|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Draco Bahamut wrote:
Arcane NPC class: Now that we have retraining rules, it would be fun to have an apprentice class that could be retrained later for GMs who like to do before we became adventurers campaing.
If it's a home game, it's really easy to house-rule that adepts can be either divine or arcane casters in order to create apprentices or other arcane dabblers.
Tequila Sunrise wrote:
Wait, JJ wrote eight paladin-alikes without smite abilities?! It's no wonder he ended up convinced that it was a bad idea!
Well, some of them did have smite. It just wasn't Smite Evil - the CG variant had Smite Law. Which really doesn't do it for people who want to fight Evil without being Lawful.
Mechanically I think he'd work like a Samurai with magic abilities. Probably can "smite" anything, but only half as often as a Paladin to make it fair.
What do you think about just swapping Smite for Challenge? The trade-off is versatility in exchange for losing Cha to-hit and AC and gaining a -2 AC penalty.
Stacking good and evil powers is totally a thing in literature. Simon Green does it in his books all the time. One of his heroes wields a dagger blessed by a servant of God and cursed by a disciple of Satan. Cuts through just about anything.
And you don't think it would be a good thing for LN, TN, or CN deities to be able to grant a "divine" bonus rather than a luck bonus, or a choice between profane and sacred bonuses?
I think if anything it's underpowered for the price.
The ability to switch slots in order to change skills granted roughly equally balances out the fact that it doesn't grant bonuses to other Int-based skills or checks - for non-casters. However, most buyers of Int headbands are casters, and casters will find the Int headband much more useful than this item, so I think the value of the headband is higher.
The skills are mostly appropriate, though I would replace Perception in the farming trio with either Profession (farmer), Profession (herbalist), or Ride.
I would also consider making the aspect dependent on the slot, and improved versions grant more skills from each aspect, rather than the reverse as you have here. It makes more sense to me to gain Appraise, Sense Motive, and Craft (Woodwork) than Craft (Woodwork), Stealth, and Knowledge(Nature).
Finally, I agree with Daspolo that worshippers of Erastil are likely to already be trained in these skills and that it might be more appropriate to grant a sacred bonus on the relevant skills. In this case, you might grant all skills with all versions, but have improved versions grant a higher bonus (eg +2, +5, and +10)
What are some of the best designed Feats, Traits, Spells, etc. and what makes them so well designed?
Abilities that let you choose between a pet and something else (eg Druid's Nature Bond, Paladin's Divine Bond, Wizard's Arcane Bond). Pets can be a lot of fun, but in some situations they can get in the way or slow down combat. The amount of RP a player is willing to devote to the pet also varies wildly. Being able to swap out the classic pet for another thematic ability is nice for some characters.
Sorcerer Bloodlines in general. Emphasize a key thematic difference in the way that sorcerers approach magic compared to wizards, and also provide neat abilities to make sorcerers feel really different from each other thematically and mechanically.
Holy: dedicated or consecrated to God or a religious purpose; sacred.
Sacrifice. From sacer, "holy." Human sacrifice. Good and light by PF standards? Holy war?
Satanism, a belief set largely defined by its rejection of another religion's teachings and thus a great target for the "profane" label, still uses the terms "holy" and "sacred" ("the Satanist holds these beings in a sacred regard") and even Christians will occasionally use the terms with reference to Satanism, as in Halloween is "Satan's Holy Day".
It's not my personal viewpoint that "holy" and "sacred" are defined outside of PF by their significance to some religion, rather than their "goodness" as judged from outside that religion.
I know that's how they're used, I just don't think it adds anything to the game to alter terms generally used to indicate religious/irreligious matters to fit alignment. The [good] and [evil] descriptors work fine for representing magic powered by alignment forces (and even better, since there are descriptors for all four alignments). From a game design perspective, changing "sacred" and "profane" bonuses to "divine" bonuses doesn't remove the ability to indicate that spells are powered by the foul energies of Hell. However, it does allow the bonus type to be used for un-aligned but clearly divine spells such as Divine Favor (which currently grants a luck bonus) and prevents stacking the two bonus types, which many find un-intuitive.
