Sitri's page

Sitri wrote:

I would think so too, but I have come to believe there may be some internal dissonance that makes this not always hold true. One of our local players who goes half track to get more time with his character is also the most hardlined "I can't play down because I can't lose gold" players I have seen.

Well there is a difference between:

A. Facing MORE challenge for the same gold/rewards, and

B. harming your wealth in relation to your level.

Case A is something that might make the scenario more enjoyable (than a boring cakewalk) and gives bragging rights (for facing epic challenges). Meanwhile B is (in the eyes of many) something permanently damaging your character.

And what you're saying is that even amongst the most diehard 'never play down' there will be players fully willing to face more challenge for the same gold rewards.

-James

You are taking a lot of liberties with the mentality of a person explained in just a few sentences.

A. He has never expressed any interest in desiring more challenge, but he has repeatedly expressed very strong desires in playing that character as long as he can and having as much gold as he can. In fact, both in game and in the stories he recounts, he seems to get the most enjoyment from dominating his enemies.

B. While point B may sometimes be separate from A, I think it a hasty generalization to state it such categorically. If A has more cost, it is also a B.

My contention is that this person would show up on the data set that you claim would represent <people wanting a challenge and therefore willing to play up without extra cash despite the board saying they wouldn't>, yet he would not be an indicator of your hypothesis being true. He represents someone who values time with his character over gold, not someone who values challenge over gold.

Patrick Harris @ SD wrote:

Why do we need a special ruling to point out that a level 1 spell doesn't duplicate the effects of a level two or three spell (to wit, See Invisibility) and then some? It's obviously intended to be used only on creatures already perceived. The idea is, when I look at a creature, I know its condition. Anyone arguing that you can use this spell to reveal creatures they weren't aware of is trying to pull a fast one, and no GM should allow it.

This nails my response. It is intended to be used only on creatures already perceived.

You have to be able to see the creature to instantly know whether each creature within the area is dead, fragile (alive and wounded, with 3 or fewer hit points left), fighting off death (alive with 4 or more hit points), healthy, undead, or neither alive nor dead (such as a construct).

It doesn't magically advise or let you see or know there is an invisible creature or a very stealthy creature in the area and what the health and condition of that creature is.

http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2p1t1?DeathwatchNo-Ambushes-Pinpoint-all-Invisi ble#1

The first will give you a number of players that are willing to face more challenges for the same amount of reward. In this case, numerically double. A slow track character faces twice the challenges for the same level of reward as a fast track character. I would think that here you would have raw data that would help decide between my theory crafting and the anecdotal responses of some on these boards. How many people have elected to use the slow track with a character?

I would think so too, but I have come to believe there may be some internal dissonance that makes this not always hold true. One of our local players who goes half track to get more time with his character is also the most hardlined "I can't play down because I can't lose gold" players I have seen.

You could give them flavorful chronicle sheets. In my tpk I wrote "turned to ghast" on all my players sheets. You could write"heroically died spreading valor and good will in Varisia" or "left his lunch, along with the entrails that were holding them, on the Storval Stairs" as suits your fancy.

Read again what I have written. Ever since the RAW about line of sight was broken down I have never "failed to accept it".

I am actually kind of glad I found this, it opens up the door to some new abuse. My sorcerer just picked up Wall of Force. I can angle it to pin a creature in the corner, Elemental Body: earth to glide through the wall, stay in the five feet of wall next to the "cage", and cast at the trapped creatures without fear of reprisal.

Once again, logic dictates this shouldn't happen but RAW does call it good.

Nothing is more fun when seeing a topic you want to read than opening it up and the first half of a page is people saying don't talk about it. Thanks for the meaningful contributions.

On a more serious note, Mort, I am glad it seems your thread finally took off.

Sitri wrote:

My issue with the logic is the same that others have stated earlier in the thread, if the person is sticking the head out of the mist but keeping the body back, the enemy can target the head.

