Ronnie K's page

Simply put, I think you are not 'aware' until you have a turn. If you are surprised, you are not aware of what's coming at you. If they come at you before you come at them, then you are not aware until your turn.

Now if you have been engaged in conversation, negotiation, etc., then you should have already called for those checks.

I.e. if you ask for the knowledge check before the GM calls for perception/initiative, it most likely should be given. Otherwise, wait till your turn!

Surely, though, once something attacks you in the surprise round, you are now aware of it. Can you cry out in pain or do you have to wait for your turn in the first round?

And could you say, "ow, I was hit by a ghoul!" Instead of just "ow, I was hit!" ?

Not necessarily! Just because you have been cut in half does not know you are aware of what exactly cut you in half. No reason to think you are aware of the agent just because you have been affected by that agent.

I agree you can cry out in pain once you have been sliced.

PM me if anyone doesn't show up.

Improved Precise Shot is one of the biggest quality of life improvements an archer can get. Fortunately, it's now available as a trait (Deadeye Bowman, Inner Sea Gods) that is PFS legal. This makes a wide variety of archers viable that simply weren't before. Your observation that the fighter can pick up IPS later is very reasonable given the fighter chassis' ability to handle hit/damage bonuses, but you don't need to feel beholden to that particular feat anymore. The trait has restrictions, naturally, but that's to be expected.

Since IPS is available early via the trait, it opens up all of the 3/4 BAB classes as viable primary archers. The Medium, Hunter, Inquisitor, and Occultist are all much better because of the trait than you'd expect. The downside is that you're looking at a delayed Manyshot and iterative attack, but the upside is SPELLS. A short breakdown:

Medium - built to level 11, you have +3 hit +5 damage from your Spirit Bonus and Seance Bonus, with an optional +1 to both from the feat Spirit Focus. You will have 5 shots per round without Haste and 3rd level Medium spells. That means you will have your own means of flight at the very least (Fly), as well as some other mobility options (Gaseous Form, Dim Door) and useful utility (Greater Invis, Greater False Life). Your feats are pretty well tied up, though - PBS, Precise, Rapid, Spirit Focus, Manyshot, Clustered Shot for a non-human, likely in that order. Humans are able to squeeze in Deadly Aim at some point.

Hunter - Optional pet, access to the Planar Focus feat (includes burrow speed as an option!) and 4 levels of casting from the druid/ranger lists. Free Precise Shot at 2. Less damage, more utility here. Might not be your cup of tea.

Inquisitor - 4 levels of brutal spells, Bane on command, Judgment...I think everything is covered by this guy and it's been hashed out in other posts before. Like the Medium, your feats are pretty well locked down, but you don't have Spirit Focus taking up Deadly Aim's slot.

Occultist...

This is going to keep me busy for a while D:

I don't think there is a great reason to take it as a Zen Archer. Usually you would take Point Blank Shot at 1st level, Precise Shot at 2nd Improved Precise Shot at 6th as your bonus feats. Picking up Deadly Aim at 3rd. Are you leveling from 1st or applying GM credit?

I'll be leveling from first. I'm thinking start out with fighter 1 and then get to monk 6 to get the feats as soon as possible.

A Zen Archer cannot use Rapid Shot or Manyshot when making a flurry of blows. But Rapid Shot is one of the feats on his bonus feat list. Is what situation, if any, would it be advantageous to give up the flurry for rapid shot?

Have you considered Zen Archer? If you would like I could try to put together a sample build for you, but if you are looking for best archer, I believe Zen Archer 8/Weapon Master Fighter 3 with Gloves of Dueling is more powerful than a straight 11 fighter.

Thanks. Let me work one up and take a look at it.

You may wish to go with clustered shot at 7th and perhaps use the weapon master archetype

Thanks. I missed clustered shots. Seems like a good deal.

This will be for PFS. Please take a look and let me know if he could be improved. The overall theme here is simply to build the best bowman I can.

I considered Ranger, but can’t see any in-combat advantage other than taking Improved Precise Shot at 6th rather than 11th. But the fighter can get weapon focus and weapon training, giving him +2 in all situations (So in a sense the fighter is only at a -2 penalty when firing against cover.) I did like the idea of a night tracker/hunter, but I’ve always liked being really really good at one thing. The extra feats and weapon/armor training really make the fighter a better archer than a ranger.

I also considered the archer archetype. The tricks would be really cool, especially in combination with combat reflexes and improved snapshot. But at 11th level it would mean sacrificing +3 max dex from armor training. And with pointblank master I didn’t see any other real advantage.

