paladin can give MUCH wider space to LN.

Hope that helps!

I don't know, a lot of your ideas seem to center around "The paladin could...". Honestly, in this case, I don't think the Paladin should have to do anything to accomodate that concept.

The cleric player knew there would be a Paladin, and still he made an evil necromancer.

I'm not the hugest fans of Paladins, but in this case, I don't see how the burden of making this work should be on the paladin's shoulders by adjusting his code, picking some weird 2nd ed thing or just playing dumb and never noticing.

Honestly if you got a weird gut feeling already, so that you have to ask "Does this work in the long run?", the answer is probably "No" and you should just say "No".

1 person marked this as a favorite.

"Specific trumps general" would be if Bludgeoner said "with any melee or ranged weapon" for example.

The situation in this specific instance the rules make no mention of this restriction one way or another, so the general rule would still apply.

That said, if you'd use your firearm to club someone over the head, I'm pretty sure the feat applies.

Inlaa wrote:

Every GM and every player goofs up. That's natural. I've been both a problem player and a problem GM at different points in time.

Really, it comes down to whether or not your GM or player is willing to talk and listen. If a person doesn't want to listen to advice (whether because you presented the advice rudely / condescendingly or because s/he is already trying to do that or because s/he is stubborn)... well, then you need to either bear with what's presented to you, try leading by example, or find a new game.

So, yeah. A lot of this comes down to talking it out with the other person.

EDIT: For the record, I've both been a problem player and a problem GM in the past. Rules Lawyer player is what I was (but often ruling AGAINST the party), and as a GM I've been the Unprepared a few times.

I don't think goofing is a problem. As you say everyone goofs up sometimes. It's called being human.

I've had times when I accidently railroaded certain events. There's been at least one instance where I blatantly ignored a PC's Diplomacy result of nearly 40 (!) and had the NPC do what he does anyway.
When I notice stuff like that (can sometimes take a few weeks for me to realize I screwed up) I talk to my players about it, and we work it out.

When a certain "goof" happens all the time, it stops being a simple goof, it becomes a problem.

Ok, so my players are gonna attack an enemy village next turn. Their plan is to throw alchemists fire and other stuff on the houses to set them on fire (they'll burn easily being made out of wood, leaves, etc).

Now, most people will be inside being asleep. We all know fire is a major hazard, not because of fire but because the smoke might kill you before you even wake up.

I'm just not sure how to deal with it in game. Not looking for hard rules, since I don't think they exist (though they might), but more thoughts on how other GMs would deal with it. I don't want to make it too easy on them by saying "wonderful, everyone burns to death" and not deny them their success outright by going "Ha! They all make it out easy enough!" (unless the die say so, but then it's out of my hand).

There are rules for Smoke here, which is good, but for example what would it take for a person to actually wake up from smoke?

Also, said houses/huts, how fast would they burn, how many rounds before the roof crashes in, dealing bludgeoning damage and then fire damage? 1? 5? 10?

archmagi1 wrote:
If you're looking for place, npc, and event continuity within the world or between campaigns, then yes, it is completely worth it. If you're a minutiae kinda guy, then it is probably worth it. If you're running an AP by the books with no world changing continuity between AP #N and #N+1, then its probably not worth the extra legwork.

Ok, that sounds really good.

I'm not running an AP, it's a homebrew world based on Golarion (reusing many names of countries, general politics etc, but changing a lot too), so I do have to keep track of a lot of s#$~.

The fact that so far nobody came in yet and said "Nope it's horrible and not worth the money" says quite a bit I think. The worst was something like "you might not get 100% out of it, if you already do this and that another way".

So yes I'm definitely going to give it a try.

wraithstrike wrote:

Quatar in order to avoid losing my notes on my computer I created a filing system.

Example follows:
....Specific gaming system(such as Pathfinder)
........Adventure Modules
........Adventure Paths
...........Carrion Crown
...........Rise of the Runelords
.................Enemies(This will have the herolab file, and the pdf character sheet in the same folder).