Are you using called shot rules then? Make sure you take the proper penalties for that.

Otherwise, you're making a regular swing at a guy and you know where he is, but can't see all of him--that's pretty much the definition of concealment--so you'd get the 20% miss chance as normal.

Well I did overgeneralize a bit because I considered the issue done, but you quote mined me as well. I don't think the person should be able to peak out, but if he does I would consider the vision equal both ways. Like I said above, if he did some funky body bending while trying to imagine what the enemy probably sees in an attempt to only expose a little of his head for a fraction of a second while keeping his body back, I would think that would incur a penalty to hit as well (possibly worse than just having clouded vision). My argument from the start is that the guy in the mist should be penalized.

Here is the 3.5 variant several have mentioned. I ran a game a while back that was not very LG friendly, it was the only paladin I allowed.

Paladin of Freedom Class Features
The paladin of freedom has all the standard paladin class features, except as noted below.

Class Skills
Replace Diplomacy with Bluff on the class skill list.

Aura of Resolve (Su)
Beginning at 3rd level, a paladin of freedom is immune to compulsion effects. Each ally within 10 feet of him gains a +4 morale bonus on saving throws against compulsion effects. This ability otherwise functions identically to the paladin's aura of courage class feature.

Spellcasting
Remove the following spells from the paladin's spell list: death ward, discern lies, dispel chaos, magic circle against chaos, protection from chaos.

Add the following spells to the paladin's spell list: 1st—protection from law; 3rd—magic circle against law; 4th—dispel law, freedom of movement.

Code of Conduct
A paladin of freedom must be of chaotic good alignment and loses all class abilities if he ever willingly commits an evil act. Additionally, a paladin of freedom's code requires that he respect individual liberty, help those in need (provided they do not use the help for lawful or evil ends), and punish those who threaten or curtail personal liberty.

Associates
While he may adventure with characters of any good or neutral alignment, a paladin of freedom will never knowingly associate with evil characters (except on some sort of undercover mission), nor will he continue an association with someone who consistently offends his moral code. A paladin of freedom may accept only henchmen, followers, or cohorts who are chaotic good.

This is for PFS so at the end of the day RAW is all that matters. My issue with the logic is the same that others have stated earlier in the thread, if the person is sticking the head out of the mist but keeping the body back, the enemy can target the head. Additionally I would think such contortions would put the balance of the character (AC and Attack) in jeopardy.

But like I said at the start, this is PFS so it doesn't have to make real life sense for me. If I were running a home game, I would probably just do it the way that has always felt intuitive for me and apparently most of the people I have played with.

31: At work (I'm a Bartender in a Nightclub) you inform the drinkers of the Fort save DC of the cocktail that they are gulping back, as well as calling out effect...'Dazed for 3 rounds. Ouch, that one hurt.'

286: You have to read this sentence 3 times before the letters of "barbarian" turn into "bartender" and it finally makes sense.

Sitri wrote:

I have always operated under the assumption that if you have two people standing on the edge of an obscuring mist (one inside and one outside) both get a 20% miss chance.

I have run into two GMs lately that interpret it that the person standing in the mist gets a 20% miss chance when attacked, but they can see out of the mist just fine and attack with no penalty.

I have read the spell a few times and logically this doesn't make much sense to me, and I am really on the fence as to whether or not RAW supports it. Is there anything official on this.

I tried to do a quick search but didn't find anything remotely official, in agreement, or even focused on this case.

Thanks

You want to see how RAW determines line of sight and line of effect.

To determine if your medium sized character can see another medium sized character (and how clearly) you have the observer pick a corner of their square and then draw 4 lines from that corner to each of the 4 (or 8 if you want to be 3-dimensional) corners of the target's square.

In the case of someone in mist, but who borders clear space (and thus the path between the squares is free of mist) it is indeed the case that someone trying to see them would have some (two) of those lines pass through the mist, while they could pick a corner a draw lines to their target without going through any mist.