Ugruk
Male half-orc fighter 11
LN Medium humanoid (human, orc)
Init +8; Senses darkvision 60 ft.; Perception +15
--------------------
Defense
--------------------
AC 31, touch 20, flat-footed 23 (+9 armor, +2 deflection, +8 Dex, +2 natural)
hp 92 (11d10+22)
Fort +11, Ref +14, Will +6 (+3 vs. fear)
Defensive Abilities orc ferocity
--------------------
Offense
--------------------
Speed 30 ft.
Melee +1 scimitar +14/+9/+4 (1d6+3/18-20)
Ranged +3 composite longbow +26/+21/+16 (1d8+9/×3)
Special Attacks weapon trainings (bows +2, axes +1)
--------------------
Statistics
--------------------
Str 14, Dex 26, Con 12, Int 10, Wis 10, Cha 7
Base Atk +11; CMB +13; CMD 33
Feats
1st- Precise Shot, Point-blank Shot
2nd- Rapid Shot
3rd- Weapon Focus (longbow)
4th- Point Blank Master[APG]
5th- Weapon Specialization (longbow)
6th- Manyshot
7th- Snap Shot[UC]
8th- Combat Reflexes
9th- Improved Snap Shot[UC]
10th- Greater Weapon Focus (longbow)
11th- Improved Precise Shot
Traits observant, reckless
Skills I maxed perception, put 1 point in every class skill, and put the rest in acrobatics.
Acrobatics +17, Climb +6, Handle Animal +2, Intimidate +4, Perception +15, Ride +12, Survival +4, Swim +6; Racial Modifiers +2 Intimidate
Languages Common, Orc
SQ armor training 3, orc blood
Combat Gear I spent most of 82,000 gold
adamantine arrows (50); Other Gear +3 mithral agile breastplate, +1 scimitar, +3 composite longbow (+2 Str), arrows (60), amulet of natural armor +2, belt of incredible dexterity +4, cloak of resistance +3, ring of protection +2, 3,679 gp, 5 sp
--------------------
Special Abilities
--------------------
Combat Reflexes (9 AoO/round) Can make extra attacks of opportunity/rd, and even when flat-footed.
Darkvision (60 feet) You can see in the dark (black and white vision only).
Improved Precise Shot Ignore AC bonuses and miss chance from anything less than total cover/concealment.
Improved Snap Shot You threaten an additional 10 feet with Snap Shot
Manyshot You can shoot two arrows as the first attack of a full attack action.
Orc Blood Half-orcs count as both humans and orcs for any effect related to race.
Orc Ferocity (1/day) If brought below 0 Hp, can act as though disabled for 1 rd.
Point-Blank Shot +1 to attack and damage rolls with ranged weapons at up to 30 feet.
Precise Shot You don't get -4 to hit when shooting or throwing into melee.
Rapid Shot You get an extra attack with ranged weapons. Each attack is at -2.
Snap Shot Threaten squares within 5 feet of you when wielding a ranged weapon
Weapon Training (Axes) +1 (Ex) +1 Attack, Damage, CMB, CMD with Axes
Weapon Training (Bows) +2 (Ex) +2 Attack, Damage, CMB, CMD with Bows

Hero Lab and the Hero Lab logo are Registered Trademarks of LWD Technology, Inc. Free download at http://www.wolflair.com
Pathfinder® and associated marks and logos are trademarks of Paizo Inc.®, and are used under license.

Thanks. I thought not, but do not have the exhaustive knowledge of the options that so many have.

Is there a way to use my dex modifier in place of str for damage when using a composite longbow? I'm trying to build an archer and don't want to miss this if possible.

Ronnie K wrote:

...

Basically it's a book that says everything previous is fine (except summoner), but everyone who has the book will kick you arse!

Unless you play a summoner...or an archetyped monk...or the majority of typical barbarian builds...

So yeah, if you like CRB (non-archetyped) Monks, TWF/Archery Barbarians and Rogues then you might want to use the unchained versions.

That's true. I don't consider a lot of archetypes.

Yep! Each creature's equipment is 'similarly enlarge.' I.e. one size category. That is my initial response anyway.

As someone who worked on Unchained, is very enthusiastic about it, and has a vested interest in seeing people buy and enjoy the book, nonetheless, I would personally recommend that you do not buy Unchained if you don't want a toolbox to use to mod your Pathfinder games but just want the Unchained classes. The classes are nice, but Unchained is all about the spirit of exploration and tinkering throughout all the chapters, opening up options in the same way as a mod creator for a video game lets you make new twists on your favorite games; the classes are just one facet of that.

Very nice. But as someone who is trying to play a two-weapon fighter rogue, I STRONGLY suggest you purchase unchained. Otherwise you will be at least a feat behind in addition to other drawbacks. Really, unchained means your rogue doesn't get the extras,, your monk is not full FAB,,, your summoner IS NO LONGER LEAGAL.....

