I am currently building a shield for a Mythic paladin.
The shield so far is a +2 Adamantine Heavy Shield with the
Mythic legendary property of "Unyielding" on it.
A Heavy Steel Shield is Hardness 10, HP 20.
Armors gain +2 hardness per + and +10 HP per +.
Adamantine gives 1/3 more HP than "normal" and a flat 20 hardness.
Unyielding doubles hardness and triples HP.
Whats the correct order of operations here?
Do I apply each one as though the others don't exist then add them together?
1) the +'s give 4 hardness and 20 HP
2) Adamantine gives 1/3 more Hp so 6.6 (or 6)
3) Unyielding doubles hardness (base of 20 becomes 40) and triples HP (base of 20 becomes 60)
4) 44 hardness, 86 hp?
Is this correct or did I miss something? Should Unyielding be applied last?
I've been tinkering with a possible replacement character in case
the paladin in our current WotR character bites the dust and
while I like the idea of the Summoner I always have trouble
figuring out what they can do when throwing yet another
spell would be overkill or just a waste.
.. Which lead me to dropping a level of gunslinger onto the goblin
summoner I was creating.
Clearly this isn't "optimal" but I was wondering if any of you had any better ideas. While I quite like the feel of the character (a musket wielding goblin riding in on a Large dog/eidolon thing and probably flying) it left me wondering what the community as a whole does with their summoners.
What do you do with yours when you aren't pumping out summoning spells? Big E pretty much takes care of itself in combat but what the actual character does has always left me rather underwhelmed after the buffs were done.
I got the error "your backtracking limit has been reached." or something.
I'd edited a post to fix a typo and when I hit submit that came up.
I hit the Back button and it took me back to the thread.
I clicked edit again, fixed the typo, hit submit and went about my way.
Not sure if that error is supposed to be there or what it means.. so just thought I'd drop a line and let ya know.
I've been recently tinkering with 2 handed weapon builds and it seems that they all just need power attack and furious focus and.. well, that seems to be all they really need.
Is there something else I'm missing- aside from weapon focus and imp crit or something?
Seems the archers have a 2 billion feat chain to be effective and two-weapon fighting has an equally long 2 billion feat chain to be effective.. is there something two-handed folk need besides those two big ones?
I know you have to then compare it to like items and balance the gold cost to how handy the item is.. Just trying to get the base formula down first.
But..
I suck at math.
And figuring out the rather simple formula for magical item creation is.. not so simple, for me.
I want to make a magical item that casts a cantrip a set number of times per day. (say 2- though the number is really irrelevant to figure out how the formula works. if 3 or 1 or 5 or something is easier, thats fine too).
Command Word says CLxSLx1800. so .5x1x1800=900 gold.. is that correct?
Then in the Special part of the table it says
"Divide by (5 divided by charges per day)"
5 divided by the charges per day? so 2 charges a day would be 2.5?
so divide the cost by 2.5? (.25*900)?
Is that using the table correctly?
(even with the understanding that the cost will be too low to be the "correct" answer)
We're planning on starting Shattered Star in the next couple of months. I've elected to be a healer- as we've been told that with this particular Dm (and with our particular play style) that a dedicated healer is going to be required.
With that all being said, my plan is to go Oracle (Life) but I'm stuck on a good backstory.
I'm not looking for someone to write an essay for me- but I'm interested in "one liners" that would be the hook for a good backstory since my brain is refusing to cooperate.
Please no AP spoilers- I'm a player not the DM.
Also, please don't debate whether we need a healer or not. There are other threads for that.
Just looking for backstory ideas.
(race atm is undecided, so don't feel constrained by any particular one).
We, as a gamer society, have greatly moved away from the concept of player knowledge advancing our characters vs character knowledge advancing the characters.
We have rules for knowledges so that our little lowbie fighter doesn't automatically whip out the torch and oil against a troll and so our wizards don't whip out fireballs when they see white dragons. At least- not without the appropriate checks.
Our characters check for traps rather than WE the players having to figure out whether they exist, and our characters use skills to disarm them rather than us trying to figure out the widget to let us go by.
And in fact when someone wants break down a door we roll a strength check. When our character needs to remember something we roll an int check. If we want to convince someone of something we roll bluff checks or diplomacy checks and the general presence (or lack thereof) for any given character is determined by their charisma score rather than our own force of personality or presence.
However when it comes to what spells to prepare- be it for a wizard, druid, cleric, ranger, paladin- well you get the idea.
When it comes to this its directly an issue of player knowledge. WE have to figure out what spells to cast in the future despite the fact that its our characters who are living in the world and who, at least in theory, are far more intelligent than we our selves are.
When you consider 20 is the theoretical human maximum (human 18 +2) and magical items and level bumps its possible that your witch or wizard especially could be far more intelligent than anyone who has ever existed on our earth. And yet we- the players- are expected to look into the game world and select their spells.
Its the very essence of metagaming.
Now spellcasters are already the most powerful of the lot and the prepared ones (wizards, clerics, druids) are the most powerful of that set. So making them more powerful isn't really something I advocate. Rather I'm curious as to the discussion about this. Am I wrong about it? Is it not metagaming afterall? If it is metagaming- is there a way to "fix" it without further breaking the system?
Even if its possible to fix, is it worth the bother?
We just leveled to 14, and have around 50k in built up cash to spend- each.
Assuming I have an appropriate headband already- what items would you think a witch ought to get?
I have a belt of con and while its not particularly high, its not been an issue to date.
Am wearing a ring of sustenenance and one of protection as well as a necklace of natural armor. Also using a mithril buckler.
I have lesser rods of extend and maximize, eyes of the eagle and a cloak of resi +3
Any good ideas on what to get? I'd thought about a staff but didn't really see any that matched well to the witch's spell list.
Preface:
As we near our kick off of the new Skulls and Shackles AP, I find myself pondering more and more my little (probably a gnome) Life Oracle, and beseech ye all forum go'ers for advice and input.
I've been advised that this particular DM- a change from the one who just ran out RotL game- will require some sort of permament healer even if just to have lots of it to go around after battle. I've therefore endeavored to write up a spellcasty focused Life Oracle.
The Life Oracle gets the majority of the useful healy type spells for free, added to their spells known as they level up. This offers me the chance to take other types of spells in addition to them. I would assume a buff and control selection would be the most beneficial- using scrolls ro wands for the few "healy" type spells that rarely come up. (fixing blindness and removing curses and such- things important, but not so common as to waste spell slots).
