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

Volaran's page

290 posts. Alias of Imperial Khador.


1 to 50 of 290 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

Firewarrior44 wrote:


If not then you absolutely talk to the GM and the player, it is (in my opinion) incredibly bad form to create a character with the explicit purpose of murdering another player character. In my opinion such a player should be told to stop or leave the group.

I've really got to agree with this one. I can be fine with evil characters, because even evil characters can have friends. I really dislike campaigns where a player is trying to compete with the GM to be the party's great antagonist.

That said, if nothing has come up in character yet, then it may be an empty threat. Or alternately, I suppose he might try to kill a paladin, but not your paladin. I've had players/characters who have a stated hatred of all paladins, with the exception of the party paladin. "Oh Steve? Yeah, he's got a bit of a stick up his butt, but he's all right."

PRD Monk Flurry of Blows Description wrote:
A monk applies his full Strength bonus to his damage rolls for all successful attacks made with flurry of blows, whether the attacks are made with an off-hand or with a weapon wielded in both hands.

I think people are interested in stories where characters change and develop. The paladin, more than any other class, is held up as an ideal. If a paladin were to remain as this ideal all the way through a 20-level campaign, that can potentially be fairly boring, particularly since they're likely to have been exposed to many situations that challenge their beliefs.

Stories of characters with high ideals stumbling, falling, and picking themselves back up again are interesting. I don't think every paladin needs to fall, but I like seeing them learn to loosen up a bit at least.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Gestalt is good for single player campaigns, so good thoughts there. NPC allies are good, but if the GM ends up playing what are effectively 3 or 4 PCs, that can sap a lot of player enjoyement.

The suggestion of Jaunt to let the player control multiple PCs is a good one, but in my own experience, its value heavily depends on the type of campaign you're running. If the player is mostly interested in the combat aspect, then it should work fine. If they're more of a heavy roleplayer, keeping track of several PCs can be more frustrating.

Just as a GM, I'd recommend keeping in mind that not every combat needs to end in death for either PCs or adversaries. Opportunities for withdrawal, or situations where a PC can be defeated, but captured, etc. can be helpful.

One thing I've found that PCs like in single-player or small group campaigns is infiltration/stealth scenarios. In a normal campaign where only one PC is likely to have decent stealth abilities, this can be frustrating for the rest of the group, as they either have to sit on the sideline, or risk ruining it by participation, but a single-PC campaign can be perfect for this.

I remember a few characters who's suffered temporary reductions in charisma. In those cases, I think they all played the character as very non-reactive, or at least non-verbal. Not offensive really, but one-word answers, speaking only when spoken to, etc.

Could you clarify if you are the GM or another player? Advice to you will likely depend on which of these is the case.

For example, if you are the GM, the advice might skew towards how to create opportunities for her character to get the kind of political clout. Mixing politics into your adventure planning and such, so they have an idea of who their likely allies or enemies would be in such an endeavour, or creating opportunities where she or other party members can be put into leadership situations. If she's just a starting character, maybe create or locate a character with similar goals who could mentor her.

As a fellow player, you could advise her to look for those sorts of opportunities, or back her up when she is in a leadership sort of role.

That said, a lot of this will depend on the type of campaign this is. If it is an adventure path (other thank Kingmaker), it will depend on how far the GM is willing to go off-script, though her character could still have these goals and her behaviour could be defined by them.

If it is a homebrew campaign, the GM is likely to have more flexibility, and most GMs I know love when players have long term goals. It is good to let the GM know out of character, because it can give them hooks to use in upcoming sessions.

Good article. The GMs I've gamed with for many years have usually laid out a social contract, that indicates the players should create characters that get along. Even if the character is disagreeable in general, they're loyal to party and the party's goals. Even evil folks have friends.

This has mitigated, but not entirely removed the "I'm just playing my character" sort of disruption.

Individual mileage may vary though. I had the pleasure of watching a Kingmaker party implode over a betrayal a few weeks ago, and the whole group seemed to be having a great time with in-fighting.