Basically it's a book that says everything previous is fine (except summoner), but everyone who has the book will kick you arse!

Wow. I assume you could multi-class rogue and unchained rogue. But as far as rogue is concerned there is absolutely nothing 'chained' has to offer. Unchained is nothing more than rogue with extra stuff. Nothing taken away.

You could have a 'chained' rogue and an unchained rogue in the same game. Only in PFS if the poor basterd didn't/couldn't purchase the unchained book.

Ok, I'm starting to understand. Sorry if i'm a I'm a bit slow. But say I'm a druid with +4 dragonhide breastplate vs +1 wild dragonhide breastplate, what are the +/- of each. As best I can figure when you are in your normal form there is no doubt you want the +4 armor!!! But when you have wildshaped the wild armor provides a +6 bonus to AC. This is only 3 less than than +9 provided by+4 breastplate. And it is +6 more than non-wild armor.

Trying to think outloud here;
So if I had a +9 armor bonus, that was cut to+ 0 for wild-saping, and I had an item that increased my +0 back to +6, is that worth a +3 cost bonus. My question is what else give me a +6 bonus?

No reply necessary at this point, i have more posts to reread. Like I said just thinking out-loud.

Secane wrote:

Armiger's Panoply seems really nice. But it may not work with wildshape.

Reason being that the bracers is part of the magical item and Armiger's Panoply is an activated magic item. So once you wildshape and the bracers merged into your ploymorphed form, you can't activate it any more.

Wand of Swift Girding on the other hand is not a druid spell, so you will have to depend on an ally to cast it on you.

:(

The easiest thing for both is have an ally to help.

If not, you can bypass the need by taking mage hand (with two worlds) and tying some string/twine around the bracers. Take them off, cast magehand, wildshape and then move the string/twine so you can slip the bracers back on. You have to drop the bag too before you start or have someone else carry it. That's pretty convoluted was to do it though when you can just say 'hey, can you put these on when I change?'

Ronnie K, our group has always taken that quote for armor and shield bonuses from physical objects instead of magical effects. It seemed silly to have, for instance, an item than grants continuous haste not give out it's dodge bonus.

Now taken literally 100% RAW then no the bracers don't work unless you take them off, wildshape then put them back on.
Thanks. I agree the quote is speaking to bonuses granted from armor, not necessarily armor bonuses.
Mage armor of course isn't an item and isn't affected by wildshaping.

Ronnie K wrote:

Oddman80 wrote:

it is odd that the ruling was a complete 180 from James Jacob's take on it. I know "he isn't the rules guy" but the confidence he had in his response and the attitude of 'obviously you get those benefits - otherwise it wouldn't be worth 16,000 gp' just stands in such stark contrast to the FAQ response (and followup response). It just further supports the idea that Paizo is sweeping through everything they can with the nerf stick.

Not really. that was 5 years ago and a lot of discussion has he effect of changing the opinions of open minds.

I don't recall a post stating he's changed his mind on this. Jason is the final word for ruling so he may have seen it differently.

PS: Don't see anything to stop the bracers/spell from working. The FAQ is JUST about wildarmor.

Thanks. I was asking about bracers because the provide an armor bonus, and polymorph says "Items that provide constant bonuses and do not need to be activated continue to function while melded in this way (with the exception of armor and shield bonuses, which cease to function)."

Bracers (or mage armor) provides an armor bonus. Sorry if this has been covered.

Sorry if i missed it, but did anyone answer the question what happens to armor bonus provided by Bracers of Armor? If this doesn't apply because it is an armor bonus, then would Mage Armor from a wand cast on the wild shaped druid remain in affect?

it is odd that the ruling was a complete 180 from James Jacob's take on it. I know "he isn't the rules guy" but the confidence he had in his response and the attitude of 'obviously you get those benefits - otherwise it wouldn't be worth 16,000 gp' just stands in such stark contrast to the FAQ response (and followup response). It just further supports the idea that Paizo is sweeping through everything they can with the nerf stick.

Not really. that was 5 years ago and a lot of discussion has he effect of changing the opinions of open minds.

It's difficult for me to respond to your post. I don't mean to be a jerk but your writing could be a bit more articulate, in which case I'd understand the situation much better. That said, and based on the best understanding I have after rereading your post 4 times; I'd say as others have said that 'alignment' is not based on a single action or just the actions over a single encounter. If I were forced to say what alignment you were I'd have to say Chaotic Neutral. You did your best not to kill anyone during combat, then you cut someone up making sure they didn't actually die!

While I'm trying to guess your character's alignment, it would be easy to say he has committed both good and evil acts (bringing us to neutral), and that those acts where initially based on principle (not harming needlessly) and emotion/passion (harming those that harmed us) bringing us to chaos.