Not to mention complicating the language normally meaning "pissed off a deity": if I piss on the altar of Asmodeus, have I consecrated it or desecrated it?
"The Sacred Texts of Urgathoa" don't have the same ring as "The Profane Pages of Urgathoa", after all.
I'd probably call it "The Eternal Pleasures of the Pallid Princess" (or "Eternal Pleasures" for short). More evocative.
Secret Wizard wrote:
The Paladin granting a mental skill bonus is in line with the idea that Neutral cares about concepts rather than ethics. A skill bonus or penalty means a creature is further or closer to truth, the ultimate goal of every Neutral character.
A thirst for knowledge and truth is a great motivation for a neutral character. But it's not the only motivation - not even for neutral characters who have strong ideals. A TN character can value nature, aesthetics, or self-improvement (physical as well as mental). They may also be a well-intentioned extremist - the kind who fight legitimate evil but are perhaps disproportionate in punishment or otherwise do not value the life and dignity of all creatures sufficiently to be considered "good." (I've got a set of TN paladins in my current world who are single-minded lycanthrope hunters. They don't care whether the lycanthrope in question is actually dangerous to others, they're just fulfilling the divine vendetta of their patron deity.)
Of course, characters of all alignments who strongly hold a particular philosophy will consider that philosophy "true," but I don't believe that's the same thing as an independent value for "truth" which includes a desire to seek out any evidence that contradicts your beliefs.
Again, I like Surge of Inspiration, but would probably make it available as an archetype and/or expand it to all skills from the start. It's certainly not overpowered compared to the ability to heal yourself and remove conditions as a swift action.
also smite undead-outsider-dragon is called a ranger with favored enemy... not necessarily as good but still basically the same thing.
It's a similar mechanic but different thematically. The favoured enemy in theory represents extensive study of a particular target or prey. Smite is about invoking the power of the divine to destroy an enemy.
Anything called Holy just needs a renaming,
Actually, it's bugged me for a while that the evil divine stuff is labelled "Unholy/Profane." All religions regardless of their alignment should consider their precepts, scriptures, sites, etc to be holy/sacred (and the opposition's to be unholy/profane).
Simon Legrande wrote:
So why does he smite neutral-aligned creatures?
Secret Wizard wrote:
Shouldn't CG then be "protect the welfare of all by protecting personal liberty?"
Of course TN characters can have strong convictions.
Those convictions just aren't likely to be about alignment. (The "servant of balance" that hates "extreme alignments" never made sense to me personally.) And the paladin class in PF is both mechanically and thematically tied to alignment.
So in order to have a TN paladin, one needs to either shift the concept to a holy warrior of a deity who happens to have an alignment rather than the reverse, or else do this:
David knott 242 wrote:
The Champion class from Arcana Evolved provides a possible way around that problem. That class is designed for a game that does not even have alignment. Instead, each Champion is dedicated to a cause, and his class abilities are tied to that cause. Obviously there would be no problem with such a character being of any alignment (inlcuding true neutral) unless the cause in question is unquestionably non-neutral.
I prefer the latter since it makes them more distinct from clerics, but I think it's fine to allow both clerics and paladins to serve as holy warriors of a deity. Paladins would probably end up with a "standard-bearer" function while than the martial cleric would be more of a "general/tactician."
Simon Legrande wrote:
But what would such a character actually care about?
The diseases described in pathfinder seem to all be infectious in that they are caused by contact with a carrier creature or contaminated food/water. This makes sense on one level given that PCs are more likely to be afflicted by infections. But thematically...
Should Remove Disease be able to cure things like cancer or heart disease?
What about conditions that are entirely inherited, like sickle-cell anemia?
Tequila Sunrise wrote:
Agreed with all this.