At the moment he'sa Gnome Life Oracle 1. I have no intention of multiclassing or PrC'ing him out.
His first Mystery selection is for Channeling.
I.
At the moment his feats are:
1) Selective channeling
2 and following: ?
Any advice on what to take as a casty healery type as far as feats go?
I've it in mind to watch and wait to see how much healing is actually needed- and going down that Eldritch Heritage->improved familiar chain to get myself a Lay on Hands capable familiar later on down the road, but only if it becomes necessary due to the combination of our playstyle and the DM. Otherwise, I'm rather clueless on just exactly what to take.
Extra spells? metamagics? Opinions would be greatly appreciated.
II.
For spells I'm looking at things that'll last throughout the career of this little critter.
So far am looking at
Bless
Protection from Evil.
Both scale well with level and are fairly useful as life goes along.. and I don't really see anything else off hand that one might continue to use throughout a career of spell casting.
However, I'm completely unopposed to finding better ideas. :)
Looking to potentially add a little furry ally to a character in the future, I noticed that there is some potentially conflicting language in the Improved Familiar Feat.
Its a fairly common rule that rules text trumps text given in the tables.
And that leads me to this:
Imp Familiar text:
Improved Familiar
This feat allows you to acquire a powerful familiar, but only when you could normally acquire a new familiar.
Prerequisites: Ability to acquire a new familiar, compatible alignment, sufficiently high level (see below).
Benefit: When choosing a familiar, the creatures listed below are also available to you. You may choose a familiar with an alignment up to one step away on each alignment axis (lawful through chaotic, good through evil).
Improved familiars otherwise use the rules for regular familiars, with two exceptions: if the creature's type is something other than animal, its type does not change; and improved familiars do not gain the ability to speak with other creatures of their kind (although many of them already have the ability to communicate).
Now, included in the table though is the phrase:
"Arcane spellcaster level".
So do you just need to be of sufficiently high level- or must those levels also be in an arcane casting class?
I'm not trying to cheese something or break or bend a rule- am just trying to figure out how if I'm missing something.
This has been something bubbling around in my brain for awhile and I thought I'd toss it out there as sort of a discussion point.
Please keep it clean and keep it civil :)
There are currently 9 alignments in D&D. They are made up of 6 parts.
If you don't want a brief rundown on how I see the alignments, skip the spoilers :)
I. Law, Chaos, Neutrality
Spoiler:
Lawful tends to describe someone who adheres to some code or law. Not necessarily the laws of any land- but just some code or method.
a policeman would be lawful. An assassin could easily fall into this as well, as could a methodical serial killer.
Chaotic tends to describe the free spirit. They have their goals and are more likely to just.. do whatever it takes to do it.
The way a child acts fits this alignment nearly perfectly. Folks who do things without being particularly orderly or neat about it could also fall into this category. A bard, wandering the world, doing whaever it is they choose to do. It, like Lawful, has nothing to do with *what* you are doing though- its a matter of how you do it.
An assassin can very easily be chaotic. No creed to follow no rules to adhere to- they'll kill anyone anywhere anyhow as long as the cash is good.
The (to me) classic Justicar or bounty hunter is much the same. Though they may have to adhere to some laws generally they have the ability to take on whatever job they want to. (not that one couldnt' choose to be Lawful instead)
Neutral is in the middle. They aren't really tending towards codified or personal laws but even if they do they are probably going to be rough guidelines than hard "line in the sand" rules. They may have things to strive for but aren't afraid to step outside of that if the needs require it.
I personally think most people fall into this group.
We, as a society, follow most laws but tend to very frequently break others as it suits our whims. (speed limits, rolling stops at signs, etc.). We obey the "big laws" but tend to not fret the small ones unless a cop is around :)
II. Good, Evil, Neutrality
Spoiler:
A good person puts the needs of others above themselves. They look to others before they look to themselves. This doesn't mean always just that as a general rule they do so. I think a person could be selfish sometimes without being evil or neutral just like It hink a person could be a coward but still mean well.
The Good person would be more willing to share than not, and not willing to kill, harm, or injure the innocent just to get the job done.
An evil person thinks about themselves firsr and the other person.. well.. never. They are the first middle and last thing on their list of priorities and to heck with the rest of the world. Themselves, or whatever goal or motivation that they have. At the end of the day though they look out for number one.
Neutral. A neutral person.. doesn't exist. This is actually the point of the thread.
Good, Evil, Neutral.
Can you be Neutral in a world where good and evil exist as defined objective entities rather than subjective thoughts and ponderings?
I say, no. Any creature with an int higher than 3 that also has a wisdom and charisma score has an alignment. An alignment is a choice- but choosing not to do something is just as much a choice as anything else.
With that in mind- how do you "choose" to be neutral and how do you maintain it in a world of good or evil?
Sure, animals do it just fine- but they do so without having the capacity for the other alignments. A wolf isn't good or evil. It doesn't attack you because its bored- it attacks you because you are squishy and tasty.
So whats my problem with it? Its simple-
A person can only remain neutral as long as there are never any choices in their lives that require them to make a decision requiring good or evil. Once they have to make those choices their alignment begins to change.
Lets take an example for it:
A druid in the woods.
A druid in the woods wanders the forest keeping the animals safe and all that stuff, communing with nature and.. well, yeah- being a druid.
One day he spies a troop of 50 hobgoblins marching down a road that goes through said forest.
The road leads to a human village that rests a mile or two outside the other side of the forest.
Now, Hobbies are LE. Its not guaranteed that they are going after the humans but its virtually guaranteed that if they stay on the road, they will find the village, and with 50 of them they are most likely to be dining on human for supper that night.
Whats the druid to do?
1) Attack the hobbies.
2) Go warn the village
3) shadow the hobbies to make sure they don't harm the forest, otherwise leave them alone
4) go back to tending the forest, ignore the hobbies.
1) Good act. Period. Ridding the world of evil- and goblin kin at that- is pure win. Now you may say its an evil act to attack anything unprovoked. Sure, fine. But its not neutral.
2) Good act. Whether he stays to help them or flies off he's still tilted the scale towards doing good. He can get brownie points for staying or for going for help elsewhere but at least he didn't just sit on his thumbs.
3) Evil. By not warning the village or taking out the hobbies himself, he's aiding and abetting the evil that the hobbies are going to do.
4) Same as 3. By effectively ignoring the evil that will be committed and doing nothing, he's moved a notch towards evil.
Now you may not like that example- but really there are any number of them.
