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

Weirdo's page

Pathfinder Society Member. 2,591 posts. No reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist. 1 alias.


1 to 50 of 2,591 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Shadow Lodge

That's what I get for posting tired.

Yeah, agreed with Trekkie. If someone with a climb speed 20 and land speed 30 climbs down 10ft (half climb speed) they should have 15 feet of land movement left (half land speed).

Really it works out the same as my above example where a creature without a climb speed gets a fake climb speed of one-quarter land speed.

Shadow Lodge

Reskinning is one of those things that explicitly relies on GM approval, except for a few examples on the companions table like "Badger / use for Wolverines"

The closest you'll probably find is the discussion on re-skinning familiars (search "Approximating Familiars"): "With your Game Master's approval, however, it's easy to "re -skin" an existing familiar stat block to create the exact familiar you want."

If it helps, the Wolf is very similar to a hyena except a size larger. As a GM I would suggest it as a dire hyena re-skin to one of my players.

Shadow Lodge

Climb wrote:


Climbing is part of movement, so it’s generally part of a move action (and may be combined with other types of movement in a move action). Each move action that includes any climbing requires a separate Climb check.

So a creature with a 30ft move speed can climb down 5 ft (equivalent to 20ft land movement) and then move on the ground for another 10ft using a single move action.

If they climb down 10ft they have to double move (because at one-quarter speed that takes 40ft of movement).

Shadow Lodge

Atarlost wrote:
Being responsible for the life you save is not unheard of in traditional cultures. If that wasn't what the writers meant they shouldn't have written that the paladin was responsible for the life of the surrendered. They would be responsible for the safety or keeping of the prisoner. Life is that thing that goes on until a person dies.

If a paladin leaves a prisoner with a compatriot of questionable morals and says "I am holding you responsible for this prisoner's life," how would you interpret the paladin's statement?

Loengrin wrote:
Mmmh.. As anyone suggested that he should ask his DM how the DM view a Pal ?


Shadow Lodge

Expect table variation on whether elementals can cast without Natural Spell. Some GMs think they're humanoid enough to do so, others think not.

I'm on the fence. I never tried it as a player with my druid, but as a GM I've allowed it in the past with a wizard. I could see a case for elementals being able to use verbal but not somatic components on the grounds that they're described as being able to speak, but since they are only "roughly humanoid" probably don't have the well-developed hands needed for gesturing. (Monkeys, interestingly, would probably be the opposite.)

Shadow Lodge

The Sohei ruling suggests they do lose their monk AC bonus even if using an armour (or by analogy shield) their monk levels grant proficiency in.

FAQ wrote:

Monk, Sohei: Can a sohei use flurry of blows while wearing light armor?

Yes (but not medium or heavy armor). However, a sohei does not gain his monk AC bonus class feature when wearing armor.

Shadow Lodge

Looks fine to me.

Shadow Lodge

I haven't tried that exactly, but I did run two-player game where one player had an Improved Familiar and another had a cohort, which I expect would be similar. It worked fine.

Alternatively, I played in a game where some players had two characters and switched between them depending on what was going on that session - except for a handful of key sessions where people played both characters if applicable. It also worked fine.

Players with a decent amount of experience can handle two characters in combat fine. The RP side can get trickier, however. Based on the above two experiences, I would expect that even if all four characters are always present, the player will primarily RP only one of their characters for most or all scenes. This may be the same character if one is more obviously the "face" or it might switch off based on which character is more interested in the scene (Bob's fighter talks to the town guard, then Bob's wizard talks to the priest of Nethys). I've found that even players who can get into a heated discussion with themselves often don't want to do so at table because it turns the rest of the group into spectators.

Shadow Lodge

I expect many mounted infantry officers would occasionally have a hard time guiding their mount with their knees or staying in the saddle when injured, and would have a less than 50% chance of successfully using their mount as cover. That's a character untrained in Ride.

If the army is foraging, the whole army is foraging, not just the officer. That means everyone is taking 10 on their own untrained survival check to feed themselves. The officer is not making a DC 40 check to feed 15 soldiers.

Some officers will be very skilled at these even if they're not strictly specialized as such but I wouldn't consider them mandatory.

ryric wrote:
Remember that you can put ranks in non-class skills and be nearly as good at them as anyone else. ... But adding a skill to a class skill list says to me "I think this class should be better at this skill than most people."

That's a decent guideline, but I think it's an argument for fighters having Acrobatics and Perception as class skills. I think the average fighter should have at least as much of an advantage in learning these skills as Ride, Survival, and Engineering.

While acrobatics =/= footwork, footwork and balance are very big parts of acrobatics. Fighters should have unusually good footwork and balance for combat reasons, so they should be better at tumbling and parkour than the average person if they choose to learn that skill.