Again, I"m not at all sure I'm reading you correctly. The main thing, as others have pointed out, is that you cooperate and get along with other party members, both in- and out- of game.

Feats

Some abilities are not tied to your race, class, or skill—things like particularly quick reflexes that allow you to react to danger more swiftly, the ability to craft magic items, the training to deliver powerful strikes with melee weapons, or the knack for deflecting arrows fired at you. These abilities are represented as feats. While some feats are more useful to certain types of characters than others, and many of them have special prerequisites that must be met before they are selected, as a general rule feats represent abilities outside of the normal scope of your character's race and class. Many of them alter or enhance class abilities or soften class restrictions, while others might apply bonuses to your statistics or grant you the ability to take actions otherwise prohibited to you. By selecting feats, you can customize and adapt your character to be uniquely yours.

Notice that some feats represent "training" but that "as a general rule feats represent abilities outside of the normal scope of your character's race and class."

If you have a feat, it is an ability, in which training is subsummed. A Feat IS training. Unless the feat has a prerequisite, it does not require a prerequisite. You do not need to be trained to use your feat to the best advantage, whether you are a PC, an NPC, or a monster.

I agree with posters on the other thread that if you wish to help a friend out of a grapple a better option is to aid another. The best option is to pound the opponent with your great sword. By RAW I think the first brief analysis I gave ends up having little benefit but is within the rules. There is no rule that says if two grapplers are distanced they automatically break the grapple. If they are distanced, then the question is does one of them reestablish or take control of the grapple, and thereby pull the opponent into an adjacent square; or does one or the the other break the grapple and thereby each remains in the square they find themselves.

In effect the Bull Rush has exactly the effect it has by RAW and is of no use to breaking a grapple (it's up to the grapplers). This makes sense because Bull Rushing is part of a charge and two opponents grappling are very very difficult to push just one of them. Believe me I know from experience these guys are locked together and pushing just one and not the other is not really an option in real life. You can hit one or the other, you can try to hold one of them and not the other (aid); but running full out from 10' away and bearing down on just one of them in neigh impossible.

[EDIT] I guess the bull rush could buy you a round in that the opponent would have to reestablish the grapple and pull you adjacent, rather than causing damage or pinning on her next turn.

No, not "100% house rules territory".

Making a call about how the existing rules are supposed to be understood is not the same thing as creating an entirely new rule to replace those existing rules.

I do agree that this is very open to confusion and therefore equally open to GM interpretation, but on the surface, yes, you can certainly use any combat maneuver that doesn't require you to move (e.g. Drag). Some might not be very applicable like Disarm - unless somehow you're being grappled by a weapon like a man-catcher or your foe is holding a weapon AND grappling you.

If you can move your opponent to a non-adjacent square, it stands to reason that this breaks the grapple, but since that is no implicitly stated, each GM will have to dice if (A) it breaks the grapple or (B) it cannot be done while the guy is grappling you.

If, after your CMB, your opponent is still adjacent to you then you didn't break the grapple (since no maneuver explicitly states that it breaks grapples). So even if you trip your grappler, he simply falls prone in the adjacent square and is still grappling you.

All the above is how I interpret it to work; each GM may see it differently of course.

Don't forget that all maneuvers except Grapple take a -2 penalty, so maybe avoiding the penalty and just breaking the grapple is safest (more likely to succeed). Also, breaking the grapple doesn't provoke an AoO while most of the other choices would normally provoke.

I suppose there are a few ways to handle the Bull Rush. RAW might not make as much sense unless you can see everyone's turn happening simultaneoulsy.

The Bull Rush is resolved by RAW. It doesn't have to move the grappled individual. At this point make a note where both grapplers may seem to be, but realize they are both still under the grappled condition, even if they are not adjacent. On the next grappler's turn, depending on who is next in initiative order, either the either the original grappler makes a successful grapple check, and by RAW moves his opponent to an adjacent square, or the grappled individual breaks the grapple, and remains in the square he started his turn in.

Ronnie K wrote:

Soul Thief wrote:

I have a pair of swashbuckler builds in mind, the details aren't too important to the main dilemma: one wields a falcata and one wields a rapier.

at level five the Falcata build will look like this
Falcata +14 (1d8 +13/17-20/x3)

and at the same level the Rapier build will look like this
Rapier +12 (1d6 +18/15-20/x2)

The Falcata will hit harder when it crits but the rapier will crit more often. I don't know which will net more damage.

Thanks Bunches

I just posted a calculator that can compare your examples side by side over the full range of defender's AC.

http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2sq2d?Another-DPA-calculator

I have one, too, but you bring up the critical question:

What is the to hit on each weapon?
What is the average AC of the target?

