Telodzrum's page

Depends on what your claiming about a spell. If a player is claiming because a spells flavor text says something that is not covered in the spell rules then you've let the fluff get to be too powerful.

Can you elaborate? For instance, if a spell states "A blinding flash of light emanates from the caster. All creatures withing 30 feet are blinded for 1d6 rounds."

Can a group a mile away see the light (as a pinpoint), or does it only have the effect of the second sentence?

Diego Rossi and Zolthux, I have opened a new thread to cover (and hopefully resolve) the fluff discussion that has appeared in this thread. I look forward to the insight that thread will provide.

This thread has been started to allow for a better forum for the discussion as to the points of Zolthux's post in WHAT ARE SOME THINGS ABOUT THE PATHFINDER RULES THAT YOU THINK MOST PEOPLE DO NOT KNOW?.

The first line on the description of spells and feats is for flavor and should largely be ignored when a ruling question comes into play. Ie: you CAN empower a cure spell. You cannot use shatter to deafen an opponent (Loud ringing noise anyone?) True strike cannot tell you where an invisible opponent will be, nor what action any opponent can take, etc etc

Tiny Hut is an amazing spell to use during battle from a tactical standpoint.

Restoration has a one-minute casting time. So do summon spells.

Spontaneous casters only need 15 minutes to regain their spells, which must be spent meditating (or in the case of bards, singing/performing)

Zolthux wrote:

The first line on the description of spells and feats is for flavor and should largely be ignored when a ruling question comes into play. Ie: you CAN empower a cure spell. You cannot use shatter to deafen an opponent (Loud ringing noise anyone?) True strike cannot tell you where an invisible opponent will be, nor what action any opponent can take, etc etc

No.

1) This is not a rule. It is an opinion.
2) It is not valid for all the spell. Again, an opinion.
3) Arbitrating deciding that a section of a spell is only fluff if a very bad idea.

Following your way of reasoning, the "loud ringing noise" of the shatter spell is only fluff, so it can be safely discarded and the spell don't make any sound.

]"3) Arbitrating deciding that a section of a spell is only fluff if a very bad idea."

I'm specifically referring to the very first line in which is tries to give the players an idea of the flavor of the spell as opposed to the actual ruling on it.

Zolthux responded:

In either case, I did said that they should be largely ignored, not always.

And, finally, Diego Rossi responded:

Let look the fist few spells in the core rulebook in alphabetical order:

Acid arrow: fluff
Acid fog: "Acid fog creates a billowing mass of misty vapors like the solid fog spell." absolutely not fluff.
Acid splash: fluff
Aid: the first row is the whole description of the spell. Absolutely not.
Air walk: "The subject can tread on air as if walking on solid ground." It is indispensable to comprehend what the spell do, relevant in the mechanics (you don't need the fly skill, you can use achrobatics). absolutely not fluff.
Alarm: fluff
Align weapon: "Align weapon makes a weapon chaotic, evil, good, or lawful, as you choose." absolutely not fluff.
Alter self: "When you cast this spell, you can assume the form of any Small or Medium creature of the humanoid type." absolutely not fluff.

So your rule that apply to most spell apply to 3 spells out of 8.

Again, it is not a rule and not even a good rule of thumb.

So, in the interest of further clarification (and the correctness of the list that the above mentioned thread catalouges), what is the correct ruling?

Oprah

I like Neutral Good in the service of a Lawful Good deity/order/society.

The problem is what is " a bit of useful information about that monster".
"It is a vampire, an undead monster."
or " ... and a typical undead abilities are"
or ".... and he can dominate people, give negative levels and regenerate"
or ".... and he can killed only if ...."
and so on.

Saying of a monster "it has a high AC" is a relevant information? his type is a relevant information (you are already giving a big indication simply stating what kind of Knowledge skill is used).

Oh, don't get me wrong, I agree the knowledge check is vague and problematic.

There exists a spectrum, from the [Knowing about the creature allows you to know it's deepest secrets and how to counter it totally] to [You see it's an Orc]. I looked into this at length. I'm new, but I love rules and I love Inquisitors and this is crucial to the class. Ultimately we decided that it was left vague purposefully -- as the spectrum is not only broad, but exceedingly diverse -- and that the players/DM should decide on a stricture for the dc to be based on.

I am sorry that I brought it up in this thread, as it is exceedingly difficult to monitor and check (as Howie23 knew and mentioned) and liable to be filled with clutter like this post.