I think TN paladins are difficult to work as a champion of alignment for the reasons described, but TN is not inherently apathetic so they work just fine as champions of a specific deity or cause. It would require a bit of a mechanical tweak though since the paladin's powers are largely alignment-based. I wrote up a quick archetype (as part of my any-alignment paladin rewrite, the champion):
Some champions dedicate themselves to seeking out and destroying members of a particular organization or creature type that is opposed to their ethos, such as thieves, members of an enemy church, aberrations, or dragons.
Divine Foe: A foehunter selects a Foe instead of an opposed alignment. The Foe may be a creature type, as the Ranger's favoured enemy ability, a religion, or another organization or class of offender at GM discretion. They gain the ability to detect and smite members of the Foe group, rather than the opposed alignment. At GM's discretion, the champion may deal twice the normal bonus damage from smite upon an exemplary member of the Foe group (for example, if the Divine Foe is dragons, double damage may be dealt to a true dragon. If the Foe is a religion, double damage may be dealt to clergy of the faith rather than simple worshippers). This replaces the Champion's Aura and modifies Smite and Detect Alignment.
Aura of Vulnerability: The champion's weapons bypass the DR of any Foe, whether or not Smite is currently active on that enemy. Further, any weapons within the champion's aura bypass the Enemy's DR. This replaces Aura of Faith.
Foehunter's Resilience: The Foehunter gains DR 2/- instead of DR 5/opposed alignment. This ability modifies Aura of Righteousness.
True Foehunter: The Foehunter's DR increases to 4/-. In addition, a Foehunter who smites and strikes a Foe may end the smite effect as a free action in order to stun the Foe for d4 rounds. If the target succeeds at a Fort Save (DC = 10 + 1/2 level + Cha mod), they are instead staggered for 1 round. The Foehunter can only use this ability on a given Foe once every 24 hours. This ability replaces True Champion (Holy Champion).
Not entirely sure how balanced it is (needs playtesting), but conceptually I think it works.
EDIT: The applications I see for this would include things like an undead-hunting champion of Pharasma (or alternatively one who fights followers of Urgathoa), a Green Faith aberration hunter, and a champion of Callistra who smites abusive lovers out of a sense of justice. And yes, inquisitors work for this but for me it is significant that one class is Wis-based and likely to dump charisma (canny and insightful) and the other Cha-based and likely to dump Int and/or Wis (inspirational and charismatic) - which is also why, well-intentioned as it was, I don't think the Warpriest fills this niche.
91. Excuse me, good merchant, but this sword here is cursed! It's terribly dangerous and you could be liable as the seller. Fortunately I am an expert in such things and was able to spot it. I'd even be willing to dispose of it for you.
92. (to the guards of an area you're trying to infiltrate) Help, adventurers tied me up and stole my uniform!
Drako "The Merciful" wrote:
Anyway, the initiative represents hesitation. If you are agile, and they stop concentrating, that hesitation can lead to a blind spot or a bad memory of their father drunk, or something and BOOM! You're in front of them.
If you can justify someone getting 60ft ahead of another equally fast person due to a moment's hesitation, you can justify someone being able to remove their hand from their weapon in the middle of an attack sequence in order to react to a threat.
RAW, this works. You only need to have one free hand at the time you want to Deflect Arrows, not for the entire round.
Mechanically (balance wise) it's fine since you're using a weapon with a lower damage die and your AoO are less powerful than they otherwise would be.
Thematically, also fine. If you have a hard time visualizing this with "simultaneous" turns, then consider the character to only have both hands on the weapon during the instant that they make a committed attack - between the swings of the full attack the off-hand is brought back a little bit to check for incoming arrows, which also has the effect of preventing a full-strength swing for opportunistic attacks since these occur between fully-committed swings before the character's momentary grip shift has completed.
It's more choices than serpentine vs quadrupedal. It's also more choice than the usual paladin's mount suggests (horse, pony, camel).
Possible companions include aurochs, bear, big cat (eg siberian tiger), dog (eg husky), elk, llama, moose, wolf, wolfhound, dolphin, octopus, orca, shark, squid. And while they don't list them as such, the small cat and bird categories really should have cold-climate species (snow leopards and many owls).