I'll add my vote for Kingmaker: Sound of a thousand Screams, due to insufficient foreshadowing for the PCs. As the GM, you get some foreshadowing, but it really needs to be re-worked in order for the PCs to pick up on it.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

We always called them "Archpeasants".

Sounds neat. I'll give it a listen.

For some context here, Elton, I haven't had a lot of direct interaction with you over the years, but I do recall many posts by you here under a few different names, and on other boards like ENWorld.

I understand you've acknowledged the need for an editor for the actual Player's Guide and your wiki, but I think that cannot be emphasized enough. As you yourself state:

EltonJ wrote:
*shrug* I'm not perfect when it comes to expressing myself on paper. *shrug*

This cannot be overstated. You are attempting to bring interest to a product that you have written, and the Kickstarter pitch is unfortunately a fairly good example of your writing style. Your writing always conveys your own enthusiasm about your work and your subjects of interest (Alexander the Great, psionics, realistic campaign weather patterns, public nudity, etc), but does a poor job of enticing others to share that enthusiasm.

I understand that you are not sure how much it would cost to have an editor for the entire project or the wiki, but perhaps you might have a friend or colleague who would be willing to edit just the Kickstarter page for you. If so, I think it would help your pitch immensely. I'd strongly urge you to reach out to other small publishers to check on editor costs though.

As for the art, I actually don't mind the idea of using real-world maps, particularly if the setting is based on a particular era of history, but the character and cover art shown don't sell the product very well.

The hero looks like fairly generic poser art (though I realize you've said in a previous thread that you use a different 3D modeler), and the helmet on the cover mock-up also doesn't grab me.

The idea of a Hellenistic, psionic-focused, near-real-world campaign setting is already going to be fairly niche, so some attention-grabbing art could go a long way. In addition to linking to Yama Orce's Deviantart, as was suggested if you were working with them, perhaps it would be worth seeing if he would let you use a piece of existing character art for the mockup.

I like that you have a 2-page mockup of the layout, but I would suggest that the image should be large enough for the text to be legible. This might be another good opportunity to showcase the editing. Have a side-by-side comparison of the existing wiki page for the topic, and then the mock-up can have post-edited text.

Again, if you are unable to find an editor that would just work on a page or two, I'd suggest asking a friend who conveys themselves well in writing. It is only two pages, and a mock-up after all, so it wouldn't need to show the true final quality, but it should be an improvement over the wiki.

Regarding the rewards. For a first Kickstarter for a niche pdf product like this, I wouldn't suggest offering pledge rewards of more than $50. You can always offer higher reward tiers if it looks like the Kickstarter is going to take off. You're more likely to get interest from a large number of people willing to drop a few dollars than a small number willing to spend $150 towards this kind of product. You may even want to scale your base pledge down to $5 for the pdf.

I think the problem with assigning another priest or paladin as the PC's adviser was basically spelled out in the original post. The previous head of Solku's Sarenites retired and left the PC paladin temporarily in charge (suggesting she was likely the highest ranking paladin available).

Any adviser-priest or paladin is probably going to have to come from outside of Solku, and since it is the most prominent stronghold of Sarenrae in Katapesh, probably outside the region, which is also more complicated by Sarenrae not having that strict of a church hierarchy (IIRC). ie, the priests in Solku don't really have anyone further up the chain of command, though there are definitely more powerful clergy elsewhere.

Moreover, we have the situation with the PC inquisitor, which complicates matters. Right in the class description, inquisitors are permitted a bit of leeway when going outside of their religion's ethos, but the PC took an already shady plan and turned it into attempted murder.

So, there are a few things that need to dealt with. Solku is a stronghold of Sarenrae, and was founded by Sarenites. It is perfectly legitimate in my mind for their clergy to be tried by the church. In fact, it would not surprise me if that were a tradition of the city. It also doesn't surprise me that exile/excommunication would be a punishment for these kinds of crimes. Sarenrae is a diety of mercy and healing after all.

That said, given that the crime was again another religious leader, I think the lord of the city was more than justified demanding this be handled by him. I think the punishment dealt out to the paladin was extremely harsh, particularly given that he was doing this to the interim head of Sarenrae's faithful in Solku, among which I believe Lord Kel Kalar counts himself. I could see this harming him politically.