Mine will pull average AC from the monster tables based on your character level or BAB, but without at least a BAB, you can't answer the question.

Then you get into the issue of "how much of the damage is actually useful?" I see builds touting 100+ points of damage at level 7, but if the average hit points of the target at that level is less than 80, you're "wasting" 20 points of damage on every hit. A more efficient build would be one that does just slightly more damage than it takes to drop the foe or allows you spread the damage around to multiple foes if you drop the first one. (Can you tell I've working in manufacturing companies that use "just enough" inventory techniques?) :-)

Good points.

Ronnie K wrote:

Well, consider this one; "I have just cast a fly spell on you. I suggest you jump off this cliff and try it out right now!" then consider "An act of passion may cause a little pain but the pleasure is immense. Let me kiss you again!"

Indeed the caveat here is that it's not obviously harmful, but neither of those has anything to do with the fact that "obviously harmful" can refer to anyone rather than only the suggested.

True each suggestion must be adjudicated on a case-by-case basis. But I think the 'reasonableness' of a suggestion increases substantially when you move from the subject causing harm to himself to causing harm to associates. In either case it must sound reasonable.

I can see a narrow argument that it doesn't make sense. If the cleric were silenced, his armor wasn't clinking, the rogue wasn't talking to him telling him to use his invisibility to get into flanking position, etc. But in all honesty not only is it RAW, it does make sense. The perception check just means the fighter doesn't know what square the cleric is in. It's very unlikely the fighter has no clue the cleric is there.

If the cleric has not acted he is flat-footed and does not threaten. If he has acted he has moved into flanking position and, if necessary, grunted or cursed or clinked, so the fighter knows he is being threatened.

Snowblind wrote:

Entryhazard wrote:

Well harmful is obviously in the physical sense, what I meant is that the restriction could extend to "obviously harmful towards others"

One trick would be "drop this spice in the party rations, it tastes really good" and handing him a poison. In this way it wouldn't be obviously harmful unless he decides to identify the substance.

I should note that several creatures cause a suggestion effect with a specified command. With your narrow interpretation, most of these effects are useless.

The Succubus is an excellent example.

Energy Drain wrote:

A succubus drains energy from a mortal she lures into an act of passion, such as a kiss. An unwilling victim must be grappled before the succubus can use this ability. The succubus's kiss bestows one negative level. The kiss also has the effect of a suggestion spell, asking the victim to accept another act of passion from the succubus. The victim must succeed on a DC 22 Will save to negate the suggestion. The DC is 22 for the Fortitude save to remove a negative level. These save DCs are Charisma-based.

If the victim can ignore damaging suggestions, then the above suggestion effect will virtually never work.

Oh but that would apply even in the most lenient case "obviously harmful towards the suggested", so Suggestion wording is the one to blame.

Well, consider this one; "I have just cast a fly spell on you. I suggest you jump off this cliff and try it out right now!" then consider "An act of passion may cause a little pain but the pleasure is immense. Let me kiss you again!"

Flanking really has nothing to do with the defenders perception. It is more or less and automatic aid provided by your teammates position. His position provides the advantage, not the defenders perception.

Wow. that would hardly be equivalent to dominate person, where you control the actions of the subject. Suggestion merely provides a course of action. On the other hand saying that you can't suggest spitting on the sidewalk because that would 'harm' the PCs reputation is a total nerf.

The spell description says 'obviously' harmful. The suggestion must be worded in a way that makes the action appear to be reasonable.

You don't see why a simple matter of wording makes a difference? Because the spell description says

The suggestion must be worded in such a manner as to make the activity sound reasonable. Asking the creature to do some obviously harmful act automatically negates the effect of the spell.

But as i've pointed out this hardly makes it equivalent to dominate person.

You are correct it's not easy to accomplish a lot in two sentences, but i hardly see how this difficulty is relevant to the discussion.

"Your friends are going to kill you tomorrow. Your only reasonable course of action is to poison them tonight!" Doesn't have to be true, just has to sound reasonable. It i a compulsion, not a charm. You get a save. Make it an the spell is worthless. Fail it....

Harmful to the subject of the spell? I think not. In fact it sounds beneficial. Are is it your contention that if I suggest someone tear up a piece a paper it automatically fails because it is harmful to the paper?

Actually the spell description doesn't say the suggestion must be reasonable, it says "worded in such a manner as to make the activity sound reasonable" If you suggest that the PC's friends are actually enemies, and the only reasonable course of action is to poison them, then I see no reason why it wouldn't work. It is a compulsion, not a charm. It is the wording that is critical.