I am more than willing to further discuss this topic, but please open a new thread so that I can continue monitoring this one and updating my (publicly available) .pdf/.doc.

I'll be checking and adding the new entries to the lists this upcoming week.

Verse, I am currently playing an Inquisitor and the skill Monster Lore made me very interested in your third point. My GM and I decided that we would be playing with the dc listed in the PFSRD (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/skills/knowledge). The dc, listed there, is 10+CR to know common creatures' abilities and weakness; it increases to 15+CR for uncommon enemies.

I don't have the drive to go look for an actual table in the books, but that's what I've been playing with (read: should not be taken as the rule).

I start with the backstory first, then move onto race and alignment (based on the backstory), then I pick a fitting class, and finally I match the archetypes/domains/etc. with the backstory. Finally, after I am happy with the results of the above, I try to min/max the ability scores and align the skills with the backstory and class.

For example, my most recent character is a Human Inquisitor with the Infiltrator archetype and Heresy inquisition.

I started the above character by deciding that he was a bastard child of a narcissistic minor noble and a kitchen servant. When the pregnancy was discovered the matron of the house accused my mother of cavorting with demons and sentenced her to death. My mother birthed me in secret and fled when I was a newborn. She found us shelter in a cave and raised me for a few years by harvesting nearby cacti and hunting small game. On my fourth birthday she died and I fled deep into the cave. I was found there, crying and starved, by a wounded gold dragon. He had been injured by a red dragon in a recent battle and was near death. I brought him trapped game and nurtured him back to life. He returned each kindness by instructing me in the ways of good and law (and a little bit about how awesome gold and gems are). But, I been told of too much evil by my mother to accept all that he said.

That's the backstory.

Next, I went Human and Neutral Good. Based on the politics of my conception and the two creatures who raised me.

Next, I chose Inquisitor, as it is the class that I most identified with divine vengeance (this character would not do with the handcuffing of a Paladin rank)

As for archetypes, I thought that the backstory would require my character to be suspect of others and willing to compromise to do what is right. That allowed me to take the Heresy inquisition and the Infiltrator archetype.

Then I rolled abilities (our group does a 4d6 drop lowest and reroll 1s) I placed stats accordingly (after racial modifiers), 18 - Str 12 - Dex 14 - Con 11 - Int 18 - Wis 10 - Cha

I then went about placing skill points. This part is mundane given my subtype choice. I emphasized Intimidate, Diplomacy, Bluff, and Sense Motive.

That is (a long post) how I design my characters. It allows for me to min/max, but also play a character that I feel a real connection to and one that I am interested in playing for a long time.

As the above have commented, there's nothing stopping the skeletons from fighting in broad daylight.

However, if you have a version of undead that cannot suffer the sunlight, my suggestion is to allow them to create a dense fog overhead. One that obscures all but the strongest light -- think dense swamp conditions on a chilly morning. This will allow for no loss in sight range, but lower the light level to one that does not damage the undead.

Using a Sp or Su ability is a Standard Action unless otherwise stated.

It is a Free Action to maintain an aura. It is a Free Action to cancel an aura.

I would only allow for saves when the aura attempts to apply the confusion status (e.g. initial round, successive rounds for those who succeeded on the save, and when the confusion runs out -- for reapplication).

I'm trying to think of ways to help you out, but I'm coming up short.

This is a great thread. I'd never played DnD before three months ago. I pretty much ignored it all my life. The closest that I ever came to playing it was looking at the Combat Log in Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic and commenting on how intricate and interesting the system was.

Fast forward to this year, my girlfriend has been playing since she was in middle school. She's been DM'ing for several years now. She finally talks me into joining her game and seeing how I like it. I struggled through the character creation and the numbers on the sheet; but, I got a lot of help and figured it out.

Three months later and I'm fully hooked. I mention my story here, not because I'm a kid, nor do I have one. I'm a twenty-eight year-old attorney who can't wait for his next session. She says that when I'm researching the system and building my character have the grin of a kid with its new Christmas present.

This game isn't just about magic. It is magic.

Something that I've been toying with is an Inquisitor with both the Infiltrator archetype and the Conversion Inquisition. With this combination you can add your Wisdom Modifier to your Bluff and Diplomacy skills (Infiltrator) and you get to replace your Charisma Modifier in the Bluff, Diplomacy, and Intimidate skills with your Wisdom Modifier (Conversion).

Your 20-point buy would allow you to add three or four points to these skills, twice over. Considering that they are all class skills and the 6+Int skill ranks granted an Inquisitor you would be an excellent face for the party.