They find a child in a sack while three orcs prepare a cookpot, save the child or ignore it?
The point being- once you come across a circumstance that requires you to do good or evil it begins to move your alignment in that direction.
If you just ignore the evil then you are in effect becoming evil yourself.
Which brings us to-
Is it evil to ignore evil? Is it evil to know about evil and know that they will commit an evil act, and do nothing to try to stop it or prevent it? or warn the innocents at least?
I think it depends on ability.
If the druid in question for either example above is some level 1 squirt then they are commiting suicide against the 50 hobbies. No doubt.
Now he should try to alert someone- a friend, a mentor, maybe run ahead (if possible) to the village.
But wanting and trying to do good (even if you lack the ability) is good.
Not caring and turning your back on it, is evil. Isn't it?
If a level 20 druid is watching the 3 orcs getting ready to have human child soup is it evil for him to shrug and fly away? Dang human shouldn't have been in the forest anyway?
I'm not really sure how this would be anything but an evil act.
Neutrality is *supposed* to be a balance between the two without commiting to each. The druid is, in theory, the king of this (as they are devoted to nature but not law, chaos, good, evil) but .. I just don't see how thats possible.
Afterall- you don't really score alignment points. Alignment isn't a scale like something in a video game where you get good marks and bad marks and try to stay within the +10/-10 on the alignment scale or something to stay neutral.
So, the rant is over and I posit the questions:
Am I just missing something? Is there some bit of knowledge or an example that'll just make it so clear to me?
Am I just wrong that ignoring evil isn't evil?
Readying an Action: You can ready a standard action, a move action, a swift action, or a free action. To do so, specify the action you will take and the conditions under which you will take it. Then, anytime before your next action, you may take the readied action in response to that condition. The action occurs just before the action that triggers it. If the triggered action is part of another character's activities, you interrupt the other character. Assuming he is still capable of doing so, he continues his actions once you complete your readied action. Your initiative result changes. For the rest of the encounter, your initiative result is the count on which you took the readied action, and you act immediately ahead of the character whose action triggered your readied action.
You can take a 5-foot step as part of your readied action, but only if you don't otherwise move any distance during the round.
Initiative Consequences of Readying: Your initiative result becomes the count on which you took the readied action. If you come to your next action and have not yet performed your readied action, you don't get to take the readied action (though you can ready the same action again). If you take your readied action in the next round, before your regular turn comes up, your initiative count rises to that new point in the order of battle, and you do not get your regular action that round.
This came up in another thread and didn't wanna risk derailing it.
Can you ready an action to move if someone comes up and attacks you?
If you can- what are the ramifications for the attacker?
The rule says:
"Assuming he is still capable of doing so, he continues his actions once you complete your readied action."
So
Archer Andy readies a move action vs Bob the Barbarian taking a swing at him.
Bob does a single move up to Andy and takes a swing.
Andy steps back.
Bob.. does what?
can Bob finish his move (assuming he has movement left to get in range of Andy) and take a swing anyway?
Is Bob stuck where he's at, unable to do anything else since he was interrupted by the readied action?
Can Andy even ready an action vs getting attacked- or can he only do it vs getting closed in on?
(I don't see any rule against it- but thought I'd throw it out there anyway)
I've seen it come up a couple of times, and I'm curious as to opinions:
Is it metagaming for the DM to have the creatures in the game world just waltz around PC's who decide to concentrate on high AC, on the assumption that they often can't deal enough damage to matter anyway while being nigh unhittable?
I'm of the opinion that it is indeed metagaming because the action is based on the out-of-character knowledge of the feat selection, attack numbers and damage modifiers of the character rather than on something experienced in game.
i.e. some guys in armor are easier to hit, some are harder to hit, why would they ignore character X and go after character Y- if not because the DM knows character X's AC is too high to hit while characer Y's isn't.
It seems to be a common enough theme on the boards that folks mention the DM's actually having that behavior inherent in the game world- such that some folks never even see shields at all. (since they are worthless).
So, threads about the generic (i.e. no archtypes applied) summoner basically fall into one of two camps:
1) its not broken if you follow all 2 million rules exceptions.
2) its broken and needs the nerf bat. Preferably 3-4 swings.
I'm not all that terribly fond of making broken characters and tend to avoid options that are just too good or too useful. On the other hand, I absolutely love the flavor behind the the class.
So for all you "#2's" out there, what are the issues as you perceive them?
If you wanted to build a summoner/Big E what steps would you take in your own creation process to make him useful and balanced without stepping on the toes of your party mates?
Evolutions to skip? Some combinations just really too good?
Note: I'm not trying to self-nerf it into uselessness,. just don't want to be a 1 man wonder of the team or anything either.
As an additional note: I usually fall into the 1st group, but I'm also aware of some of the other issues and want to make sure I dont' fall into any obvious "shouldn't have done that" issues with the class.
This isn't a "how do we avoid scry" thread but rather a.. "how do you, in your campaign handle scry?"
either from the DM or the Player perspective.
Scry is a 4th level spell, meaning Wizards get access to it at 7th level.
At 7th level the spell has a 1 hour casting time for a net gain of 7 minutes worth of scrying per attempt.
Greater Scrying is 7th level meaning a wizard is 13th level. Most notably, the casting time is reduced to 1 standard action and the duration is increased to 1 hour a level.
Obviously, Greater Scrying is the .. greater threat- for both PC's and DM's alike.
But lets tackle Scry first.
How dangerous is Scry to the villain?
You have to have at least heard of the person you are scrying. So no "I want to scry the guy who stole my sword" if you don't know who he is. Fair enough. Otherwise though, if you've heard about the person even from a tavern story you can try to scry them. A fresh 7th level wizard might have 3 memorized depending on Int level (maybe just 2). Each casting takes him an hour and yields 7 minutes worth of peeping.
As a DM: How much do you let them find out?
As a player: How much do you expect to find out?
You can view a random 14 minutes at least an hour apart and you have to decide an hour before hand when your 7 minute block will start. Handy if you, for example, know when the BBEG Big Pow Wow conference will begin.. but otherwise you are as likely to catch him napping or hanging out with the harem as you are to find him doing anything else.
For the DM:
The same thing really applies here. 7 minutes of observation is enough to catch them in probably 1 whole combat plus a search of the room then the spell is gone again. An hour later they could be anywhere from killing something else to riding horses across the countryside. For that matter- depending on the day and whats going on *all* the BBEG may see is them crossing the country on horse back. (or by ship or whatever).