So, the net result here seems to be that the inquisitor was excommunicated and exiled by the church, but the paladin was exiled by the city council.

This seems to me that it would provide a good opportunity for both PCs. Since the paladin will be protecting this remote town for a few years, she likely won't have access to someone who can simply cast commune. However, if she still has her powers, she can be reasonably sure that she acted in good faith.

I'd still suggest a hound archon arrive in this remote town to act as an adviser. Sarenrae obviously doesn't intervene in mortal affairs directly very often, but a faithful servant from the celestial realms is a clear sign of approval at a time when the paladin is probably at her lowest.

Moreover, this might be a good time for the inquisitor to grow as well. Class directives or not, the inquisitor clearly acted against Sarenrae's teachings, and I wouldn't be surprised if the goddess had stripped some or all of his powers. Yet, if the paladin intends to act against the church establishment in Solku, she might be able to use the inquisitor's help, and thus help him redeem himself. Paladins do have to walk a stricter line than inquisitors, and someone more worldly or politically inclined could be a great help in the days to come. Unless he's just a crazy murder hobo, because his previous actions could indicate that as well ;)

(BTW, thanks for starting this topic. I generally avoid the boards this days, but have run a campaign in and around Solku previously, so I find it an interesting area, and like contributing to the discussion.)

There are some issues there. Sarenrae is the goddess of healing, so I could see her preferring a non-violent solution, but the Keleshite version of her religion is known for being...more brutal than necessary, and if I recall, that is where the Katapeshi branch of the faith originates.

The paladin retaining her power is a very telling sign. To me, that suggests she is on the right path, and she has suffered for her understanding.

Solku is also in a precarious position, as it is threatened by gnollish hoards, and the martial might of the Saerenites are a big part in holding them at bay. Would Sarenrae want opposing factions within her church if it would mean the whole city could get wiped out?

As a GM, I might be inclined to send the PC a vision, and then a minor PC as an advisor (perhaps a hound archon). Particularly if the archon were to work with the PC openly, this could be a sign that she has the favour of Sarenrae, mitigating the violence of an intra-church conflict.

Sad to see that the final mockup is still the double-deck box, but as Vic mentioned above, this probably means they didn't have a choice.

Still a buy for me.

I've had a lot of fun with a few Fiasco sessions over the last year or so.

On the fantasy front, I have two 13th Age games starting up. One as a player, and one as a GM. There's something highly appealing about a single, one-sided page for a character sheet.

Gauthok wrote:
I'm somewhat of an optimizer for my group, but I try not to stomp on other people's builds or make characters that are just plain better than everyone else's. Each player needs to have their chance to shine.

This is a good philosophy to have, and there can definitely be a lot of fun to be had being creative within specific limits.

I kind of agree with Apocalypso. If he's building his own guides to things that he wants to do, and wants to run a rotating group of PCs that can come and leave as he pleases, it sounds like he might be happier GMing.

Even as an experienced GM, I generally prefer limiting the source material PCs are allowed, simply because I'm not going to be familiar with every little thing. With a group of newbies, this becomes even more important.

I wouldn't recommend speeding up leveling either. I find it much more difficult to get players used to the game when they come in at higher levels, or level very quickly. People forget which powers and abilities their characters possess.

I wouldn't suggest that his fun is less important than the other players or GM, but it isn't more important either. It might be time to have that discussion. "Your constant demands to have your way make me not want to play anymore" is probably a good starting point.

Edit: Also noticed this was your first post. Welcome to the boards, and to Pathfinder!

I'll echo what a lot of other people have said here, but I might as well chime in.

My groups usually meet every week, with occasional interruptions. We're lucky if we can get 2 sessions in December, for example.

When running 5-6 hour sessions weekly, I've finished APs in about 7-8.

Most recently, I finished running Jade Regent over the course of 40 2-3 hour sessions. It took about a year.