Now occasionally I get lazy and put something in a random place, but other than that it is not hard for me to find something.

Well I tried doing it like that, but I still manage to put stuff soemwhere it doesn't belong. That's totally my fault, but probably means that system doesn't work so well for me :)

archmagi1 wrote:

Its basically Obsidian Portal on crack. All of the features I've ever used on OP are there (in some form or fashion) in Realmworks. I'm unfamiliar with the player view since I use it solely for GM benefit, but I think that was covered a bit up-thread.

So what are your experience using it solely for GM works, would you say it's still worth it?

I'll probably get it next week when I got more time to play with it, I think.

Hmm, had not thought about using the player view window through Skype. That might work, but they'd only "see" it, they couldn't actually click on anything and "use" it, can they? Follow links and such?

The 6 month cloud service is still part of it from what I know.

I really wished there was a demo for it. Could be like the hero lab demo where you can do stuff but can't save it.

Thanks, glad to get some feedback from people using it in a similar situation like me.

What you say sounds very nice. No, I'm not really happy with using sticky notes and word files, because that's a mess and I'm ALWAYS searching for stuff. Every session I'm "Ok wait a second guys... Where did I save that?"

So having it all in one place would definitely be awesome. I tried using software like XMind once to get a Mindmap like plotstructure down, but it didn't work too well, especially since everything was so spread out everywhere.

But I'm also using the Roll20 Handouts and Character feature (especially with the new Folder system on Dev that's quite nice) for showing stuff to my players during the session. Mostly pictures of people they meet and other things like that.
Which kinda does sound similar to what RW can do, doesn't it? Except from what you said, it can't do it in realtime, so I might still be depending on Roll20 for that.

A few more questions:
1) Is there any way to convert it into a HTML document like a Wiki and upload it? I guess that's what you meant with export, and that it's not in yet?

2) Also, does the GM version include the Player version? (AKA, I'm the GM in my campaign, but can I then use the same program as a player in another?)

3) You mention "player notes" does that mean players can add their own notes to things? For example, they meet and I reveal "Malcom McSuspicious" but they don't really know anything about him yet. They suspect through clue linking that he might be the head of a local gang of cutthroats, but have no proof whatsoever, it's mostly a gut feeling of the players. Can they now add "possible leader of the gang" to it, or would I have to do it? (Because if I do it, it kinda gets an "official" touch, and they might take it as Word of God even if it was totally wrong)

4) To actually use and sync with the Player Edition, I gotta have the Cloud service too?


A few days ago I found out about Realm Works. I looked at their website, watched the video there but I'm still a bit confused as to what it does, and what it doesn't do.

A bit about my situation:
I'm the GM of a PF game that I run via Skype and Roll20.

Now, Realm Works seems to have things that overlap with Roll20 features. Like the Fog of War on maps. I've seen actual dungeon maps in the video too.
Is it a fully functional VTT, or can't you actually run encounters on it?

Also a lot of things like revealing info to players seem to require the players to have the Player Edition, or to be able to see a second screen during actual in-person games. Latter option doesn't work for me since I play online, and I don't think I can get all of my players to get the Player Edition, so I'm wondering, what would be my advantage using this?

What other things are there where Roll20 and Realm Works overlap?
What other things are there where they do not, but complement each other?

Don't just link me to the Website, I read the stuff there, I'm looking for actual first hand experience with this.

Zourin wrote:
CheatYaMaximus saw you as a sucker and a newcomer, and you bit a 10kgp scam. He's not planning on seeing you again,

I think I might have quoted the wrong post of Darksol the Painbringer, I was refering to the part about him saying that Crafters have a vested interest in not customizing stuff, so it's easier to steal and therefor create return customers.

On top of that, the crafter would rather not have stuff be personalized to a person so that the thieves of the world stealing the items of the things that he crafted would actually give him return customers.