That's pretty thematically and mechanically diverse - though it does mean you have to wait two levels to ride your companion (unless you use the 3pp riding elk).
I would recommend treating the elemental as an animal companion with a few bonuses, like the normal paladin does. Specify that it has to be an animal native to cold climates (polar bear, snow leopard, wolf, elk, etc). To start give it cold resistance 10, snow vision, and Int 6. Then at level 11 cold resist 20 and icewalk and make it count as a magical beast for purposes of spells and effects, and at level 15 give it cold resist 30 (or the cold subtype) and ice glide.
What happens on a food shortage when there's no consumption to raise? (Kingdom Building Rules, Ultimate Campaign)
Those interpretations make sense if you have a positive consumption. However, the rules text for Food Shortage clearly refers to "Consumption" and "Consumption" is clearly reduced by farms. By RAW, if your Consumption is reduced to 0 by farms, you are not affected by a Food Shortage event. (On the other hand, if you rely heavily on farms you are affected more negatively by the separate but similar event Crop Failure). Arguing otherwise is like saying that an attack that reads "targets AC" should ignore an armour bonus because the description sounds like it should penetrate armour. If the effect is supposed to ignore normal modifiers it will say which modifiers it ignores.
There's nothing in the description that requires or even implies that. Consumption, and thus Food Shortage, measures the amount of food required after the contributions of the farms have been accounted for. Thematically, the easiest way to interpret this rule is that Food Shortage relates to problems with imported food (resulting in either less food coming in or that food costing more) while internal shortages are represented by Crop Failure.
If one is hung up on the fact that "Food Shortage" doesn't specify it only affects imports, then add a minor minimum cost for normally self-sufficient kingdoms to represent spoilage in or theft from a storehouse somewhere. But the fact that the flavour text for the event sounds broad does not mean that the mechanics must or should be adjusted to have a broader effect than stated.
What happens on a food shortage when there's no consumption to raise? (Kingdom Building Rules, Ultimate Campaign)
RAW, it definitely includes the modifications for farms and fisheries. It says your consumption increases, and consumption = size + modifiers.
Thematically I agree with your GM that it doesn't make sense for farms on a kingdom with a food shortage to entirely alleviate that shortage. However, the farms shouldn't count for nothing. Two suggestions:
1) Only half your farms count against consumption during a food shortage (but if you have a surplus of farms you can still reduce consumption as far as 0 and suffer no losses).
2) If your consumption is 0, Food Shortage causes you to lose 1 bp with a successful stability check or 2 bp with a failed check.
The preferred buff would be to throw out the Magic Jar nonsense and just let any non-personal range spells that can be made Permanent, be made Permanent on people other than the caster. Or even just remove the "caster only" category entirely. It's not like it would be overpowering to give the fighter Comprehend Languages.
@Ascalaphus: I think I like your principle. It's very objective, and while it would be sometimes inconvenient for the caster it also encourages them to think strategically about how they buff themselves while using Magic Jar.
It's not clear by RAW, but the term "paralysis" only requires loss of muscle function, not necessarily "Petrificus Totalis" style rigidity, so you should be able to reposition them and if knocked over they will flop around naturally.
However, any movement due to a "solid kick in the groin" would be due to the force of the kick, not the pain. To react to the pain, the target's muscles would have to engage. If you were to prick someone with a needle, or burn them while paralyzed they would not react (though they will still feel pain because Hold Person doesn't say it prevents that).
Was wondering what shenanigans I could conceive of since the sensei's advice ability says it's identical to bardic performance. Would that allow it to count as bardic performance for extra performance and what not?
"If the archetype ability says it works like the standard ability, it counts as that ability. ... (It doesn't matter if the archetype's ability name is different than the standard class ability it is replacing; it is the description and game mechanics of the archetype ability that matter.)"
Now, the FAQ is specifically about archetypes replacing a standard ability with their own class, but I don't see why it wouldn't transfer to archetypes that grant a feature from another class, just renamed. The intent of the FAQ is that abilities with the same mechanics count as the same ability.