As far as rules to save time:
- Follow the advancement track. If the adventure says PCs should be X level by Y point in the adventure, just level them at that point.
- Keep distractions to a minimum. I prefer for only the GM to have a laptop or tablet present, but will occasionally make allowances for other devices that are offline. Might want to also consider smart phones left off or kept in a different room.
- DM's rules calls are not to be argued with during the session. Any disputes can be brought up between sessions.
- The fewer the books, the faster things go. When a PC's feats and spells are spread across a dozen different books, it can take a long time to look up. At this point, I'd strongly consider limiting to the Core, the APG and the adventure path itself.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Interesting project, but I can't see picking this up. Even the download-only on the Big Finish site is $12.99, and I still consider that too much to pay for an hour-long audio drama. Best of luck though.

Combat Monster wrote:

Ban electronics from the table.

If he makes comments that are obviously metagaming net him a -4 to hit, AC, skills, etc for that encounter.

I've seen this one in use before, and be an effective deterrent. If the player is wondering why another party member can hit a specific AC and they can't, "You are unaware of all the modifiers in effect" is a great catch-all answer.

It could even be treated as a curse, and removed as such...until it comes back again.

StDrake wrote:
What about making an agreement with the player on using the knowledge to benefit the story? make him an agent of the GM? if he likes to spoil himself that's his choice (or sometimes necessity - ever had the wonderful luck of choosing exactly the spells that would get no use at all at a given situation? or walk into a situation that you know would make you depend everything on good dice rolls..and your dice never roll high), the matter is that he doesn't spoil the game for others

I was asked to join a friend's Crimson Throne campaign after I had run the entire adventure path itself. This was a but more above board of course, as the GM knew I had run the adventure path.

I tried to avoid offering solutions, but did make myself a resource for offering information about the region, tied my back story in, etc. The GM used me for plot hooks several times.

If he's going to cheat regardless, and deny doing it, this may be an option if you can't kick him from the game.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm going to dissent a bit here. I've considered similar house rules for particular campaigns. At the kind of level where you're dealing with +3 or higher weapons, DR 5, 10 or even 15 isn't much of a hindrance to most front line characters.

As a GM, this seems like it could be a bit more about giving certain creatures a but more survivability, rather than forcing combatants to keep a weapon of every type on hand to absolutely maximize damage dealt by PCs.

If you have another inquisitor in the party, there is the Shared Judgement Feat, and the Lend Judgement (and Greater version) spell.

We had this occur in one of the groups I GMed towards the end of the Crimson Throne adventure path.

Crimson Throne:
This was due to a Harrow Deck of Many Things, and actually resulted in several evil duplicates. Some of which have made their way to other campaigns.

The character in question was an oracle of wind and a devout Shelynite. She was very repressed in some ways. One of the other party members (a wizard) was very casually derogatory to her throughout the entire campaign, but she kept putting it aside for the greater good.

I played the evil duplicates as completely lacking that impulse control. This manifested in other ways, but it meant that they would constantly target him, humiliate him, spite him, etc.

There is a portion of the adventure path where a large portion of Korvosa's treasury is recovered. The wizard was quite happy, and had made clear that he was going to take as much as possible for his own goals.

The original oracle had a string of greater prayer breads...and so did the duplicates. One of them, knowing his plan, used the Bead of Summons to call forth an efreeti and wished the entire treasury to be fused into a ball of lead out of spite.

Another one of the duplicates sought out a nosferatu vampire the party had come to an agreement with earlier in the campaign and bargained her way into vampire-hood just to better oppose the party's goals.

I liked the idea of an evil duplicate that isn't set on immediately destroying you. If they are you, with the good/evil switch flipped, they can imitate you perfectly, know all your allies and enemies, etc. They can make an excellent enemy.

As for the evil duplicates in this case, the original oracle was granted a miracle by Shelyn and asked for the duplicates to be freed of their compulsion...because Shelynites are all about the love.

I'd have to agree with other posters here. The 1d6 lethal damage suffered with no save for being in -20 or below temps is covered in the first sentence of Endure Elements

Endure Elements wrote:
"A creature protected by endure elements suffers no harm from being in a hot or cold environment."

The damage from the environment is described as lethal, but not cold-energy damage, so I would say it falls clearly under that sentence as far as the spell goes. The words 'no harm' are pretty clear.