Ronnie K wrote:

Orfamay Quest wrote:

[ A rather famous example of a just but hateful character is Sam Vimes from Pratchett's Discworld series. Personality traits can also be flaws that the character is trying to overcome, and much of Vimes is, in fact, defined by the fact that he knows that he shouldn't do what he wants to do. (In contrast to his rather one-dimensional assistant, Carrot, this makes him both a more nuanced and more human person.) The lustful celibate doesn't have to be the evil priest -- he can also be Sir Lancelot (White's version). Some of the great works of literature are about how a fundamentally good person learns about and deals with evil tendencies in his own mind, either by giving in to them or by rising above them. (See Cabaret for an accessible example.)

The major issue is that people (and critters) no longer come gift-wrapped in nice, color-coded boxes, which means that effects like "smite evil" no longer make sense. You could homebrew spells like detect personality, lesser which tells you one of the adjectives, or the greater version which tells you all of them, but it's not clear to me whether "like apples" would be a virtue or a flaw.

I don't disagree. My example was just that, an example. But even in you example it is the 'detailed background' in contrast to what Vimes 'knows that he shouldn't do..." that makes him a believable persona. Virtues, flaws, etc. are more meaningful in contrast to motivation (alignment).

Agreed. I think the point I was making in contrast to you is that the adjectives, in and of themselves, are a "detailed background," so there's no need for alignment. It's the struggle that makes Vimes himself, not the victor.

One of the issues, IMHO, is that alignment doesn't provide "motivation." I don't feed stray cats and help at church suppers because I'm a good person -- instead, I'm a good person because I do those things. Writing "NG" on my character sheet isn't a...

I'm not sure alignment would be meaningless; rather alignment is a descriptor. Given a detailed background alignment would seem to be obvious, rather than prescriptive. It's an observable trait, rather than a restriction. In game this is important as good v. evil, law v. chaos are objective realities.

Nope! ...either undead OR living... does mean undead AND living

No. It may seem to make sense, but the option is not in the rules.

If you possess only one natural attack (such as a bite—two claw attacks do not qualify), you add 1–1/2 times your Strength bonus on damage rolls made with that attack.

Ronnie K wrote:

If a player has a decently profiled background this may work. Generally alignment comes first, and unfortunately last. That's all the player invests in the character. But alignment should inform the adjectives! If you know your character is brave, just, and open-minded, you know he is lawful and either good or neutral. So yes, the adjectives are more helpful, so long as they are consistent with each other. How would you deal with a character that was both just and hateful? You'd have to define him in terms of a lawful evil alignment!

I disagree. A rather famous example of a just but hateful character is Sam Vimes from Pratchett's Discworld series. Personality traits can also be flaws that the character is trying to overcome, and much of Vimes is, in fact, defined by the fact that he knows that he shouldn't do what he wants to do. (In contrast to his rather one-dimensional assistant, Carrot, this makes him both a more nuanced and more human person.) The lustful celibate doesn't have to be the evil priest -- he can also be Sir Lancelot (White's version). Some of the great works of literature are about how a fundamentally good person learns about and deals with evil tendencies in his own mind, either by giving in to them or by rising above them. (See Cabaret for an accessible example.)

The major issue is that people (and critters) no longer come gift-wrapped in nice, color-coded boxes, which means that effects like "smite evil" no longer make sense. You could homebrew spells like detect personality, lesser which tells you one of the adjectives, or the greater version which tells you all of them, but it's not clear to me whether "like apples" would be a virtue or a flaw.

I don't disagree. My example was just that, an example. But even in you example it is the 'detailed background' in contrast to what Vimes 'knows that he shouldn't do..." that makes him a believable persona. Virtues, flaws, etc. are more meaningful in contrast to motivation (alignment). If the alignment is lawful good, then hateful is a flaw. If alignment is lawful evil, than it is not a flaw.

How does a paper wall provide cover rather than concealment? If I am on one side of a paper wall with a greatsword, it is impossible to strike through a paper wall against a silhouetted opponent? Really? I guess that is what the rule says if by 'solid' barrier it means matter in a solid state rather than gaseous or liquid.

After a little discussion with my group, the only argument in favour of the alignment system that seemed to come out strongly was that they help a player to easily decide what the character should do in a given situation. A simplistic example would be, upon seeing some beggars: "what do I do? Well, as there is a G written down, I should probably give them money or help them in some way", or "well it says N, so I wouldn't care, so I walk on by".