1) Yes, as long as the simulacra also has the relevant item creation feat.
2) If you're talking about the doubled time benefit, I think so but remember that the stacking rule is two doublings = one tripling, not quadrupling. Crafting Mastery should also allow you to bypass the "must have item creation feat" requirement on cooperative crafting, but in that case you don't get the extra speed doubling.
I think the initial archetype was pretty interesting and balanced as it was.
I do prefer how the newer Elemental Bond works, though. And the "condensed" elemental shape and summons are also probably a good idea.
Elemental Resistance (Ex): At 4th level, an elementalist gains resistance to fire, cold, acid and electricity equal to ½ his druid level. At 9th level, this increases to 5 + ½ druid level. At 13th level, it increases to 10 + ½ druid level. This resistance stacks with resistance from racial traits, or extraordinary abilities, but NOT with resistance from spells such as resist elements, supernatural abilities, or resistance gained from taking elemental form.
This is weird. Either increase it 5-10-20-30 or make it consistently equal to 1/2 level. I'd recommend using steps since that's what most other classes granting elemental resistance do.
Edit II- I wonder if it would make the Druid too powerful if he had the equivalent of selective channel for the blast spells- i.e., designated people within area of effect are exempt.
Yes. Giving someone the effects of a good metamagic feat on every spell without level adjustment is OP. Also, it's not more relevant to this archetype than it would be to other blaster types (who don't get this benefit).
I wouldn't impose an "eidolon limitation" on a magic-jar using wizard. Simply because wizards have nothing to do with eidolons. That's not "enforcing all the limitations strictly", that's arbitrarily inventing limitations.
It's not about applying an eidolon limitation to a wizard, the question is whether when a summoner uses Magic Jar, their eidolon needs to stay within the range limit of (1) the summoner's body (2) the summoner's consciousness or (3) both.
With things like metamagic, I would agree that it's important to apply limitations strictly. But requiring the eidolon to stay within range of both body and consciousness is not just strictly applying the limitation but doubling the impact of the limitation. Having the eidolon have to stay within range of the consciousness doesn't remove or lessen the limitation. It simply allows a summoner to, while using magic jar, also use their normal class features with the normal limitations of those features (one distance tether) - which is exactly what wizards and sorcerers get to do with the spell.
Sorry for a minor necro, but I found a relavant FAQ:
The robes [of arcane heritage] say "treats her sorcerer level as 4 higher than normal for the purpose of determining what bloodline powers she can use and their effects. Note that bloodline powers, bloodline arcana, bonus spells, and bloodline feats are three separate abilities of the sorcerer class; the robes only affect the bloodline powers.
If bloodline arcana, bonus spells, and feats are separate abilities of the sorcerer class, then an archetype that modifies one of the three does not prohibit you from taking another archetype that modifies the others.
There was a recent discussion of re-slotting.
My group uses it occasionally, mostly for ability score items: we have used Gauntlets of Strength, Gloves of Dexterity, Cloaks of Charisma, Mantles of Wisdom, and even Boots of Constitution. Most of us played with similar items in 3E and never felt a need to reduce it down to two shared slots.
This is true. And it also applies to the friend who said that because Bracers of Natural Armour weren't in the book they weren't possible. The GM can taketh away, but the GM can also giveth.
However, custom magic items are one of the places where the book that sees fit to remind you that this is a particularly good place for your GM to step in and exercise their judgment.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
I wouldn't necessarily advise your players to play pre-generated characters, because for many making their own character is part of the fun. You should however as CommandoDude said advise them that the module is not suited to their current concepts. You might suggest that characters like clerics, paladins, or undead-hunting rangers are better suited.
Player experience does make a big difference. Inexperienced players make worse tactical decisions. For example, the new player in my current group is figuring out things like readied actions, holding the charge of a touch spell, and most importantly, hiding behind the meat shields. Players working outside of their comfort zone have the same problem, like the guy playing his first caster after three martials, who needs to be reminded that undead are immune to mind-affecting spells. On the other hand, the more experienced players know how to use cover, set up ambushes, and so on.