Additionally the ability to fake your alignment pairs nicely with your ability to talk your way out of situations. Add in the Bluff bonuses and the fact that Disguise is a class skill and you're an instant spy/diplomat/negotiator.

Be a human and take an extra feat for your face skills, or be an Orc and intimidate the crap out of everyone.

Other things that make the Inquisitor a great choice for your group:
1) Healing: It never hurts to have a party face who can help the heavy hitters out.
2) Buffs: Guidance, Bless, Knowledge skills, and Lend Judgement all help the party in and out of combat -- and that's just at first level.
3) BAB 3/4, deity weapon proficiency, armor proficiency, and Teamwork Feats allow you to be a decent combatant, even after focusing on out-of-combat skills and abilities.

Don't forget the Dwarven penchant for locating gems. There should be some sort of easter egg hunt/gem scavenger hunt.

kyrt-ryder wrote:

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

No special diagonal rule = square fireballs. :(

Special diagonal rule = jagged fireballs :(

Which is still at least an approximation of a circle at map resolution.

So, you're saying that hexagonal grids have a higher resolution, as a battle approximation?

Nothing dwarves do is silly... So be careful of any racist stereotyping, or you may have a horde of axe wielding, beer swilling, dour, stubborn, Scottish accented, dwarves banging on your door. :-)

That actually sounds delightful.

I recommend the Keg Toss. It's always a part of my Festivus celebrations and it should fit Dwarven society nicely.

It's a cool idea, but unfortunately it won't work. That just sets it as your CL, and dispelling darkness spells is based off of spell level.

Ahh... that makes sense. Thanks.

I am making a new Inquisitor and I was looking at taking Magical Talent for Light. My thinking is that this will allow me to cast the spell at higher levels (eventually) and thus be better at dispelling magical darkness.

1) Is this a good idea?
2) Is there another Inquisitor orison that would benefit more from it?

I must say though, that I am a bit suspicious of the OP, as I find the first post to reflect a very good grasp of RPG's vernacular (and DnD/PFRPG in particular), as exemplified, in my opinion, by the use of the "Pally" expression which I am not used to read in noobs' posts.

The description of a caricatural situation and a profile with only 2 posts smack of troll to me. I might be wrong though ;-)

The diminutive "pally" is not unique to PFRPG or d20 in-general. I've seen the term used as short for paladin in every game that I've played where paladins where present.

Lawful Good doesn't mean Lawful Stupid. That top-left alignment is a problem for a lot of players. It's not just neutral characters that can weigh options. Lawful Good characters aren't one-dimensional, they have ideals that they believe in; this doesn't mean that they need to be short-sighted.

Yes, LG means upholding order and virtue, but people far too often overlook the willingness of LG characters to understand the concept of "greater good." The very idea of working toward redeeming chaotic or evil characters escapes the consideration of many players playing, or playing alongside, a LG alignment.

You need to remember that your alignment doesn't play your character, your character plays its alignment. Alignments are not character archetypes, they are an oversimplification of a character's worldview. There exist a myriad of nuances within the nine alignments. My LG character could make decisions that would make another LG balk, and still remain in the light of his god.

Were-owlbear anyone?

ooh, what about a were-manbearpig?

No, NO, a Dire Were-Manbearpig.

Lincoln Hills wrote:

I suspect Watership Down is its own genre.

(upon noticing the actual topic) Oh, they took off the dampeners on lycanthropes? Boy, my PCs will sure be surprised when they meet their first were-cryohydra!

Well, OK; it still has to be an animal. But that doesn't stop a determined GM anyway.

So... no weregeranium?

I'm a flower -- rawr.

They also stack if they are untyped. Or circumstance. Or dodge, don't ask me how can that happen.

So, it's a far cry from an easy question...

My understanding of untyped bonuses is that "untyped" is a misnomer. There are a great deal of untyped bonuses, all of which stack with each other and other bonus types, but not with another "untyped bonus" of the same variety.

Depends on the bonus type.

This. If one is a morale bonus and the other circumstance (to randomly pick two) they stack. If they are both the same type they don't stack.

If you have to move your arm in mathematically precise arcs, you are not casting spells in combat.

Not if you fail your concentration check, you're not.

What about a herbivore? All the dinosaurs thus far seem to be focused on combat. I'd like to see one that is more of a buff/out-of-combat aide.

EDIT: Is it "an" herbivore? This is giving me a headache.