Awareness is extremely important in combat and between combat (spotting ambushes). Bards, druids, and barbarians all get Perception as a class skills and have no reason to be inherently better at noticing things than fighters (once you account for the druid's higher Wis).

ryric wrote:
I'm not against them having more variety in class skills, but traits can help with that quite a lot. Really traits seem to be the Pathfinder way of slightly customizing your class skill list.

I love using traits like that, but usually that's for adding a skill that is unusual for the class's typical concepts - like a fighter with Knowledge (Religion) or a druid with Diplomacy. Not for picking up something that really should be part of the class to begin with.

Aelryinth wrote:
Note also that cavaliers/samurai are specialized fighter types.

Yup, which suggests 4 skill points/level for the base fighter is about right.

Shadow Lodge

I feel like if one were open to homebrew, the rogue archetypes that replace trap sense and trapfinding could just as easily replace the first two rogue talents.

Lamontius wrote:

Pack Lord & Wolf Shaman Druid

I want all the wolves

This should be easy with a touch of home-brew. Three options:

1) Don't get Improved Empathic Link, just change the way Nature Bond works.
2) Give up the extra use of Wild Shape gained at 8th level instead of 6th.
3) Give the druid "0" uses of Wild Shape at level 6 - they still have the ability, but would need Druid's Vestments or similar to use it.

Shadow Lodge

Aelryinth wrote:

The 'bog standard' fighter should be able to:

Ride Well.
Jump Well.
Have excellent footwork in combat.
Lead well.
Know the job of a military man.
Know his enemies.
Have a trade to fall back on to prepare for the next fight, and at the very least fix their own gear.
Swimming and climbing would be wise to know.
If they are at sea, some idea of what goes on around a boat.
Be able to survive on their own if needed.
Be able to stay alert and spot their enemies.
Have nigh on superhuman endurance for marching and fighting.

In addition to whatever specialties he is assigned to.

I don't think all those things are required, some are specialities. For example, not all fighters are mounted or come from a culture where mounted warfare is at all common. Survival training for warriors also varies widely between cultures - and remember that basic foraging is DC 10, which is achievable for an untrained survivalist.

Also, some of them would be better represented by class features rather than extra skill points. For example, "knowing your enemy" involves knowledge skills, but a fighter probably isn't good at all applications of knowledge skills, so it makes sense to give them a bonus (maybe +1/2 class level) to knowledge checks made to identify monsters or military groups.

However, I absolutely agree that fighters should have more skill points and more class skills (Acrobatics and Diplomacy, and probably Heal, History, Nobility, Sense Motive, and Stealth). Most fighter concepts I can think of have at least three core skills. Cavalry Officer: Ride, Diplomacy, History and/or Nobility. Viking: Swim, Sailor, Intimidate. Gladiator: Intimidate, Perform, and Acrobatics. Duelist: Acrobatics, Diplomacy and/or Intimidate, Bluff (to feint). Scout: Perception, Stealth, Survival. Dungeon delver/tomb robber: Dungeoneering, Climb, Perception. A class should generally have one skill point for concept-essential skills for its commonly filled concepts, without being human or having above-average intelligence, or spending a FCB (which should be used for filling out the skill list with things like acrobatics, climb, swim, and perception if not core skills, or for Craft or Profession Soldier). And yes, I would spend these resources to increase skills on a fighter, but I shouldn't have to.

It's particularly annoying if the concept is supposed to have any kind of leadership ability, since investing in Int means low Cha, but investing in Cha means low Int and not enough skills. And fighters are often used as the "officers" compared to the common enlisted warrior class.

Clerics have the same concept problem. A cleric of Shelyn should be able to take Knowledge Religion, Diplomacy, and some Craft or Perform skill without dipping into extra resources; a cleric of Sarenrae should be able to have Religion, Diplomacy, and Heal; a cleric of Iomedae should have Religion, and at least two of Diplomacy, History, and Nobility. Not to mention all of these will want Spellcraft.

Aelryinth wrote:
Barbarians, the ultimate 'natural fighters' who don't study anything, get 4/level. The only possible justification for them getting 4 is the original class makers thought everyone would dump INT, because Barbs are nothing but brute melee fighters. Historically, they weren't anything but berserkers looking for the next fight. Acrobatics as a class skill? What?

I think it's to facilitate tribal barbarians taking Survival and Knowledge (Nature) or Handle Animal in addition to the Intimidate/Perception standbys. Acrobatics is also required for mighty leaps, which barbarians (as well as fighters) should be able to learn to perform. I don't think barbarians should have fewer skill points, but it is certainly weird that they have more than fighters.

Shadow Lodge

Adjule wrote:

As for 3rd edition, there's the Zenythri and Chaonds from MM2, and there are also the Cansin and Axani from one of the older Dragon Magazines (also had para-elemental touched, such as ooze, ice, magma, etc), which I liked better than those in the MM2 (and the art looked better, as well).