Depending on distances and possible time zone issues he could even just catch them sleeping. Usually the BBEG catching the PC's sleeping is bad but.. its good for scry. Let him watch them snooze. All he learns is who snores and who doesn't. :P
With such an exaggerated cast time and such a short window to actually see anything how you determine if they see useful or not useful? Obviously the PC's want some bang for their proverbial buck.. but at the same time- 7 minutes at a time isn't really a great chance to find something useful. At 20th level its 20 minutes. that's 1/3 of one hour out of the guys day. You still aren't even getting as much time out of it as it takes you to cast the spell.
Now using it to scry a prisoner or something can be far more effective. You can learn alot from 7 minutes watching a prisoner. Are they alive, what kind of condition are they in, are they in a moving vehicle or are they in a keep/castle/cave etc. There is certainly that aspect to it.
And I'm rather intentionally avoiding the scry/fry issue just because thats more "How do we block scry" than "how do we adjudicate scry to not just make it useless for information gathering".
Greater Scry is, of course, a whole other ball of yarn. Yielding 1 hour per level of scrying with 1 round casting time means that by the time you get the spell you can literally scry an individual all day long. You can literally keep Scry going for longer than 24 hours with two castings, with just a 6 second lag between the two.
The issue here is just- do the PC's have the time in the adventure to dedicate a day or two to scrying the BBEG to find out what they want to know.. and do the PC's have the relevant protections to keep him from just sitting in his throne room and scrying them all day long.
It is worth noting that Clerics have 1 level lag behind wizard/sorc/druid in acquing Scry but don't have that same lag for Greater Scry.
So if you are 14th level with a cleric and wizard in the party they can trade off scrying and keep absolutely full coverage while ven giving the wizard time off for a nap to re-memorize his spells.
(never realized greater scry waas that much of a threat.. gonna hafta take care of that in a level or two :p)
So.. thoughts? Any of you use Scry as a Dm or PC and find it useful? or not useful? Why? and what means could you use to make it more useful? (outside of house rules anyway.. largely looking to keep things as is, while being creative with the toys we already have).
You can use this skill to identify monsters and their special powers or vulnerabilities. In general, the DC of such a check equals 10 + the monster's CR. For common monsters, such as goblins, the DC of this check equals 5 + the monster's CR. For particularly rare monsters, such as the tarrasque, the DC of this check equals 15 + the monster's CR, or more. A successful check allows you to remember a bit of useful information about that monster. For every 5 points by which your check result exceeds the DC, you recall another piece of useful information. Many of the Knowledge skills have specific uses as noted on Table: Knowledge Skill DCs.
Silvanshee Agathion:
Spoiler:
Silvanshee CR 2
Silvanshee Agathion:
Spoiler:
This black cat has gray stripes, violet eyes, and an unusual white blaze on its chest. (and) A silvanshee is the size of a large domestic cat, though almost always sleek rather than fat, and weighs 20 pounds on average.
So the question.
By RAW the DC to identify this creature is either 7, 12, or 17 depending on the DM's assessment of how common the critter is.
So, the advice.
Should the physical description of the creature alter this in anyway?
I mean, by the words given: this cat looks like.. a cat. No glowing runes, no opposable thumb, no weird eyes, no extra appendages.. Its just a cat.
Should the PC (or an opponent for that matter) be able to make a relatively low DC to determine that this beast who looks just like any other cat in the world is actually not a cat?
This is, of course, assuming they don't witness the cat doing something un-catlike.. such as fly or talk or blow off a channel energy or something.
If two cats are standing side by side and one is a Silvanshee, then by the RAW they both just look like cats.. but also by RAW you can make a simple roll and tell that one is a cat and one is an extraplanar being.
I'm not planning on going to my DM with this (mine flies around too much for it to be an issue) but rather its just something that has been bugging me since I first read the description.
I think I have the right of this, but I'd like to generally poll the community to make sure I'm correct.
I've a low AC spell caster and am trying to find a way to boost it a little without going and spending 5k for 1 point of upgrade.
At least one feasible option seems to be a mithril buckler.
Bucklers have a 5% spell failure chance and a -1 APC. Both of which are eliminated by making it Mithril.
As long as my other hand is free it seems I can cast spells with this shield without limitation. If I'm mistaken in that, please let me know as it renders the rest of the post moot :).
Assuming that is correct though: what happens when you also try to use a metamagic rod?
We used to play that you could use a buckler and hold an item in that hand too- but I can't seem to find that in the rules. Would the caster be prohibited from holding the rod in the "buckler hand" just as they can wield/hold a weapon in it?
Metamagic rods specifically say they must be wielded- not just held on one's person.
So it seems:
An arcane spell caster can, with one hand free, use the other for a mithril buckler without penalty.
They could also use the buckler hand to wield a rod but doing so would negate the buckler's AC for that round.
Is that correct?
What about "holding" but not wielding an item? Such as a torch, a rock, or just holding a Rod but not using it that round? Would holding something (without actively "using it") trigger the NO AC as well? Or us that just quibbling with the difference between "using" and "wielding"?
I'm 9th level and have around 10k gold to spend.
I already have a ring of armor +1, necklace of nat +1, headband of int +2, belt of con +2, a cloak of res +2, a ring of sustenance and a rod of lesser extend. And a HH.
Any of the armor upgrades would basically cost all my gold for +1.
I'm not necesarily against that, but am curious if there's anything else I should buy except for "more spells" which is what I'll likely buy if nothing else useful comes up.
On reaching level 9 I recently selected Improved Familiar (pseudo dragon) on Herolab.
It then proceeded to tell me that I have a ton of skills to select.
Now in looking through the rules, it seems that familiars have their original rank in any skill they had on creation, and they also get their masters ranks in any skill the master has: you use the higher of each.
Nowhere in the rules can I find information saying that familiars gain additional skill points based on their HD, the master's HD, or increase(s) in intelligence.
So I've come to ask:
Am I missing something?
Do familiars get their own skill ranks (as HL suggests) or does the master select his own skill ranks when leveling and the familiar has access only to those?
It came up in another thread as sort of a threadjack.
How would you price the Rings of Spellstoring or the Ioun stone that mimics the effects?
They use "Imbue with Spell Ability"for a requirement which is a 4th level Cleric spell.
The minor ring is 3 levels for 18k, the "normal" one is 5 levels for 50k and the "major" one is 10 levels for 200k.
The Ioun stone is 3 levels for 30k.
Creation guide says to double the cost for a slotless item.. but
18k*2 is 32k not 30k.