With Howie23's permission I adapted his list to a .pdf/.doc format and changed the layout for readability. The document is viewable in Google Docs, here and downloadable as a .pdf here.

Also, be aware that if there are wounded allies and also wounded enemies, your channel energy would heal both your allies and your enemies (if they're living and within range) unless you have the Selective Channeling feat.

This is why taking Selective Channeling is the only feat I consider, at level one, for good or neutral (who choose to channel positive) clerics.

Got into email contact with Mr. Whitlark. He said it was very casual (no signup or anything). Just be at the tables when it's scheduled to go on.

You want creepy on a level that will damage a psyche?

Make a corridor filled with the mannequins from Condemned: Criminal Origins (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FPP5Ja7YNas).

Make it so they are unable to be damaged or do damage when being observed.

Very similar to the weeping angels from Doctor Who (S3E10 - Blink - 2007), just much more terrifying and unsettling.

Never played 3.5, started playing Pathfinder three months ago. It's my first d20.

Isn't the entire party supposed to be covering each other anyway?

Cover? Yes. But, it's just selfish to expect the fighter to carry your unconscious body for three days because you took ability damage and and went down harder than Greece's bond rating.

I see where this could be a problem. I'm not sure that it's a bad thing though. I don't like running Hack & Slash style Dungeon Crawl games anyways. My games aren't just full of random mobs that exist only to glorify the heros. There should be consequences. Combat is a b*#%& and should not be entered lightly. Grand Warlord Kills Alot should be just as susceptible to a sword in the gut as Farmer McAverage. I guess it's the CP2020 in me. In that system even the most experienced combat veteran can be one shotted if you're smart about it.

I agree with you:

- I don't like hack 'n slash either
- The world should be populated with a (reasonable) number of battles that threaten TPK
- The heroes should suffer consequences of actions (here, not checking for traps, being too loud/disruptive, alerting agents, etc.)
- A lucky stab should injure a character like a hanging breaking ball does a pitcher

That said, I believe that combat should be dynamic. When you start handing out penalties for not going first or casting buffs early you remove that possibility from the fight.

Again, this system may work much better at higher level -- where the penalties won't kick in until a few rounds into combat. However, at lower levels these rules would require a GM to tailor scenarios to eliminate surprise rounds and minimize the threat of numerous encounters. Indeed, at lower levels it would require the entire party to have a higher initiative than the melee; lest the tank (or beefy melee, as it were) become ineffective as they enter the chamber. This ineffectiveness would force a reasonable BBEG to focus those doing damage and whittle down the party to nothing.

I would love to see a series of rules that force characters to show the damage they have suffered as in-world details. I simply cannot imagine a structure that is neither too weak to matter, nor too strong to not work to that fatal detriment of a party (again, and I know that I belabor this point, especially to lower-level parties).

Maybe I was thinking of the one that actually is a full round action, which is the one which negate sthe ability to make AoOs.

And it would depend on the spell. If it was a ranged touch attack, I would cast it first, then go total defense, so as to miss the attack penalty...

I thought it was a full-round action too. Upon consultation of the SRD (and confirmation in the Core Rulebook)it is a Standard Action. Additionally, I cannot find a penalty to attack in the Total Defense entry. Can you elaborate? As this thread add all new kinds of intriguing possibilities to my Intimidation Machine/Melee/Tank Inquisitor.

The way I read this is:

Witch: Add one spell from the witch spell list to the witch's familiar. This spell must be at least one level below the highest spell level [the witch] can cast. If the witch ever replaces her familiar, the new familiar knows these bonus spells.

Wizard: Add one spell from the wizard spell list to the wizard's spellbook. This spell must be at least one level below the highest spell level [the wizard] can cast.

I can see how the unaltered text would allow for you interpretation; however, I believe that the intent is clear.

The plain language does not lend itself more to your interpretation than a contrary one; therefore, I believe that the clear intent wins out -- it's the highest level spell that you can cast of that class.

Thank you for the promptness and succinctness of your response.

What happens if I use an immediate action while in a state of Total Defense.

Example:

Round One, Initiative Count 21) Inquisitor casts Compel Hostility and takes five-foot step.
Round Two, Initiative Count 21) Inquisitor invokes total defense.
Round Two, Initiative count 16) Goblin attempts to attack Rogue, Inquisitor invokes (as an immediate action) Compel Hostility on the Goblin.

Can the Inquisitor still use Compel Hostility in this second round?

If yes, what is his AC on the Goblin attack (still +4? does it change his stance to Fighting Defensively and thus a +2? Or, does he lose his AC bonus, drop his defensive stance and get his standard AC).