This is all well and good, I suppose, but I was thinking wouldn't this purpose be much better served by writing down, say, 5 adjectives that describe your character's personality instead?
For example, my tiefling warpriest is not just CG, he's Brave, Just, Open-minded, Reckless and Disdainful of the Privileged. That shows his good qualities, a thing he needs to work on (recklessness) and also a deep character flaw which allows for expansion of backstory. Being genuinely open-minded and accepting towards savage orcs or criminals (as he himself has been a victim of racism and stereotyping, as a tiefling) is all well and good, but he shows himself to be hypocritical if he immediately assumes all the rich are greedy and vain.
So as you can see doing this forces a player to think more deeply about the character's personality and flaws while also still being able to be used as a "quick guide" to "what would my character do here?"

It's an idea I've just come up with, I'm sure other people have thought of other things the same or similar, it's nothing original or innovative. I was going to ask my players to do it upon character creation instead of one of the nine alignments, and then as the GM I would note what I think their alignments would be in secret. So yeah, has anyone else made characters using a similar idea, do you think it has really helped compared to basing your characters' actions just off alignment?

If a player has a decently profiled background this may work. Generally alignment comes first, and unfortunately last. That's all the player invests in the character. But alignment should inform the adjectives! If you know your character is brave, just, and open-minded, you know he is lawful and either good or neutral. So yes, the adjectives are more helpful, so long as they are consistent with each other. How would you deal with a character that was both just and hateful? You'd have to define him in terms of a lawful evil alignment!

This is a bit of a question for a campaign I'm working on in a custom setting. I've never posted on the forum before so I apologize if this is the wrong place and hopefully a moderator can direct me/move the thread if it is.

Anyways, in the setting the gods have all died. They all died at the same time.* The Asuras who are made from divine mistakes are written to be hell bent on destroying religion and the faithful, but over time those things have entirely died out (with the closest things to religion being prominent philosophies and small cults devoted to strong-but-not-divine outsiders.)

What's a good purpose to give the Asura in this setting now that their main goal has been more or less accomplished?

*The gods died in a mortal war that happened a few decades before the adventure starts, due to investing their souls into the bodies of chosen mortals in various bids and plots to accomplish various goals (it was a whole other campaign worth of stuff). End result was all invested mortals died, and because of how the setting works the gods died along with them, having had their souls essentially fused into one that then went through the typical petitioner process and are now residing somewhere in the various planes.

I think this is an awesome hook. The Asuras' goal has been met and they no longer have 'gods?' What comes next is CORRUPTION! The Asuras now see themselves as gods and begin to build small but hell bent cults to themselves. Things are worse than ever! The destruction of the gods was pale compared to the division the rise to power of the new gods causes!

http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fm#v5748eaic9t8o

Just checked this. I can take 10 unless I'm not threatened.

Let's say I scout and I'm seeing the enemy. As long as I'm not actively engaged in combat I can take 10, right?

This would make scouting even more important, allowing me (as wizard) to know even more about the enemy!

LOL. To answer your question again, yes, you can take 10 on most knowledge checks, as long as you are not distracted (e.g. engaged in combat).

Dallium wrote:

What if I teleport into your square? No move action. No movement (from a provocation standpoint). Do you get an AoO?

Irrelevant to the OP!

A cleric (invisible) and a rogue are flanking a fighter, as depicted below. The fighter, having failed his Perception check, is unaware of the cleric. Does the rogue get sneak attack? After all, the fighter will not be responding to the cleric's presence.

(C)FR

Again, you might as well ask if a blind character surrounded by 8 opponents can be flanked! After all, he won't be reacting to any of them!!!!!!

A cleric (invisible) and a rogue are flanking a fighter, as depicted below. The fighter, having failed his Perception check, is unaware of the cleric. Does the rogue get sneak attack? After all, the fighter will not be responding to the cleric's presence.

(C)FR

I imagine the fighter would be reacting to the cleric even more than to the rogue! Just because he can't see the cleric doesn't mean he is ignorant of invisible foes! has he never heard of invisibility? Did he not see the cleric go invisible? A lot of questions? But in the end the rule is not meant to be 'realistic' in every situation. It is meant to facilitate game play.

If i were aware of a visible rogue to one side, and an invisible foe to the other, guess which one I' be paranoid about! Even if I was naive and had never heard of invisibility, or had no idea that an invisible foe was threatening me, I'm still being threatened! When that invisible cleric taps me with his hammer, or coughs, you bet your codpiece I'm looking both ways.

Is it just me, or does it seem like one of the big design goals of Pathfinder is to convert as many classes as possible to work on some kind of points-per-day system? Back in original D&D, only spellcasters had to worry about running out of their "stuff" during the course of an adventure, but now it seems like every class has some cornerstone ability that essentially says: "You can perform your class' iconic, most effective, and role-defining power X times per day. Use them wisely..."