The fortitude saves for cold environments are not just for non-lethal damage, but for frostbite (which is treated as fatigue), so I can see it warranting a special call-out. No FAQ needed.

Now that said, when I'm looking at various cold weather-gear, I'm only seeing it as giving bonuses to the fortitude save for non-lethal damage, and nothing about the lethal damage, which does seem like an oversight.

Back in 3.5 (and I will admit I still use these rules), I was fold of how the environment books, and I think even the DMG treated hot and cold. In addition to more temperature bands, with penalties not being quite that severe, warm clothing had the effect of you treating the temperature as warmer than it is.

I often frown on using real-world environment explanations, but I live in a city where the temperature regularly drops below -20 F in the winter. I have trouble picturing a northern village where a commoner ducks out to grab firewood and dies from exposure in 2 minutes (2d6 lethal damage) even if they've bundled up ;)

Minor thing. I notice that when doing a search for a spell in the prd, the mythic version shows up before the normal version of the spell.

I post some variant on this whenever I notice a similar topic come up. I haven't read the full 350+ posts though.

With some groups, any resource one character has is expected to be used in full for the benefit of the party. This is definitely metagaming, but that isn't necessarily a bad thing.

In the games I've played it, we usually take the opposite approach, particularly since magic item creation does take real time where the crafter is effectively out of action. A character who takes a magic item creation feat is not obligated to use it for the benefit of any other character. ie. The fighter might want that +5 longsword for 25000gp instead of 50000gp, but I'm the one that has to spend the next 50 days creating it. Their discounted price isn't worth my time, etc.

That said, groups vary, and the meta-gaming argument is not an invalid one. Sometimes it is okay to bend or ignore in-game concerns, depending on the make up of the player group.

I think, (and this applies in any situation where trade or barter might occur between characters), that it is important to set some ground rules. I'll use one of my own past characters as an example.

Xebbidiah was an item-creation focused cleric of a merchant god. I was last to join the group, and his in-game situation reflected this. He had been hired by the rest of the party under the following conditions of employment.

1. Base pay was 1/6th of adventuring spoils
2. Included with base pay was combat participation, healing and other normal daily spell use (expensive focus components subject to negotiation) using any spell-completion or spell-trigger items owned by other characters or the party on their behalf, skill use, and other general adventuring/mercenary duties.
3. Commissioned item creation and/or purchase from his existing stock of items at 60% of book value.

Overall, the party was pretty satisfied by this, and I made sure there were few negative surprises. Xebbidiah was happy to extend credit if a party member didn't have cash or barter, or forgive debts if someone did him a favour. He made sure to encourage other party members in business ventures as well.

The party knew what to expect from him, so there weren't any surprises.

Keep in mind, if you're riding it, and have mounted combat, you can negate one hit per round with a successful check, and the unicorn has a fair amount of self-healing available.

If your GM agrees that it would be underpowered, and is making you use both the mount ability and leadership, then I would suggest compromising with a few extra hit dice initially (or maybe just treat the unicorn's hit points as the max possible for its starting hit dice).

Yeah, I'd interpret that as the paladin having a unicorn cohort who accepts being a mount, rather than it also being a 'Paladin Mount' as per the class feature. Advancement would be as a cohort.

On the bright side, this might mean you can take the weapon bond as well. Not a bad investment for Leadership if your GM is behind it.

If your GM feels that it is powerful enough that it should count as a both a cohort and a paladin mount, I would suggest generally leveling it as a cohort, but allowing it the Link, and Share Spells abilities. I'd considered suggesting Devotion as well, but a Unicorn has an ongoing Magic Circle against evil effect anyway.

(A unicorn with class levels sounds pretty cool actually. Unicorn paladin with the weapon Sacred Bond on their horn...or a ranger I have to go write down some NPC ideas..)

Oh, that's true. I hadn't even thought of that when I looked at the packaging mockup. If it looks like that because it will be in the box as a single stack turned sideways, that would be just fine.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

If the packaging isn't finalized, would you consider something that would fit all the cards in a single stack? I'm not fond of the two-stack package of the original, and if these are oversized cards, I'd rather not go looking for a custom plastic case.