What can he do next turn? Immediate actions take up your swift action for the subsequent turn. So, can the Inquisitor go full defensive on his next turn (R3I21)?

Does anyone know, or use, a good interactive PFRPG character sheet? All that I've been able to find, so far, are versions that don't support the APG, are little more than 3.5 sheets with "Pathfinder" written at the top, or don't include archetypes.

It wasn't a problem with my last character, but now I'm playing an Inquisitor with the Heresy Inquisition and none of the forms that I've seen support the changes to skills based on archetype.

I really like the auto calculations -- as it seems that whenever I fill in a whole sheet by myself I find errors on gameday and have to make the corrections at the table (which both looks shady and is embarrassing). That said, if I have to write in the changes that my archetype causes, I may as well just fill in the whole sheet by hand.

Any help or guidance is greatly appreciated.

I agree with your assessment of the problem. However, I don't believe that this is a proper solution.

The main problem I have with penalties to actions after suffering damage is that it causes combat to snowball in one side's favor. This is especially a concern at lower levels when a solid hit in the first round could cause a player to suffer (at least) a -2 to all actions for the remainder of the fight. At lower levels a -2 or, gods forbid, -4 is going to neuter a character's damage, to hit, saves, etc.

It's the to hit and saves that I have the largest problem with. If the party is losing a fight they shouldn't have the odds stacked against them in such a manner. This model prevents a momentum swing in combat.

Here's my nightmare scenario:

The party is ambushed by a group of archers.
- The party takes damage in the suprise round
- The archers will most likely have a high enough initiative take their turn before the party
- The archers are most likely more than one round's distance away from the party (at least the melee)

In the above scenario a low level party would all be suffering a -2 (or more) penalty before the melee even had a chance to attack.

I rock a Samsung Galaxy Tab. It's perfect for what I need: rule books, browser, dice app, etc. Check it out: http://www.samsung.com/global/microsite/galaxytab/10.1/feature.html .

I read the .pdf all the way through before my first game a few months ago. Last month I read the APG and both Ultimate Magic and Combat.

It's certainly a dense read, but after going through law school it just seemed like another set of statutes and commentary.

It has certainly paid off, as I've pointed out several rules to the more seasoned players at our game.

Inquisitor of Gozreh. Take Weather as your domain and use a trident (favored weapon).

Thanks a lot.

I've only been playing for a few months (always wanted to try D&D, but never had a chance). I love how helpful this community is.

The Haunting of Harrowstone (part one of the Carrion Crown adventure path) could be right up your alley. It’s probably too long for a single session one shot, but you could do just the haunted prison as a 3rd level adventure and cut all the back story, research, stuff in town. Or use some of this and cut the size of the prison.

I’ll look through my Dungeon magazine stuff for some more ideas, I know there are a few good, low level, horror themed adventures for 3.5 and 2nd edition that I have come across.

Hmm, looks like a haunted prison? Sounds nice. Given our group we'll probably want to do all the roleplaying stuff in town and then do a few fights inside.

Gonna have to hit up the neighbor tomorrow to see if he has the .pdf.

What level range are you looking for? What rule set? 3.0, PF ... would you be willing to convert something from 2nd edition rules?

The party is level three; however that said, we are not averse to popping up several levels for a holiday event.

I am more than willing to convert from any available source material.

Or plays a thematic focus that requires lots of spells to make work. But thankfully even then you honestly don't need that many levels of human favored class spells.

I agree wholeheartedly. The thematic focus should not be limited by class alone. If you are playing an Oracle who casts a lot of spells that doesn't mean that you should have just played a straight caster.

Does anyone have a recommendation for a module that can be used for a thematic Halloween session.

My GF is our DM and she is putting together a Halloween party for a bunch of our friends. The preparty is going to be our biweekly game. Since she is doing all the party planning I promised to find the module for her to run.

After pouring over all the 3.0 on materials that I could get my hands on, I have yet to find something that would work (a haunted house would be perfect).

Does anyone have a suggestion as to what would thematically fit this motif?

This template really strikes me as something that runs parallel to the overarching concepts behind a few of the Inquisitor archetypes.

Have you tried using a Hex grid instead of a box grid for fights? They make movement much easier to calculate and still allow for each tile to have six adjacent tiles.

Also, putting the initiative order on a whiteboard (visible to everyone) can really speed up the game -- it allows players to plan their turns in a more strategic and easier manner.