I know that they do modify the cost based on what should be available for the level but for determing say.. 1 level rather than 3, or maybe 2 or 4 or 6. what do you think the equation would be?
Math is not my subject. but I figured maybe one of you for whom it is a fun subject could lend a hand? :)
(This is totally aside from the issue on whether or not a DM *should* allow a PC to deviate from the said printed items.. especially as I suspect a "One level" item would be very very cheap before "DM Adjustment")
This came up in another thread and I've moved it here so as to stop the thread jack there. I've attempted to paraphrase the argument for the one side, and I've quoted myself directly. (the other party had several posts about it and is free to come and correct me if I mis-paraphrased him. If I have missed something it was through mistake not intent. I'm honestly curious how the community views this spell interacting with the game world)
Mind Blank
Spoiler:
School abjuration; Level sorcerer/wizard 8
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V, S
Range close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Target one creature
Duration 24 hours
Saving Throw Will negates (harmless); Spell Resistance yes (harmless)
The subject is protected from all devices and spells that gather information about the target through divination magic (such as detect evil, locate creature, scry, and see invisible). This spell also grants a +8 resistance bonus on saving throws against all mind-affecting spells and effects. Mind blank even foils limited wish, miracle, and wish spells when they are used in such a way as to gain information about the target. In the case of scrying that scans an area the creature is in, such as arcane eye, the spell works but the creature simply isn't detected. Scrying attempts that are targeted specifically at the subject do not work at all.
The two arguments are as follows:
Version 1
Spoiler:
1) Any divination spell that requires your name to be asked, or that requires your name in the answer, fails. Any Divination with you as the specific target fails. Any divination that has you in its area of effect works normally but "ignores you" and does not reveal your location or aura or whatever.
or
Version 2
Spoiler:
Mind Blank gives some broad statements and then breaks down into specifics. It states two specific ways that it protects the person effected:
1) If they are in the area of a Scrying or a similar spell then the spell works normally but the MB'd creature isn't shown. (see invis, arcane eye, and so on)
2) Scrying attempts that are targeted specifically at the subject do not work at all.
There is a third category of Divination spells however that isn't covered by Mind Blank- and those are spells that communicate *about* the MB'd individual without targeting him in any way. Contact Other Plane, Commune, potentially Telepathic Bond and any other such spell falls into this group.
Assume
Bob the Mind Blanked
and
Jim the Hunter.
If Jim is trying to find Bob- can Jim use Commune or Contact Other Plane to find Bob? can he "find him" without naming him?
if Bob killed X then can Jim cast divination spells to the effect of
"what happened to X
"who killed X"
"where is the killer of X".
Assuming the answer of all those questions is "Bob" are they valid questions?
If they are valid questions then what happens if Jim and John are joined by Telepathic Bond (which is a Divination spell), can they discuss Bob the Mind Blanked? can Jim ask John if he sees Bob? Can John answer yes? What if Jim asks John if he sees someone in a black tabard and the answer is Yes: because Bob the MB is there and is wearing a black tabard?
It seems like a silly question but if Mind Blank prevents you from using Contact Other Plane to ask about the murderer then it also stops Telepathic Bond from working. They both work on the same concept: you are using a Divination to ask someone else a question about something they know: and that "thing they know" happens to be someone under the effect of Mind Blank.
"Version 1" seems overly broad to me. It seems to write in a "you are erased from the universe while this spell is in effect" clause that I do not think is in the spell, and is just flat out too powerful. it also doesn't make sense when applied to some of the spells that it will somehow block if "version 1" is the "correct way".
Version "2" seems alot more limited but, not unreasonable limits. You still can't see invs, true seeing, scry, locate creature, or whatever on the person in question. Its still a *huge* buff to the caster but it doesn't erase him from the memory of anyone you happen to use a spell to talk to.'
My handwriting is terrible but I also do not like character sheets that try to do the math for me.
I've looked and searched but haven't found one yet so thought I'd ping the community on it.
Does anyone out there know of a good, form fillable, non-calculating character sheet? I don't really want someone else to do my math for me- i just want a good character sheet that I can type my information into, save, and print :)
When your character is not in immediate danger or distracted, you may choose to take 10. Instead of rolling 1d20 for the skill check, calculate your result as if you had rolled a 10. For many routine tasks, taking 10 makes them automatically successful. Distractions or threats (such as combat) make it impossible for a character to take 10. In most cases, taking 10 is purely a safety measure—you know (or expect) that an average roll will succeed but fear that a poor roll might fail, so you elect to settle for the average roll (a 10). Taking 10 is especially useful in situations where a particularly high roll wouldn't help.
Spells learned from scrolls or other spellbooks
Spoiler:
Spells Copied from Another's Spellbook or a Scroll: A wizard can also add a spell to his book whenever he encounters one on a magic scroll or in another wizard's spellbook. No matter what the spell's source, the wizard must first decipher the magical writing (see Arcane Magical Writings). Next, he must spend 1 hour studying the spell. At the end of the hour, he must make a Spellcraft check (DC 15 + spell's level). A wizard who has specialized in a school of spells gains a +2 bonus on the Spellcraft check if the new spell is from his specialty school. If the check succeeds, the wizard understands the spell and can copy it into his spellbook (see Writing a New Spell into a Spellbook). The process leaves a spellbook that was copied from unharmed, but a spell successfully copied from a magic scroll disappears from the parchment.
If the check fails, the wizard cannot understand or copy the spell. He cannot attempt to learn or copy that spell again until he gains another rank in Spellcraft. If the spell was from a scroll, a failed Spellcraft check does not cause the spell to vanish.
So, for 15+spell level as DC, a wizard can add a scroll to their spellbook.
Assuming a wizard started at 1st level with a 16 int (+3 bonus) and 1 rank in Spellcraft (1+ class bonus 3=4) he starts with a +7 to the check.
If you can take 10, this means that a wizard with even a relatively "low" starting Int (most start at 18 if not 20, depending on point buy), never- ever- ever fails the check.
A level 1 wizard putting a level 1 scroll into his book, taking ten, has to roll over a 16. 17 is what they get 'taking 10'. Assuming the character continues to max out their spellcraft every level they will *never, ever* fail a check- even if they never stick a single point into their intelligence for the rest of their careers.
So- can they take 10 and make a potentially costly failure into a problem that doesn't actually exist? If you Can take 10 on it why include the chance of failure at all? Its not like they are going to spend an hour "in combat" doing it, such that the "in combat" restriction on taking 10 comes into play.