But even if more experienced players would survive the module, they might not have as much fun. If they want to play a roof runner and a diplomat, it's probably because they want to run on some roofs and be diplomatic. So either different characters or a different module are probably in order.
Honestly, I don't see why a non-personal spell like Darkvision can only be made permanent on the caster.
I would say that the Eidolon range limits apply to either the body or the life force... whichever limit is met first.
Such that they have to stay within range of both? That's rather strict.
I've had this come up.
In my case it was a BBEG summoner with Magic Jar - the question being whether the Eidolon was required to stay within range of the body or the consciousness. At the time I went with the consciousness, since it was more inconvenient for the BBEG and since the bond with the eidolon felt like a mental thing (eidolong armour blocking it aside). But I'm curious to know whether others would have ruled similarly.
Being able to revive someone who has been turned into an undead creature and then destroyed doesn't necessarily mean that it can't revive an undead creature that hasn't been destroyed. The bestiary reference says undead creatures, not former undead, are affected by resurrection, which suggests both options are possible.
Note that the 1 minute casting time makes this impractical for combat.
This being the second time thr fighter was killed. The Necromancer is now raising the Fighter, to prevent them from trying to come back. He assumes they wont without the fighters help. And it just adds one more "body" the Necromancer's defenses
Regardless of the fighter's undead status, I don't think True Res works if a body exists, but you don't have possession of it. It only says it works if the body has been destroyed... and it hasn't been. The Necromancer has it.
If your players want to try non-optimal concepts then a higher point buy might indeed help compensate. If you do find they're too powerful for the AP, you can always throw in a few extra mooks, increase BBEG stats, or add the Advanced template to monsters - which is nice because it increases a few key numbers without bringing in those special abilities mentioned above that assume a particular level to deal with.
My group plays with generous (rolled) stats: the current game I'm in has a paladin with a whopping 42 point buy equivalent before racials: in order 18, 11, 16, 9, 14, 16. You'll note that it doesn't actually eliminate weak points. Between the average dex and heavy armour, the paladin has amusingly failed several dex-based skill checks. And it's not actually that much better than the 25-point array 16, 11, 14, 9, 10, 16. The difference is +1 attack, +1 damage, and +2 on will saves and a few checks. Definitely more powerful, but not overwhelmingly so.
James Risner wrote:
There is no class feature called "Bloodline Arcana" listed on the chart on page 72. So the only way to change the Bloodline Arcana by the Sanguine Wildblooded archetype is to modify the Bloodline class feature. This I think we agree.
There's no "Bloodline" feature listed on the chart either, so I don't think that follows.
The point about the base mechanic being modifiable in addition to the individual powers makes sense, but I don't think it's clear that everything aside from the bloodline powers are part of the base mechanic. There are two notable differences between the bloodline and bardic performance:
1) The individual bardic performances clearly can't function without reference to the base mechanic, which describes the action required, components, rounds per day, etc. The bloodline arcana does not in any way change the way the rest of the bloodline functions - it's not a "base" in the sense that other abilities don't build on it.
2) The bard archetypes that change the base mechanic (for example, Archaeologist and Dawnflower Dervish) refer to the "standard bardic performance ability" as in "This ability alters the standard bardic performance ability." Archetypes that change the bloodline arcana (eg Sanguine) state "This ability replaces the Undead Bloodline Arcana" not "This ability modifies the Undead Bloodline." This suggests that the change is targeting an individual ability rather than part of a base mechanic.
James, would you say that you can't combine Beast-Bonded with Sea Witch? I think it's generally accepted that you can (1) (2), because even though they both replace hexes, one of them replaces your 2nd level hex and the other replaces your 4th, 8th, and 10th level hexes and each level's hex is considered a separate ability for the sake of archetypes.
If individual hexes are considered separate abilities for the sake of archetypes, bloodline powers should be considered separate abilities for the sake of archetypes.