Likewise they could take a step further back into the mist and still see their target with concealment, while the target would no longer be able to see them.

The thinking is as plain as 'you need to see all of them, but only your eyes need to do the seeing, not all of your body'. It actually makes sense should you accept it and consider it for a few minutes. But regardless, that's the RAW.

-James

I have considered it, but fail to accept it from a logic point of view. But I do think you make a very strong case for RAW. Thank you.

My wife has this build without all the intimidate stuff, she uses Living Monolith to grow.

I am not sure your intimidation combos will work. You need a standard action to antagonize and a full action to combat patrol, I know you could extend antagonize one round to get this to go off every other round. Even still, I don't think you still get more than one AoO against any single opponent in a single round for movement. We were pretty disappointed when we first read this.

Moving out of more than one square threatened by the same opponent in the same round doesn't count as more than one opportunity for that opponent.

Does combat patrol undo this language? I am not 100% convinced.

Why does the person in the mist not receive penalties? He is looking through the mist as well.

I have always operated under the assumption that if you have two people standing on the edge of an obscuring mist (one inside and one outside) both get a 20% miss chance.

I have run into two GMs lately that interpret it that the person standing in the mist gets a 20% miss chance when attacked, but they can see out of the mist just fine and attack with no penalty.

I have read the spell a few times and logically this doesn't make much sense to me, and I am really on the fence as to whether or not RAW supports it. Is there anything official on this.

I tried to do a quick search but didn't find anything remotely official, in agreement, or even focused on this case.

Thanks

There's loads of monsters in D&D/PF that have more than 4 limbs. For inspiration, look at these:

Chuul
Marilith
Drider
Displacer Beast
Basilisk
Basidrond
Behir

anyone else nerdy enough to think "that's awesome they put pedipalp on the drider"?

This is not an underpowered class by any means. There are more options at every level than I already know what to do with, I don't see this limit on bombs as a problem. Additionally, I have seen these guys at high levels with fast bombs turn boss fights into jokes. I am not there, but I am not looking forward to the day my character stops being powerful and starts being boring. From what I have seen in another players fast bombs, that is a step in the so good it is boring path.

If you were willing to dip two levels of alchemist, you could go mindchemist which would give you some decent benefits, but also open up a string of extra discovery feats for things like tentacles, extra arms, and tumor familiar. It isn't really optimized, but it would have flavor in spades.

I played a heavens oracle for a little while, but like SotS says, they can easily be a one trick pony. I out performed the rest of my party, but I still quickly got bored.

Why not go over to the engineering forums and ask if they know how you can get a copy of the anarchist's cookbook without your name going onto a watch list? When they give you hell, tell them it is all in the name of construction.

I am not convinced this guy is for real. If he is, I have a hard time imagining this level of intellect posing the level of risk that others are seeing.

I too didn't like the idea of arms on my quad so I fluffed it as a 6 legged wolf. Mechanically the front appendages are arms, but there is nothing stopping him from walking around on all six. He still gets a lot of claw attacks this way, but admittedly this wouldn't work if you are planning to wield weapons.

I admit as to only reading the first page so something to this effect may have been mentioned.

After reading in another thread about a "must kill all evil" paladin, I have been wanting to run across one with my CN sorcerer. I want to slap a random person with an infernal healing and then point the paladin in his direction to watch the comedy. Imagine the paladin's horror when he found out what happened.

If your ninja has UMD, you can go this route for the low price of a 750 gp wand.

I remember reading that it was very intentional that at the price of a discovery an alchemist could give personal buffs to other single people, the problem lies in turning a personal spell into a no save debuff.

And yet here we are with people that is arguing that this combo is in fact not out of line.

Well I did pancea him (sleep for 1 hour) instead of skinsend him. I can't remember how many minutes my party was paralyzed for, but if I had just ripped his skin he would have been able to still kill us all, as I couldn't have killed him even with him losing a round, half life, and going prone. But I think the principle still applies. Both spells are being used in a way that was not anticipated and they work much more effectively than anything remotely close in level.