A recent catastrophe has left most of our group with an opportunity to create new characters.
I am making a witch and another is making a wizard. A question arose on how to deal with scrolls and spellbooks/familiars when starting past 1st level.
A witch has to pass a spellcraft check (DC 15+spell level) to feed the familiar a scroll.
So:
1) If you are starting out past 1st level how would you do it? How would you as DM handle it? Do the PC's wait and roll in front of you? Do you assume they got it the first time?
2) If you have them roll for each scroll- when do you assume they did it? At the max level they are?
if, for example, they are starting at 7th level (as we are). Do you have them roll some at 2nd and some at 5th and some at 7th- to account for the Spellcraft check disparity? or do you just- for the sake of simplicity- assume they made all the checks at the 7th level?
In the APG the Summoner is given very vague language as to how the Eidolon looks. Aside from having the physical characteristics to match the various evolutions it takes- the rules say:
Quote:
The eidolon’s physical appearance is up to the summoner, but it always appears as some sort of fantastical creature. This control is not fine enough to make the eidolon appear like a specific creature. The eidolon also bears a glowing rune that is identical to a rune that appears on the summoner’s forehead as long as the eidolon is summoned. While this rune can be hidden through mundane means, it cannot be concealed through magic that changes appearance, such as alter self or polymorph (although invisibility does conceal it as long as the spell lasts).
My question is: for you gamers and DM's both out there, how do you treat those statements?
If I make a quad Big E, with Bite and Reach:
Can I give it short greyish white fur and say it looks like an English bulldog?
I ask because "it always appears as some sort of fantastical creature" seems to dictate that the Eidolon /can not resemble/ a creature that actually exists. I've also always assumed that the "specific creature" bit means that you can't make it look like Jim Bob's English Bulldog, Spike- but if that is true then it doesn't make sense. You can't make it look like a specific creature anyway if the Eidolon /must/ be a fantastical creature.
So:
Do you force the Eidolon to not resemble a living creature? Do they have to only passingly resemble something real but always have features that clearly and irredeemably force it to look unnatural?
Another way to phrase it:
If a summoner PC chose a form, feats, and evolutions that matched a real world creature and then wanted the Eidolon to look like a generic real creature (rather than a specific, identified creature- such as someone's pet)- would you allow it?
Such as the bulldog example, or a tiger, or a viper or (if biped) a generic Human, elf, dwarf, or halfling?
By RAW there is no difference in identifying a spell being cast by a wizard 5 feet in front of you with no megamagic, and one using Still Spell, Silent Spell, Eschew Materials and/or Quicken spell excepting that each feat does what the feat does.
None of the feats mention making the spell harder to detect or to identify despite the "enhanced" effect. It makes sense that a Stilled spell would be harder to identify- and that a Silent one would be harder to even know you were casting a spell at all.. but the rules are silent about it.
Is it silent because the answer is NO, it should not adjust spellcraft to identify the spell or even to identify if a spell is being cast at all?
Or is it silent because it just wasn't crammed into an already full book?
Typically, wizards are seen as being more powerful than the sorc primarily because of their sheer ability to learn any spell. Why settle for fireball when you can learn lightning bolt too and swap them out depending on the battle?
With the Words of Power- do you all see the balance shifting back to the Sorc? With the ability to use any target selection you want on the fly- the "one spell, one effect" vanican (sp?) schtick will be out the window. I just can't imagine being a sorc without taking power words- unless the rest of the ones they introduce are just awful.
This is especially true with the APG and how relatively easy it is to get more spells (aka words) known onto your list.
A thread awhile back about witches commented that they had a hard time against Undead.. and I was thinking about it and looking and.. Geez.
It looks like there is one normal Hex and one Greater hex, and just about no spells that work against Undead. (well, they do have lightning bolt..)
Aside from making them roll twice a time or two with that one hex- what can witches do against Undead? or are witches just greatly ineffective in undead themed adventurers, arcs, and APs?
RPing low str or dex or Con seems fairly straight up..
I've recently made a test character though with both low str and dex though but with a relatively high Con and all 3 mental stats fairly high. I'm stuck though on how to effectively Rp being weak and clumsy yet completely- if not abnormally- healthy. (14 con).
RPing low strength is a simple matter of.. well.. being weak. He's a gnome with a 7 strength so its not like he'll be lifting any great weights- in fact he can only carry his normal gear with the Ant Haul spell (his mount carries most of it, actually, the Ant Haul spell is a back-up).
Rping low Dex is a matter of being clumsy for the most part. It helps that he has the lame curse as an oracle- so he'll also be extremely slow. (20 for being small, -5 for being Lame). I've purposefully Not taken any feats or traits to boost his initiative, or magical items to boost his speed as that just seems like a cheesy way to get around taking a low dex. One of the mysteries already gives him his Cha to Ref saves and AC instead of Dex.
Rp wise- the part I can't get my mind around is being both weak and clumsy yet.. healthy. Do I just hand-waive the healthy part and "ignore" it when I'm RPing? Most Pc's don't RP their Con anyway unless they are extremely frail. and there aren't many low-con PC's running around. At least not past level 1 or 2.
So.. Thoughts?
And if your thought is "its cheesy dumping str and dex" please- keep it to yourself. The character is a thought experiment I've been contemplating, i've just run aground in the RP aspect of it.
Mine was the first to die in our current campaign (RotRL) and while I now have his successor with the group and all that- it took me out of the game nearly half a session to make him and we only get to meet once a month or so..
So, foreseeing the possibility that I could die again I've decided to roll up a 3rd character.
The first was a skill monkey rogue. Somewhat effective in combat, he mostly stealthed around looking for traps and locked doors. (not that he -ever- found either one..)
The second and current is an Bard (arcane duelist) half-orc with a glaring weakness of an extremely low AC but can hit fairly decently- both strong and often.
With two melee on the line my 3rd is looking to be a full caster. An oracle. I've the thought in mind to make him either a human (extra spells known, free feat, and skill point) or a gnome (for extra flavor, even slower "lame" curse, and 2:1 linquistics languages). Regardless of the race he'll be a high- knowledge, many-language speaking person who avoids melee like the plague and prefers to stand in the far back and cast spells either to buff his allies or debuff/injure the enemies.
So, on to the advice.
To make him fairly anti-thetical to his predecessors I've given serious though to dumping strength (via ant haul to still carry some gear) and dexterity (to accentuate the Lame curse). The Str will have the spell to make up carrying capacity though he won't be able to hit the broad side of a barn or dent it even if he hit it. Dexterity would be made up by the Lore Revelation to use charisma for both AC and Dex saves- leaving him terrible at a crossbow or ranged touch attack.