For another comparison, look at the bard: all performance types are described under the same heading in the same way bloodlines are, but I don't think there's any question that archetypes replacing two separate performance types are stackable.
James Risner wrote:
Crossblooded didn't directly change anything, just allowed you to choose from both.
Not true. It gives you both bloodline arcana (and both class skills) rather than a choice between arcana. Thus Crossblooded always modifies Bloodline Arcana (which is modified by every Wildblooded archetype).
EDIT: That said, James is right that you should always play it safe in PFS.
His argument has been that the first part of the rules for provoking an attack is that you don't if you're moving into a threatened square. So with his argument, you could move from one threatened square to another without creating an attack of opportunity because the rule states that moving into a threatened square doesn't provoke an aoo.
Moving into a threatened square doesn't itself provoke, but it does nothing to protect you from the AoO provoked by leaving a threatened square. They're separate issues and are determined separately, just like making a ranged touch attack with a spell provokes an AoO from the ranged attack even if the spell that causes the attacks was cast defensively and doesn't itself provoke.
Combat:Cast a Spell wrote:
Ranged Touch Spells in Combat: Some spells allow you to make a ranged touch attack as part of the casting of the spell. These attacks are made as part of the spell and do not require a separate action. Ranged touch attacks provoke an attack of opportunity, even if the spell that causes the attacks was cast defensively.
Note however that if you move out of multiple threatened spaces in a round, you only provoke once per opponent (this question came up at my table a little while back).
Combat:Making an AoO wrote:
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.
You can't turn into creatures with templates, so young humans are out by RAW.
Mighty Squash and strayshift also raise the good point that the feat is situationally useful. In a game heavy on combat or dungeon crawls, or with a lot of nonhuman NPCs, it won't be as useful, but if you're in a spy campaign with even one-quarter of the population human it's a must-have. It's ridiculously easy to make the perfect infiltrator with this feat. I had a Kitsune bard with this feat who was able to impersonate the princess so well that her own father couldn't tell the difference - my character played that sort of thing for laughs but could really have used/abused it for personal gain.
Sleeves of Many Garments are a cheap solution to the issue of changing your clothes.
It's normal for elements of the game to change from low to mid to high levels, and food and navigation are usually more interesting in low-level play. Sounds like your cooking experiment had a pretty good run.
It does depend on the setting, but in Golarion or a similar setting I think it makes more sense if one of the classes involved doesn't require devotion to a deity. For example, oracles are granted power by divine forces but aren't required to worship or be devoted to them. It would make more sense for an oracle to have been empowered by one deity, and then subsequently decide to worship a second deity (for example as a paladin) than it would for a cleric of one deity to decide to serve another as an inquisitor.
Otherwise I think it makes more sense to have a character be simultaneously polytheistic in all their divine classes. So for example, you're not a Cleric of Desna and an Inquisitor of Cayden, you're a Cleric/Inquisitor of Desna and Cayden. Or in my current setting, you can be a Cleric of the Dwarven Pantheon or of a number of Saints (in which case you also revere the deity the saint serves). Mechanically in terms of domains or favoured weapon you'd have to work it out with the GM. A shared domain or domains makes most sense where there's overlap (like Desna and Cayden), and then just pick whichever weapon.
But if it's just humans, then the ability seems remarkably underpowered, since it's spending a racial ability and a feat on something that could be duplicated by a first or second level spell or even just some skill ranks if you are already human.
Magic (Polymorph) wrote:
Unless otherwise noted, polymorph spells cannot be used to change into specific individuals.
So Alter Self cannot be used to do what Realistic Likeness does.
Disguise self can be used to mimic individuals, but it's an illusion which means anyone who interacts with the disguise gets a will save. Realistic Likeness, being a polymorph, can't be disbelieved.
However, imperfect polymorphs can be seen through, meaning Disguise skill ranks will be useful if you want to fool people who know your target well. Still, the disguise skill also benefits from Realistic Likeness since the polymorph effect grants you a +10 bonus on your disguise and lets you disguise yourself as a standard action.