Also it really isn't that hard to build to this combo, all it really requires is the infusion extract discovery. An alchemist can add spells to his spellbook almost as easily as a wizard. My character is built to be a bomber-controller, but saw this combo and thought it well worth the price of a discovery that also does other cool stuff.

I have to admit that I think that both touch injection with skin-send and polypurpose pancea is pretty cheesy and probably should be removed. I have a character that preps these as rainy day options but I do feel dirty even saying that I am prepping them. The no save part is simply overpowered. I personally think that pancea is more powerful than skin send, even if it doesn't look as cool.

For example, a couple of weeks ago I got talked into playing up into a 7-9 with my 5th level character that had no business being in that scenario with that party. In the last fight the Big Bad came out and did an AoE that shut everyone down except for me; I was hiding way in the back. I charged in with a perfect strike, touch injection and shut down the BBEG single handedly. I don't think anyone could argue that this is balanced. In a world with touch injection infusions, all personal spells should have saves.

Interesting find. I do think you are right, but probably not because the author intended it that way.

Hi I and my girl friend is new to pathfinder we are looking for a local group to game with, I hope you can help us out. We live in Peoria Az.

http://warhorn.net/gathering/

It will tell you when events are happening near you, but there is always more tables than listed here. Basically the main group alternates between a place about 5-10 minutes from you and Mesa every other week. I believe there are some people that are at the store next to you weekly, but a lot of people will travel to the farther distance on off weeks. Take that for what it is worth. PM me and if you need more information.

If you want to get a feel for the rules ahead of time http://www.d20pfsrd.com/ is pretty awesome. Piazo has their own similar site but everything is grouped by book instead of by category and missing all the hyperlinks.

Edit: I just noticed that this site doesn't really specify locations very well. IOG is Imperial Outpost Games, which is close to you. Samurai comics is out in Mesa.

Okay, I've just read through the entire thread, and one thing that I saw mentioned quite a few times was that people were willing to play down and take a hit because they knew they could play up on another occasion to make up for it.

Well, if we're trying to stop characters that are always playing up, why not bring in a limit on how often characters can play up (I did see this mentioned in one post but I'm going to add something), and then allow every time they play down to buy off a time that they played up.

What I would suggest is that players can never be more than +/- 1 from playing their own subtier. If a player plays a character up on one scenario, it is noted on his character sheet, and he can't play that character up again until he has played down, and has it noted on that chronicle. If you make it really visible on the chronicles, it should be really easy for a GM to flip through them to see if the character is able to play up/down or not.

You could keep the monetary benefit for having played up, as long as you take the monetary hit for playing down. At most a character could be one up on his expected wealth. (Yes, I suppose they could try to game it by trying to play up at break points where they might get higher amounts, but it shouldn't allow a character to get too far ahead.)

This would allow for someone to be able to adapt to a game day having an occasion where people can't fill the same level ranges, but not have that occasion happen all the time.

While this idea might have potential after some tweaking +/-1 might be still too restrictive. Off the top of my head I can think of three people I really enjoy playing with that play less often than I do, one of which is my wife, that will need to play up more often than me to play at my table (I do have an alternative I enjoy that is catching up to them creating the reverse problem. I know the suggestion of get more characters has been said but I have seven, only two of which i care to still play and it was enough work to convince my wife play a second one).

Additionally, if a person plays down at low level and up at higher levels, or vice versa, it isn't exactly a wash anyway.

I think it runs the risk of getting complicated, but perhaps combine this idea with the previous one of max wealth but only track over and under amounts on a chronicle. You play up GM notes +500 gold on a box you play down, similar note. Your net difference can only be level times X or socialism kicks in and your personal gains are adjusted to keep you in range.