Maybe I'm alone in this, but to me, this feels a lot like lazy game design. "Wow, this ability is really effective. Should we do another balance pass on it? Nah, just make it only usable a few times per day and it's fine." This sort of thing gives me the CRPG "super potion paralysis" where you finish a game like Skyrim or Final Fantasy with an inventory packed with super potions because you're terrified of using them unwisely.

Surely there's a better way to handle this sort of thing. Hell, they already did a great job of it with the witch's hexes; why not apply the same philosophy (or at least effort) into designing the other classes? I know, I know, even mentioning 4th Edition D&D is going to enrage Pathfinder purists, but you have to admit: "encounter" powers were quite liberating. Why not design more abilities that work like toggles or triggers based on other events? There has to be a better way. There's no reason my swashbuckler should hold back during a fight because he's worried about saving points for the next one. Why are brawlers crafty, resourceful combatants... a few times a day? If a druid's shapeshifting power lasts for hours at a time anyway, why limit it to only so many uses per day? I'd love it if each of these abilities sacrificed a little raw power for the ability to use them at will, or if each was saddled with some kind of drawback that made each one a tactical choice, not a gas tank.

Sorry for the rant. I just had to mention this because it's driving me nuts to have to constantly worry about how...

LOL! Exactly What original D&D abilities where other than spells that any character could have run out of? Even the thief had no abilities other than climb walls, pick locks, etc, which are analogous to skills. If pathfinder characters can use up their abilities it's because they actually have abilities.

thanks for the references to the inner sea gods books and such sources but ive already gone over those, i wasnt looking for paladin code. I was looking for a paladin code of honor, i.e. do not fight a foe unless he is armed and ready, do not strike down a foe thats surrendered, no low blows. things like that.

another way to say it is that im looking for help to deal with the abstracts of being a paladin, not whats written in the books already.

This is where character concept comes in. There is not a single code of honor, even for paladins. If you have a conception of honor than play it.

If you believe an honorable paladin would never strike down a defenseless, but evil creature, then play it. If you believe an honorable paladin wouldn't hesitate to destroy evil in any form, so long as his lawful code was not violated, then play it. The important thing is that you have 'A CODE." If you play it one way in one scenario, and another way in another scenario, then you fail!

As a paladin, it is my honor, and my duty, to destroy that which is evil!!! I cannot abide evil. I cannot protect that which is evil. I cannot turn my back on an evil creature and leave it to it's whims. There may be rules governing the course of action, but the course of action must be the destruction of that which is evil.

In the real world good and evil are subject abstracts. They have no substance. You can't detect evil, there is no test for evil. You can only discuss what any particular person, or most people mean, by evil.

In the game world, evil exists as on objective reality. It is a substance. It can be detected, warded against, bolstered, etc.

A murderer in the real world is a person that commits what almost anyone would consider to be an evil act. A murderer in the fantasy world is partly imbued with an essence of evil.

I sent you a PM.

In the example he gave, he states approaching a mineral vein, and using knowledge dungeoneering to identify the mineral

, using engineering to identify the tools used

, using geography to identify what the region is known for in minerals.

Or if a magical animal happened to feasted on a plant, rolling knowledge nature for the plant, and arcana for the animal which fed on it.

Which isn't exactly bad sounding, but the problem is it seems like he's getting 3-5 chances to make this roll for the conclusion. I don't mind groups using their varied skills to come up, but this man is a 1 man knowledge tank. It's also not like I don't want to give up the specific bits of information, and even when it was just two rolls, I don't really mind the different lines of inquiry. It was just getting silly with the amount of rolls and what he was really after.

I feel like I shouldn't reward him for this behavior, it's really cheesy, and I don't want to get out of hand, but I really want to know what the rules state about this, as I couldn't find anything with google searches or anything else. In the end, what he's trying to do is use...

Dallium wrote:

GinoA wrote:

Dallium wrote:

It's pretty clear that the gaze attack AoO isn't prevented by a 5-ft step. It's not a movement trigger, it's a proximity trigger.

But isn't that claim just as valid for an in-my-square AoO?

No. The gaze attack trigger is "coming within 5 ft" (this is a made-up example right? I'm not missing something IRT gaze attacks?). How you get within 5 feet is irrelevant, because the trigger isn't intrinsically tied to movement.

The question on hand is much stickier. We know that ENTERING an occupied square provokes an AoO (provided you're either small enough or enough larger/smaller than the opponent). We know LEAVING a threatened square using a 5ft step prevents the normal AoO (feats like Pin Down nonwithstanding). What we don't know is if the 5ft step would prevent the AoO from entering an occupied square. The RAW doesn't really say either way. Which is why I hit FAQ.

What if I teleport into your square? No move action. No movement (from a provocation standpoint). Do you get an AoO?

That would depend on the wording of the spell or ability that is allowing you to teleport into an occupied square!