The result would be a fairly high mental stat character with relatively low physical stats. Is it too much? Assuming I keep Con somewhere in the running- for fort saves and HP- is ditching str and dex going to hurt me somewhere that I'm not seeing?
Secondly:
I'm also interested in how you all would consider Rping someone who is extremely charismatic, moderately "healthy", wise and intelligent, while less dextrous than 12 year old and with the strength to match. ;p
Thirdly:
Obviously spells like Searing Light are out since he wouldn't be able to hit. What spells would you look for in this kind of Oracle? Hold Person and possibly Command and such look like no-brainers. (cure spells are free with Oracles already). What would you consider must-haves?
I have a rough approximation of the build already done, I'll post it after some reviews. I'm terrible with spell selection though ;p
We've all been there- that moment when you think nothing is going on while you are shopping in the local bizarre.. and the DM has you roll initiative. Your characters look around seeing nothing out of the ordinary but suddenly, inexplicably, combat rules are now in order.
When do You consider "combat" to be engaged?
There are several very important game changes that occur between "in combat' and "out of combat"
Standing there at the fruit stand, you and a good 3/4 of your party can very nearly be in the same 5 foot of each other pondering a mid-morning snack. You can see in front of you clearly but a rogue slipping by behind you goes virtually unnoticed.. unless you have eyes in the back of your head.
Once "combat" is declared we seem to enter an almost "final fantasy" type combat episode. Suddenly PC's spread out to each occupy a different 5 foot square and you each magically gain the ability to see 360 degrees around you perfectly. There is no more "front" or "behind".
When does this happen? How do you handle it as a DM or player?
That wizard on the rooftop who just Fireballed the group in the surprise round- do you give him any sort of bonus to not being seen since the PC's weren't facing his direction when he cast the spell or do you let the "logic" of "well, they were looking at the apple stand" prevail?
(note, if you Do that, the PC's will of course also seek to take advantage of it in their combats).
I realize that to some extent we Have to give up logic to have a smooth flowing game. I'm just curious how you all handle such interactions in your games. at Some point you have to deal with "normal" flowing into "combat mode" and the rules changes that come with it..
assuming you don't just assume PC's always are 5 ft apart and have 360 degree vision..
I’ve tried to find the APG errata, and have failed. If it addresses these points, please let me know.
Otherwise:
My rogue died and his replacement will be taking advantage of some of the character options in the APG- specifically the Bard Arcane Duelist.
This set of abilities allows, among other things, for the bard to receive his weapon as an Arcane Bond starting at 5th level. This creates two problems that the rules don’t specifically address.
1) A wizard usually makes this decision at 1st level. Doing so, his weapon is automatically masterwork. That is to say, he gets a masterwork item for free at first level and that item is his bonded object.
As a bard, getting it at 5th level, my question is:
Can I treat his current weapon as his Bonded Object? (that is- 1 weapon of his choice upon gaining 5th level) or does he just magically spawn a master work weapon out of the Ether? I ask because the bard in question is starting play with a +1 longsword.
The rules state that to “replace” his existing bond either because the old one was destroyed or because he wants to re-attach it to an existing item it costs him 200gp/level.
That would mean costing $1000gp to start.
So- can he pick 1 weapon on his person at level 5 and claim that his bonded object, or does he get a masterwork weapon essentially for free? Or does he have to pick a masterwork object for the bond? Or does he have to pay 200g/level to use an existing item?
2) The arcane object also allows a wizard to select one spell from his book per day and cast it “on the fly”.
A bard has no spell book. Would you rule this ability to be moot then, or for him to be able to cast 1 of his spells known once per day? (essentially giving him 1 extra spell available to cast per day).
I'm thinking of building a summoner to replace my current character (a rogue) should he die of a decidedly un-natural cause.
What are some of your builds for the summoner-side of things, generally?
I'm thinking of doing a str/thrower build mainly to capitalize on the "str/damage" aspect without needing a special weapon. (as opposed to a comp bow).. this would allow me to use some of the melee/thrown weapons as needed while staying at range if possible.
What are you other folk out there using for the summoner side of the character, and how effective (or not) have they been?
As I was reading some other threads, my mind wandered and this thought crept in.
How much do your groups coordinate at character creation to make sure your group can do everything?
Examples:
Some sort of arcane caster
Some sort of divine caster
Some sort of "high AC" person (i.e. tank'ish)
Some Damage dealers.
Folks to deal with various skill checks
(either one individual, or spread out across the group).
Example would be- someone who can open doors, or
to make sure all the commonly relevant Knowledge checks were covered.
Our group seems to have most if not all of it covered and largely without alot of planning on our parts before hand.
How much planning- if at all- does your group do when you start a new campaign?
The following idea is a nerf for some Eidolons (herein after referred to as Big E), and a buff for others.
As the rules currently stand, a Big E with 1 natural weapon gets 1 attack. It gets a 2nd attack at 9th level, with a -5 to it.
A Big E with multiple attacks gets to use them all, without restriction. It even gets Multiattack to help with it.
The problem (if you choose to view it as one) is that building a Big E with just one attack is nearly impossible to do viably. Myself- I don't care for that.
so:
1) If the Eidolon only uses one natural attack type in a round, it gets iterative attacks based upon its BAB.
This means that an Eidolon with just one attack would eventually get more. It also means that an Eidolon with several attack methods could pick one and just use it for that round. (for example, choosing to just use bite and get iterative attacks while giving up claw and/or slam and/or whatever else it happened to have).
it would allow you to specialize in a particular attack. As it currently stands- a single attack mode Big E is sorely below par in damage.
2) You are limited to the number of attacks you would receive by your iterative attacks if you c hoose to attack with more than one weapon mode.
I know I phrased that badly but I couldn't think of a better way.
Basically- You are ALWAYS limited by how many attacks you should have by your bab. Spend as many evolutions as you want on bites, claws, slams, and tentacles. That just gives you piercing, bludgeoning, and slashing damage types to choose from. No matter how many limbs you have or how many attacks you have you still just get a maximum of 4 just like any other creature.
(note, haste and such would work as normal allowing you an extra attack as per the rules for those spells/abilities).
This has the dual benefit is allowing someone to just pick Bite (or claw or whatever) while remaining viable, and also not having to worry about a Big E with 2 dozen tentacle attacks and all that weird stuff.