I think most anyone who reads these boards regularly would agree that Mike does a great job, but I don't think an appeal to authority is a good reason for people to silence their opinions. Let's also not forget that player feedback, like what is happening here, is also a source of data piazo has historically valued.

Why would it curb the incentive to play up? Get high tier gold AND 2 XP? It's every power gamers dream!

I don't know that the desire was to curb the incentive to play up, it was to fix the wealth disparity. And as you said in an earlier post, some people don't want to lose the ability play their characters as much as possible.

If you start giving out 2 XP in a scenario, you are preventing yourself from one extra scenario you could be playing every time it occurs. The scenarios are great little stories, and frankly, I want to play as many of them as possible with one character, especially if I like that character. I also want to play in my subtier so that I know I can handle the situation and that I don't need to be 'protected' by higher levels.

Agreed, but I also think this is more of a problem at higher levels than low, coming up with another low level character to play a scenario isn't that tough. In my experience high level tables are not as prone to the need to play up or down (not to say it never happens). But getting everyone in the same subtier for level 7 down is probably more uncommon than it is common.

Half progression also allows a way for the player to savor any level they like, something several people in my area take advantage of.

It shouldn't be a problem for coordinators because there are always going to be pre-gen options or the option to create a new character

I have played a pre-gen a few times, it doesn't even feel like I am playing a role playing game. I couldn't care less about the role of party pre-gen cleric; I am a tag along mechanical device. There is a big plus to being able to play a character you designed and feel attached to.

What's the problem with extra exp tied to your extra gold?

One more vote for +2 exp.

Who else feels this was a more important story than the dead faction headline?

I understand the desire to limit wealth disparity, but I agree that removing the incentive to play up is a bit heavy handed in my opinion. It seems that it will force more tables to play down or not at all.

I also do not think this will be a "fringe case" as Mark referred to it. When playing at a store, the decision to play up or down happens fairly often. I was faced with the decision 4 days ago. The fact that there was a gold incentive to play up led me playing along and completing a table. I was on the fence, but if there was no extra gold at the end of the rainbow, I would have without a doubt dipped out and the table wouldn't have happened.

I think I saw someone earlier suggest an out of tier gold amount, like getting paid half for playing up. As of right now that would be my suggestion to address the wealth disparity without completely removing all mechanical incentive of playing up.

Another possibility would be something like a luxury tax. A table that would have each level listed and the max gold you could spend at one time without incurring a tax on the item. This tax could mitigate the wealth difference a bit while feeling much more indirect.

This is much better, thank you!

Is there any way to dim the reply box? It is still the very abrasive bright white.

To OP, this is where knowing your group helps. If you play with the same people you know you can depend on, it is less of an external push and more of an internal one. "We have a X,Y, Z and Billy Bob can bring either an C or a D, we should be able to play up." If someone comes up with a good reason not, "All of these characters have horrible will saves, one batch of Harpies and we die," then the situation gets reevaluated. Just like in real life, friends should push each other to be better. If it is with strangers, personal space should be respected a bit more.

To Mark's questions,money is a good driving force. If you plan out what you want in advance, there is never enough cash. But also some scenarios can just be too easy. A week or so ago we had four people playing a game at tier and there was almost a TPK in one fight and two people went unconscious in another. Last night, four people (three of which were in the previous game) walked through an at tier game in a bout 2.5 hours and when the GM asked at the end what was the hardest part, we all laughed "crawling down the rope, we had two people fall and take damage." When you optimize to get through the rough games, others just aren't challenging. Luckily we had a great GM that was very graphic, but the mechanics simply weren't challenging.

Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:

B) he uses your ranks only, but his own stat (Cha for UMD) and only gets the +3 if its a skill for him, not you.

Are you sure about that? You get a +3 bonus to your class skill when you invest a point, not a +3 bonus to the skill checks. So once you put a point in UMD, you have four skill ranks in that skill. And since Familiars can use your skill ranks, they should also benefit from your class skill bonus.

I don't think that untyped bonus actually counts as ranks. If it did, PrC entry just got a whole lot faster.