It's not overwhelmingly powerful and I might house-rule it to allow impersonation of mixed-race characters that physically favour their human ancestry (including some native outsiders) but it's a nice trick as-is and certainly doesn't need to be opened up to all humanoids.
Cook is actually normally a Profession check - it's not supposed to be about making specific meals so much as running a kitchen, so it doesn't necessarily take as long as the Craft rules suggest.
Assuming a descent int score, by 6th level you are at the peak of human ability (in the real world). With 6 ranks, class skill bonus and skill focus you are better then the any chef on earth. Gordon Ramsey isnt a 20th level character. He's like a 2nd level expert. So keep that in mind when considering the 'dcs' for meals.
Good point, but also remember that skilled professional chefs usually also have masterwork tools and assistants (aid another) for another +4 to +8 or so on their checks. So the best chef on earth has maybe 5 ranks + 3 class bonus +4 ability + 3 skill focus + 8 circumstance = +23 modifier in their home kitchen. Still, that means that a DC 30 meal is the sort of meal with a months-long waiting list, and a DC 40 is the best thing anyone will ever eat.
The party (ranger and druid) started casting grove of respite, after a few days of eating nothing but "good berries" in fruit form, I had them start rolling, even tasty magical fruit can get boring quickly (I.E. Lord of the Rings and the Elven Bread). Maybe I should push them to get bored with not eating =p
I appreciate your desire to make play more flavourful, and I like your ideas, but I hope this is a joke. If your players aren't interested in detailing their meals, and bonuses from food aren't helping, you can't force them to find it interesting.
I like utilitarian ethics and I'm still of a mind that a paladin should fall for torture even if it would achieve a good end. Here's why:
Silas Hawkwinter wrote:
This is completely off topic but you're asking the wrong question. The right question is what would the world be like if the police had been able to torture him? The answer is it would be horrendous. Take a look at what eastern Europe was like before the wall fell and the wide spread abuses by the authorities. Don't forget emotive cases like the above are extremely rare and powers given to authority WILL be misused, typically against the most vulnerable members of society.
If it's seen as OK to torture - if a paladin condones the use of that tactic - it will make torture more prevalent in the world. And that's such a huge negative utility that it would take a horribly contrived-by-the-GM situation to come out positive in the end.
Saying they should have Class abilities based on torture is like saying Barbarians should have abilities based on committing atrocities because many real barbaric tribes did that in war. Or that all Clerics must be Christian. Classes just aren't that closely based on real groups.
Or that monks have to be celibate. Or cavaliers have to ride horses. Or that oracles should cast Divinations (prophecy). PF does a pretty good job of giving classes simple yet evocative names, but as Deadmanwalking says they're not meant to be perfect analogues. Though I expect such associations with the Spanish Inquisition led the OP's player thinking that the Inquisitor class had special license to torture.
That does not make them evil or dicks, or make the military an amalgamation of hypocrites and serial murderers, it just means sometimes killing is necessary and important, such that it can become a profession that is not always frowned upon...
I read an essay back in high school that said the true job of the soldier is not to kill, but to die, and it is their willingness to die that makes them more heroic than assassins or executioners.
Dark Immortal wrote:
Hmm, from what the op stated he waited until after the game, and time had elapsed and multiple people were involved and the ruling had remained the same. I guess it is a case of he said/she said. Either way, the ruling is cleared up and if the op was being less than honest about the events, perhaps they will learn to be more so in the future. If they were completely honest, then again a he said/she said situation and since everything is said and done, all that would matter now is that the rules are understood.
It's not just about whether the OP is being or should be honest on the messageboards - and while the OP states that he intended to bring it up after the session his posts don't actually say at what point the session ended. Both sides could be honest at least as far as they interpret the situation.
The advice I'd give the OP if the GM's assessment is accurate is that it is never a good idea to disrupt or mentally check out of a session in order to get hung up on a rules dispute. I say this as someone who has made that mistake and regretted it. Not only do you annoy the other players and the GM who you'd like to get on your side after the session, but you end up having less fun than if you'd just rolled with the ruling.