Yes, I realize this is a nerf to those builds. I think it is a reasonable one, however.
The Warforged of Eberron campaign setting were often seen as being just at the far edge of +0 pushing +1 LA, and by some to actually cross the line.
I have an idea for a character though that is just a living construct without all the extra stuff that the Warforged tack on.
So, my question to the informed masses is:
What LA, if any, would the Living Construct template be, if used as is? (i.e. the "character" had no beginner modifications other than that template).
Presumably it would be too weak by itself. If you agree, what would you do to bring it in line with the other Pathfinder races? If you think the template alone is too strong- what would you trim off?
As the subject says. Please post your current Summoner and Big E who are actually in play.
Actually in play for the purposes of this thread means that its your character in a current campaign.
Please either do not list those for "one shot" play tests or label them as such to differentiate it. If all you have done is run it through several encounters, then please either omit it or list that as well so we know.
The point of course is to see if the Eidolon's in actual game play vary from those built specifically to test some aspect of the game mechanic or other. (and of course, to see some good ideas from the posters here at Paizo).
Its also a good spot to show off what you did with your summoner. Archer? tripper? grappler? What feats and abilities did you choose.
I keep seeing this on the boards, in play test threads and in "the sky is falling" threads.
We have basically 4 types of characters in the game at present. Damage dealers, skill monkeys, arcane and divine casters.
The more classes we add the more likely it is we are going to step on some toes.
Do you have 2 barbarians in your 2 man group? 2 fighters? 2 rogues?
You might. But I would bet its relatively uncommon.
The Eidolon is powerful. The power of it though is in its versatility.
Yes. It can be as powerful as a barbarian. It Does Not have to be built that way though. It can be build as a skill monkey. or as a multi-role creature. (decent damage, decent armor, etc).
Please, Please quit calling for it to not be equal to a barbarian when fully buffed. Not every party has a barbarian. Maybe the party barbarian /wants to play a summoner/.
This isn't a balance issue- it is a group dynamic issue. Your players shouldn't build their Big E's to step on the toes of the other party members. It isn't something Paizo can prevent. Ever.
Its just like 2 PC's creating barbarians.
If we make the summoner and Big E weaker than every other class in fear of "stepping on their toes" then all we've really done is create some crappy 3.5 splat book class that sounds neat in fluff but that sucks to play. Lets Please not go there. The Summoner needs to be viable in his own right.
Before i go trying to stat up the character and all that i was curious what you all thought about the general idea.
One of the big problems we are seeing is that Summoners themselves are bored outta their little minds in combat. i was trying this morning to figure out a way for an Eidolon (hereinafter dubbed Big E) can get a trip in and some attacks too, preferably with reach.
So. Would there be any mechanical difficulty in building a rider summoner who rides Big E into battle, trips a foe, and then the Big E gets full attacks?
Then Summoner readies action to trip when person is up again, and.. well, you see the pattern.
I understand that readied actions can be foiled. (crawl away instead of getting up, or whatever), but is the general principle sound? Or have I missed something?
Note- I am not talking about Attacks of Opportunity but straight up standard attack used as a trip.
Thoughts? Good idea, bad idea, not functional mechanically?
Should it be possible to use some of the crunch of the evolutions (and base forms if necessary) and alter to fluff?
I've been mulling it over and can't find a problem with doing the following:
(and if there is a problemwith it, lemme know!)
Some things on the evolution list are really just extra ways to do damage.
for instance:
Tail + tail slap. (and/or + sting)
Tentacle.
Now, if a Eidolon wanted to take tail and tail slap (and/or sting)
would you as a Dm absolutely mandate that the creature actually possess a tail, as long as they paid for the points?
What if they instead (using all the same mechanical statistics) used it instead as a secondary bite?
(such as.. I have a normal bite, or a poisonous (sting) bite), and such?
The point would be, using the *stats* you wanted without necessarily having to have a creature with a tail. Or, the same goes with tentacles.
Perhaps the creature has two different types of (for instance) hand attack. One is a slam/claw/whatever, and the other uses the tentacle damage.
Mechanics wise i don't see a problem with this. But it would allow someone to make a creature that looked a certain way visually while also allowing them to use the mechanics they wanted.
As an example:
Imagine a medium sized quad creature, that is in physical appearance a gorilla.
They also want it to have a poisonous bite and some extra attacks but don't really want the gorilla to have a stinging tail or a tentacle.
So instead they give the gorilla a rather large underbite with big teeth sticking up.
He has his normal bite attack. he can also "bite" (aka tail sting) for a poison damage.
he could also pick an appropriate appendage (head butt or shoulder butt or something) and use that for the tentacle attack instead of actually having a physical tentacle.
Does that make sense? (whether or not its a good idea to spend the points that way is aside the point. the above was just an example)
Would you all say that should work? or is there some reason it shouldn't? is there some glaring problem I'm not seeing when I look at it?
I had a thought in a recent thread and posted it there- but thought I would post it here as well for general consumption and thoughts.
Sadly, Paizo is unable to give their marvelous treatment to any non-OGL Prestige Class. What they can do- and have done- is alter the mechanics behind obtaining one. They already changed the skills requirement.
The problem many folk have with them however has little to do with the skill entry requirements and much more to do with the power(s) any given class actually give to the player, such that it's becoming more and more common to see players dip and dash from one PrC to the next, with nary a thought.
Paizo can't change the PrC's but they can alter the rules for PrC availability.
What do folk in general think about a rule limiting characters to one complete PrC at a time?
i.e. once you take a level in a PrC you can't switch to a different class until you complete it. (you could go back to your base class and do it, but no more "new classes" until the PrC is complete).
This would allow the design of some classes that actually give a good benefit in the first couple of levels while spreading out some of the others (i.e. not having to backload things into levels most campaigns never get to) while also forcing PC's to pick a PRC for more than the power it gives at level one or two. it would eliminate completely the issue of "one level dipping" unless the person just wanted a single level of a single PRC.
I was introduced to Pathfinder and Paizo by reading a friend's copy of one of the adventures.
While I've been on the forums for some time, I am only now finally able to begin picking up products on a regular basis. Unfortunately, I am the only person at the bookstore I go to who has even asked about Pathfinder, muchless expressed interest in buying any of it. I, theefore, am gonna hafta special order each book. Rather than doing so in one big clump I am planning on buying them 2-3 at a time over the next few months.
That having been said:
If you had no paizo books, which would you go after first? And what would follow, and in what order? Are there any in particular you would avoid?