That said, glad to hear about the new set. I loved the face-art of the original, but really disliked the back-art, and would have liked something similar to the back-art for the plot twist cards. Glad to see that the new set will have different back-art.

I tend to vary my house rules a bit by campaign.

Currently I'm running a campaign where all PC's are lightly armed and armoured. As such:

1. We're using the class defense bonus rules from unearthed arcana, extrapolated for the PF classes.
2. All characters that would qualify for the normal Weapon Finesse feat automatically have its benefits.
3. Characters actually taking Weapon Finesse add Dex bonus to damage in place of strength for applicable weapons.

Not something I use for every campaign, but frequently broken out for urban settings.

Seems reasonable. The witch hex has already opened the door for sleep being an effective tactic later in the game.

In our Jade Regent campaign, I have a very mature/trustworthy character playing an evil character, and it has been fantastic.

The character is a CE witch, but has a strong attachment to one of the good-aligned NPCs, and one of the good-aligned PCs. Their strong loyalty is usually enough to override their normal inclinations (though they still will suggest horrific plans, etc).

When the party's not around, the character is far more likely to give into their horrible impulses when dealing with problems.

That's the type of evil character I'm okay with in a campaign. As long as it is a mature player, and messing with/betraying the party is off the table, it can be functional.

Heh. It if helps, it isn't something I'd allow in a game anyway, ShadowcatX. I think you're right though. Malachi asked for any post or rules call that might support their position, and that entry was the only thing that even remotely came to mind though.

The natural attack comparison makes sense though, as far as the same limb not being involved in two types of attacks in the same round. You might be out of luck unless you have an extremely lenient GM, Malachi. If you mainly have the weapon combo for thematic purposes, maybe go the simpler route and use TWF or THF depending on which makes the most sense at the time.

This FAQ entry suggests a pretty good argument that it could be legal, though the specific example is for taking your hand off a two-handed weapon to cast a spell.

It does seem cheesy, but that's not what you're asking.

Without going into to specifics, the main disadvantage with multiclassing that many times (in my view) is that it will be a long time before the character gets to the place you actually want.

That said, if you're okay with tracking all the various class abilities, and roleplaying the awakening of your PC's dragon blood over many levels, I say go for it.

LazarX wrote:

Or it perhaps might it be possible that the Holy Avenger isn't the only way to express a Paladin's weapon? I remember one such weapon whose special power was to offer each person who grasped it a onetime chance at changing his alignment to Lawful Good and becoming a Paladin with no penalties.

Yup, nothing saying that you couldn't have a different sort of flavourful weapon. I remember really enjoying an article in Dragon during the 2nd Edition era about variant holy swords.

The weapon you describe sounds like it would be based on the atonement spell. I'd probably call it 'Redeemer', and give it some flavour as a weapon placed by an agent of a deity to be found by a character seeking atonement, or questioning their dark past.

I suspect it would largely depend on the religion. In Golarion, most holy avengers are probably associated with the church of Iomedae. I wouldn't be surprised if a legendary sarenite wielded a scimitar with similar abilities.

In Eberron, the most paladin-centric religion (Church of the Silver Flame) has the longbow as its iconic weapon. I wouldn't be surprised if a holy avenger were a bow in that context.

I think your powers are going to lost, unfortunately. Though if the GM is forcing a change to CE, a change to anti-paladin would be a way to keep something similar.

I'd be tempted to play the paladin as someone who is still clinging to their own code, but whose natural instincts have been completely changed. Someone who would still want to offer mercy, but whose initial instinct would be to kill prisoners out of hand, etc.

Could be fun playing the struggle. If you could keep on track most of the time, maybe an atonement would eventually work.

"I'm really sorry about cutting your throat there. I did want to hear your answer, but sword arm was kind of moving by itself. Back in the old days, I'd have been able to heal that before you bled out but...oh, you've pass, no you're dead. Damn. Gonna have to invest in a healer's kit I suppose."