That's the one.

I was mentioning, there are so many crafters out there, that it would practically be enough for a few of them to say "We make stuff cheaper AND harder to steal!", for others to be forced to do the same.
Or at least not be able to rely on thieves for return business.

On the other hand with a win margin of 100% it would be enough for a few crafters to say "Pff, 25% is good enough" to basically make the entire system crash in on itself - so trying to think too much about the logic behind the PF economics will just give you headaches and nothing else.

In my homebrew world, which is largely based on Golarion, considering countries and such things, but also changed in large parts. First it's an E6 game, so most NPCs won't be high level at all, most actually will have NPC classes.
Another thing that's changed is magic items. They're rare. There aren't any "Ye olde magic shoppe" at every corner in a Hamlet. Heck there probably won't be one in a Metropolis.
The only magic things more or less readily available are potions and wands of a few select low level spells.

So most Magic Items have a history, and most likely a name.

I just have a hard time coming up with any names or history for them at all, and those that I do sound so cheesy that I can't even repeat them here.
So how do you come up with those things?

Also any advice on how to play up the rarity of magic items would be great.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

The point is that it hurts the economy as a whole, especially the crafter, to make things personalized like that. You greatly reduce the return factor of customers, as well as the ability to actually be able to sell equipment back to other crafters because of it. In other words, once it's bought, good luck selling it back for any cash, assuming someone would actually want to buy it. But why buy something that's not useful for them?

Although I understand this is homebrew, and if you think it will work for your games, go for it, but I'm telling you that this sort of pathway leads to cheese of all sorts if put at the wrong table. (I would've said right table, but that is to garner the interest of something that can be good.)

Remember that in default Golarion, crafters that can craft certain items are not exactly rare.

It's not every second person you run into on the street, but they're not rare. As an example to make a +1 sword you need a CL3 caster. 2nd Level spellcasting is available in a Hamlet (that's 21-60 population). Granted, not everyone of those might actually craft/enchant items, but it's a rough estimate on how common actual spellcasters are.
CL 9 casters (aka 5th level spells) for +3 weapons you'd find in a Large Town already (2000-5000 people). You might not necessarily find a +3 weapon crafter in that town, but you surely will find a few that make +1 or +2 weapons. And that's just a Large Town. Go to a Metropolis with 50k+ people and you probably find all of them.

So, with all these people available, there is this thing called competition. No single crafter is gonna have a monopoly.

If I pay 10000 gp for a magic sword from the crafter CheatYaMaximus, then get it stolen soon after, and then find out that crafter BuildsItCheaper, could have sold me the same sword for 7,000 gp, but with a build-in anti-theft.
Do you really think I'll EVER take my return business to CheatYaMaximus again?

One reason in Golarion that it works this way is that it seems most crafters seem to produce items "blindly" for the various M-Marts out there. Which is an odd business model, but considering how well stocked some of those shops are, I can't think of another way.
And if you mass-produce stuff, then limiting it to "Only females between the ages of 25 and 39, with blue eyes and a LG alignment" won't find as many customers as one without, even if it is more expensive.

Uhm, it's all on teh Animal Companion page:



This lists the animal's total skill ranks. Animal companions can assign skill ranks to any skill listed under Animal Skills. If an animal companion increases its Intelligence to 10 or higher, it gains bonus skill ranks as normal. Animal companions with an Intelligence of 3 or higher can purchase ranks in any skill. An animal companion cannot have more ranks in a skill than it has Hit Dice.

Animal companions can have ranks in any of the following skills:

Acrobatics* (Dex), Climb* (Str), Escape Artist (Dex), Fly* (Dex), Intimidate (Cha), Perception* (Wis), Stealth* (Dex), Survival (Wis), and Swim* (Str).

All of the skills marked with an (*) are class skills for animal companions. Animal companions with an Intelligence of 3 or higher can put ranks into any skill.

1 to 50 of 1,687 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2016 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email 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.