I've been in plenty of games where the GM let prestidigitation do way too much and I've personally pulled some crazy crap with mage hand before (unbuckling a guards belt while in stealth to semi disarm/trip, traps have been triggered, levelers pulled ect.)

Abusable statement retracted: can we move on or do we need to pick apart the above paragraph? Let me (your DM sucks, you're gaming wrong, the rules as written blah blah blah.)

I'm seriously not interested in turning this thread into a petty argument of semantics so can we LET IT GO. Thanks in advance.

I have never seen anyone so quick to 180 in order to avoid criticism. If you despise having your words attacked, it would likely serve you well to curb your impulse to do it to others. Just earlier on the same page you shot out some pretty pointless and unprovoked aggression at MrSin. I haven't seen a lot of your posts to know if that is the norm for you, but when I see posts like the one below, I expect that person to be prepared to defend their own words.

MrSin wrote:

Sitri wrote:

What criterion are you using to decide if a cheap magic item is added to the list?

Well Aelrynith's list has nothing to do with the OP.

Its apparentyl under 3k and has a fluff restriction becuase he refuses to allow wand of infernal healing on it. I don't know why the mask of stoney demeanor isn't on it either.

His list he can put what he wants in there for whatever reason he wants... Don't like it keep you own list. Missed the part where he owed you something.

See, now I want to make a character who in-character powergames.

"Why do you worship Chaldira?"
"Well, no gods tickled my fancy, but I heard that Chaldira worshippers are harder to effect with spells and other weird effects, so I decided that Chaldira is the way to go."
"But what about Chaldira's tenants?"
"They're good I guess, but not as good as avoiding weird effects."

Seems legitimate to me. I would say most every that follows a religion expects something in return.

I had a character take up Abadar for a while because he thought it would help him be more business savvy. When the return on investment didn't pan out, he kicked Abadar to the curb.

Actually, my advice "boils down" to "invest in products that contain content you like so that more of it will be made." There are maybe a dozen people posting in this thread; you're not going to convince anyone to take a risk on a different sort of product with words. Words aren't a guarantee of purchase. Spending money speaks much more loudly than simply posting in an internet forum.

The OP and others here have repeatedly said they don't like that content you are telling them to buy. That is the whole point of this thread and the reason for the statement "throw money at things you don't want in the hopes someone will some day make it the way you want."

As to the numbers speaking, I am sorry I don't have the time or stamina to debate macroeconomics with you, but I would think it obvious that a few people expressing interest in a market gap would be more effective in closing that gap than those same people buying a product similar to the gap. Tipping Point is actually a really good book about the tendency of certain things to reach critical mass;the author's words are far more articulate than mine. If you do have the time I would give it as recommended reading for anyone.

Also, I take offense at the notion that 3PP products are substandard. There are plenty of quality products in the market that have been published by a 3PP, and several of the companies employ Lead Designers with impressive resumes; Owen K.C. Stephens of Super Genius Games is a well-known designer in the industry and both he and Steven Russel of Rite Publishing have freelanced for Paizo; Owen created the Eldritch Bloodline feats that appear in Ultimate Magic, for example. It is easier to get a 3PP to take a risk on a product then it is for a 1PP to do so; SGG has a yearly forum where you can submit your ideas for new SGG products, for example.

Unless you are a 3PP I can't imagine why you might get offended, unless you just don't like people disagreeing with you. Also, weren't you just trying to advocate a 'suck it up' mentality for others earlier? Regardless, that is a moot point since I said "...substandard products or unusable products...." I really don't know the quality of most 3rd party work because the only GM I have ever played with that allows it was when I ran a game that allowed psionics. I will say the mage PrCs from Piazo are pretty substandard. I have read and reread them more times than I can count trying to make one usable. I like harrower, which I cannont play in PFS, and I almost can like bloodmage, but ultimately it just gives up too much for what it gives on my character. Nothing else seems close to usable.