Edit: Hadn't read the Atonement spell in a long time, but it looks like that will be what your paladin is after. As long as he remains repentant, and struggles against the impulses brought on by his magical alignment change, I don't think it would even require the extra offerings.

That said, if he gives in to the evil...then yeah, much more difficult.

Faiths of Purity: Sarenite Paladin's code wrote:
The best battle is a battle I win. If I die, I can no longer fight. I will fight fairly when the fight is fair, and I will strike quickly and without mercy when it is not.

Based on this, your player's interpretation, and your limits seem reasonable.

Zahir ibn Mahmoud ibn Jothan wrote:

Yep, I totally boned that up. Deleted the wrong section.

It was more appropriate to this:

Volaran wrote:
Most of the populace falls under that category, so I doubt most paladins scrutinize everyone they see. If you take a few seconds to size up someone you're interacting with, that's not unreasonable.
My bad!

Okay then. That makes a lot more sense :)

Zahir ibn Mahmoud ibn Jothan wrote:
It's a misconception that a Paladin can't scan a room with the full cone. So he can scan a whole bar, and then narrow things down like a normal use of the spell, OR he can just pick a target and get the move action equivalent of 3 rounds of scanning on that specific target. The first use is helpful in social situations to scan a room, and the latter is good in combat to size up the BBEG and see if he is a smite target.

That is certainly true, but I am unclear as to how it was a response to the portion of my post which was quoted.

paladinguy wrote:

it also got me OUT of combat one time since I ran across a party of goblins in the wilderness at level 1 and was going to come out swinging, but I detected evil on them and got nothing. So, I diplomacied instead.

This might have been pointed out elsewhere, but this is something your paladin would possibly know. Detect Evil functions like the spell. As per the chart in the spell, most evil-aligned characters, NPCs, etc. don't even begin to give off a faint evil aura until they hit 5 hit dice/levels (outsiders, evil clerics and anti-paladins and undead would be the major exceptions).

To use your example above, unless those were particularly powerful goblins, they wouldn't have registered as evil. Same thing with a lot of the NPCs you meet. If they're low-enough level, they won't give off an evil aura, even if they're horribly depraved.

Most of the populace falls under that category, so I doubt most paladins scrutinize everyone they see. If you take a few seconds to size up someone you're interacting with, that's not unreasonable. I'm also one of those GMs who would say there aren't a lot of visible signs to indicate this, but the more familiar someone is with what you are (if they know you're a paladin, or can make a reasonable guess), I'd allow an appropriate check.

Now that said, your paladin may not know this, which could explain ignorance in the situation with the goblins above. I've seen paladins who have been played with low int, no spellcraft, etc. who don't have a precise understanding of how their abilities work. I've also seen perfectly good in-character reasons why they may become overly reliant on detect evil over things like sense motive checks,etc.

I had planned (but sadly never played) a Kalishtar summoner whose Eidolon was going to be the physical manifestation of his Quori soul. So, over time, I would have taken evolutions to make it look more and more like a Quori (though I forget which type).

Thanks to Jason and the design team!

Any chance the prd will be updated with these changes before the next core rules printing?

There is a feat called Dervish Dance in the Qadira book which allows a Scimitar to benefit from weapon finesse as though it were a light weapon under certain circumstances.

That's about all I can think for for non-Mythic content.


I'm curious to see what the Golarion version of Saint Cuthbert is like...and since I'm assuming he's not a god, which religion(s) consider him to be a saint.

+1 for Summon Monster and Summon Nature's Ally I-IX lists (and Summon Swarm, Rain of Frogs, Mad Monkeys, etc)

I would suggest your GM keep a list of your minimal possible rolls for any given subject. Might save some unnecessary checks.

I don't think it is unreasonable for that sort of character to get prompting from the other players or the DM for even obscure things that they should remember. I would also suggest keeping extremely detailed notes if you don't already do so.

This is one of those bits of roleplaying that can be difficult; accurately playing a character with mental stats much greater or lower than one's own.

In a similar way, I would find it reasonable for a character with a 6 Int to not be able to make logical connections, or someone with a 6 Wisdom to make bad decisions even when their player knows better.

1 to 50 of 290 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

©2002–2016 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.