Well, you can sort of see why there aren't many Prestige Classes available in Pathfinder; no body asked for them. After all, there were Prestige Classes in the Advanced Player's Guide, but everyone got so excited for the new archetype mechanic presented in the same book that the prestige class mechanic was ignored for two years; they were even absent from the "definitive guides on magic and combat," which makes very little sense in my opinion.

The best way to start seeing more Prestige Classes out of Paizo is to prove to them that there is still a market in Prestige Classes; you're not going to get them if Paizo thinks they won't sell. First, get any many people as you can convince to buy Paths of Prestige. This is Paizo's only real serious Prestige Class-focused product; you don't buy this book for any other reason that to have more Prestige Classes, after all. Second, make it clear to the 3PPs that new, quality Prestige Classes will sell. Because the 3PPs are much faster at producing new material that Paizo, your feedback will have an impact on a 3PP sooner than it would on Paizo itself, and you can bet that the Paizo teams watch the 3PPs for buying and selling trends in the industry.

Of course, if you don't want to influence the market, that's fine too. Just don't complain about the lack of Prestige Classes if you're not willing to do anything about it.

The best way to get quality PrCs is to make the suppliers aware of demand, as people are here, not to buy substandard products or unusable products that share the name.

Your advice boils down to "throw money at things you don't want in the hopes someone will some day make it the way you want." I do think this is almost the worst advice I have ever heard.

By this argument you only need the fame to pay the difference between a +1 and +2 weapon for the +2.

The cap doesn't make sense in real life, but then again no cap does. It only makes sense mechanically within the context of a game trying to be balanced. I wouldn't accuse capitalism of being balanced.

Extrapolating from:

The "start full-round action" standard action lets you start undertaking a full-round action, which you can complete in the following round by using another standard action.

I think it makes sense that a "full round" can end in the middle of a persons turn, hence letting you cackle so long as you are already in position.

but also......

When the rules refer to a "full round", they usually mean a span of time from a particular initiative count in one round to the same initiative count in the next round. Effects that last a certain number of rounds end just before the same initiative count that they began on.

So I guess it all depends how much weight you put on "usually". The more I read it, the more I think it won't work, and the more I think this hex is not worth taking.

Good question. I haven't played a witch in a very long time but when I did we were under the assumption you could cackle a failed save without really thinking about it; the hex didn't begin at the start of your turn, so ending then isn't technically a full round. I could see decent arguments mounted either way.

I am inclined to think you can cackle it on a fail, otherwise this would never be worth taking. If you can't be sure of the save debuff, just open with the spell that has the same chance of shutting them down.

Updated List-

Ring of Sustenance
Efficient Quiver.
Handy Haversack.
Wand of Cure Light Wounds...Infernal Healing if you don't mind the source of the magic.
Bags of Holding/Pathfinder's Pouch.
Wayfinder with the Prot/Evil (Clear Spindle) Ioun stone that protects against mental effects.
Traveler's Any-tool.
Immovable Rod.
Wand of Lesser Restoration
Cloak of the Hedge Wizard sounds like it could be mixed and matched to anyone's usefulness.
Hat of Disguise.
Ioun Torch (or any object with Continual Flame cast on it. I like magnets, so I can stick em to a gauntlet, helm, or shield, or inside tubes with 'petals' I can flip open and closed.)
Feather Tokens (various sorts)
Shirt of Quick Running (banned from PFS, it's gotta be awesome).
Muleback Cords, if you can live without your Cloak of Resistance.

NON-PF
Travel Cloak subs for Ring of Sustenance to some degree. Hah, in the Jade Regent and current AP's with that cheap cold res! (1 day food/drink, cold res 5, and makes a tent!)
Bloodflower Salve (applies a CminorW on command after being administered, useful for autostabilizing someone downed - this would be the Stabilize cantrip in PF).
Spool of Endless Rope/Robe of Endless Twine if PF. (Comp Adv - for the possibilities, if nothing else)
Augment stones for weapons and armor (MIC) who could not love these?

What criterion are you using to decide if a cheap magic item is added to the list?

No Cracked Dusty Rose Ioun Stone yet? Cheap +1 initiative...

As a side note, I'm more than a little bothered Wand of Infernal Healing isn't on the list for fluff reasons.

page 1

Mask of Stony Demeanor

Aura moderate transmutation; CL 6th
Slot head; Price 500 gp; Weight 4 lbs.

DESCRIPTION

When worn, this mask transforms the wearer's face into a stone statue and its voice into an emotionless monotone. Though it allows the wearer to speak, its facial expressions and voice betray little emotion, granting a +10 competence bonus on Bluff checks made to lie and a +5 competence bonus on Bluff checks made to feint, but also imposes a –5 penalty on Bluff checks made to pass a hidden message.

and

Dusty Rose Prism (Ioun Stone)
Aura strong varied; CL 12th
Cracked: This stone grants a +1 competence bonus on initiative checks. Price: 500 gp.

I will also throw a second in for the muleback cords.

Was just thinking about this, also with a witch. My solution was to learn and memorize mount, phantom steed eventually. And at level 7 to look into upgrading my familiar to something large that I can ride on.

But if there are other good options out there I'd love to hear about them.

I checked into this but came up with a few problems. First, the mount spell just gives you a horse, it says nothing about combat trained. So while most GMs probably wouldn't think twice about it, I have never even seen someone cast this spell, by RAW it should spook in battle.

And unless I was just overlooking it, phantom steed is mysteriously not on the witch list.

Mounts (and animals trained for other purposes)are a powerful addition for any character.

If you have a Druid and someone with the animal handling skill in the party they are pretty easy to get and train, on a similar time scale to making a magic item, whilst they scale comparatively well against animal companions and special class mounts.

See Peterrco's guide to Druids section 3 on animal training.

I am thinking for PFS, so personally training isn't really an option for me.

While I am very interested in the question in the OP, this thread has also got me thinking about something else.

When using twin soul, to return to your body, how many hit points return with you?

Sitri wrote:

There is a lot of disinformation spread on these boards about charm. Take it from the horse's mouth. It most certainly does not, "just make them your friend".

...

That's true, but we're dealing with charming PCs here. The conversation mentioned by the designers has more to do with NPCs.

I have seen nothing to suggest that matters.

There is a lot of disinformation spread on these boards about charm. Take it from the horse's mouth. It most certainly does not, "just make them your friend".

http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2oupu?FAQ-answers-to-previous-locked-threads#2

The charm answer didn't really clear things up for me; the example of tilling a field is still within the vague range of something a friend might do for you. How about ordering a man to murder his wife and children?

Well, the point here is that it is really up to the GM to decide what is inside and outside a creature's general willingness. Tilling a field might really depend on the creature (I dont think Orcs care much for farming), but killing loved ones is probably always going to require a check, and might not even work (the creature might take its own life instead, its not your puppet after all).

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

While branching out can lead to finding some fun mechanics, and I would support Weables happy go lucky outlook for individuals in real life, I find playing goodies quite boring. Every character I have been connected to has some level of taint, it just makes them more interesting to me.

Plus if you are playing a cleric, negative channel is awesome. Consider an aasimar, they have a few negative channel feats that no one else can get.

If you take Urgathoa as a goddess you can pick up Shatter Resolve, which is pretty awesome.

Prerequisites: Channel negative energy class feature, worshiper of Urgathoa.

Benefit: When you damage a creature by channeling negative energy, you fill it with fear. A creature that is affected by your channel negative energy ability and fails its Will save to halve the damage also becomes shaken for a number of rounds equal to the number of dice used to calculate the damage caused by the channel energy ability (so if you deal 1d6 points of damage, the condition lasts 1 round; if 2d6 points of damage, then 2 rounds, and so on).