Dragon #297 July 2002 (so original 3rd edition), page 62 in the article Children of the Cosmos. Axani (law); Cansin (chaos); Dust, Ice, Magma, Ooze, Smoke, and Steam Para-Genasi. It's the issue that coincides with the release of the Epic Level Handbook.

Axani and Cansin stats are listed here. Picture of the two (surrounded by paragenasi) here.

I don't think we need full variant heritages for the planetouched, though a few more heritage-based alternate traits like Efreet Magic would be nice - sylphs and oreads don't have any.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

One of my players wanted to combine Titan Mauler and Savage Barbarian. They both replace Trap Sense. I let him do it. Gave him both abilities that replace trap sense in exchange for a feat. I figured Naked Courage (get a dodge bonus as long as you don't wear armour) was worth about a feat anyway. No problems.

Shadow Lodge

Lifat wrote:
Personally speaking I stay away from increasing the wealth of NPCs unless they are very special. Think adventure path bosses special. I might do it as a way to increase the groups wealth if they are behind on treasure though.

Good policy.

@Rambear - Permanency is also a good way to go, though I don't see the point of giving them extra wealth to increase CR and spending it on stat books, rather than giving them higher stats to increase CR.

Shadow Lodge

A level 6 druid turning into a (Large) rhino gets +3 to CMB (+2 from Str increase, +1 size bonus). The druid has a BAB of +4, and a combat druid will likely have Str 16, for a rhino-shape CMB of +10. The rhino's CMB is also +10.

A level 8 druid turning into a (Huge) elephant gets +5 to CMB (+3 Str, +2 size). BAB +6, Str 18 (assume at least a +2 belt), for a CMB of +15, which is behind the elephant's CMB of +20 but not by any means useless or puny, especially when we note that at level 8 the druid is 3 HD and two points of BAB behind the elephant. Bring the druid up to level 11 and assume a +4 Str belt at that level and the difference is +18 vs 20.

A level 12 druid turning into a Huge earth elemental gets +6 to CMB (+4 str, +2 size), which starting from +9 BAB and Str 20 yields +19 to CMB compared to the elemental's +21 (and note identical Str scores: 28).

If a BBEG can grapple a combat druid in animal form, there is a good chance the BBEG could grapple the animal the druid is emulating. I do not have a problem with this given that high level characters should be able to achieve truly fantastic things. If you find it strains credulity, I would recommend doubling the size modifiers to CMB (or just grapple) instead of placing an outright size cap. But as Lifat says note that this almost always hurts the PCs more than their adversaries.

Shadow Lodge

Keep in mind that giving an NPC PC-wealth means the PCs get a huge windfall when they defeat him, so don't do it too often.

Shadow Lodge

Charon's Little Helper wrote:
Wolfsnap wrote:
Honestly, it's more of a joke: mashing up the Paladin code with Asimov's 3 laws of robotics.
And we all saw how that turned out! :P

Pretty well, actually. Three-laws compatible robots are much better behaved than their scientific predecessors, which tended to turn on humanity. While simple 3-laws models might have malfunctioned due to unusual pressures from these laws, sophisticated robots like R Daneel Olivaw navigated them as well as any human holding to a moral code. R Daneel (programmed with an additional desire for justice) is in fact a decent model for an android paladin.

The Will Smith movie unfortunately took a step backwards in the "destroying humanity" department. Asimov did actually address robots taking control of humanity for their own good in The Evitable Conflict - but it was more subtle guiding than police state and arguably desirable for the kind of LG person who is willing to accept a wise and genuinely benevolent dictatorship.

Shadow Lodge

SoonerTed wrote:

This discussion has gotten the creative juices going.

Could an awakened animal count as a "Follower" under the Leadership feat? What about a cohort?

Yes, but they might count as a higher level than their class levels would indicate because of racial HD. You'd need to check with your GM.

Shadow Lodge

Wolfsnap wrote:

Although I wrote a much more comprehensive Paladin's Code for This Book, here's a much more pared down version:


1) A Paladin may not harm an innocent, nor through inaction allow an innocent to come to harm.

2) A Paladin must pursue and destroy evil, except where such activity would violate the first law.

3) A Paladin must preserve his own life and the life of his comrades in arms, except where such action would violate the first or second laws.

I like it - though I'd like to suggest that "destroy evil" could also refer to redemptive actions - destroying the evil in a person rather than simply destroying an evil person.

Shadow Lodge

Only the badlands domain (which replaces Woodland Stride), actually. I'm familiar with animal and terrain domains, but the ones I'd looked at worked like normal domains and didn't replace features.

Also it says "Other nature-themed classes with access to domains may select an animal or terrain domain in place of a regular domain." though I'm not sure what would qualify as a nature-themed class with a domain unless your GM counts clerics & inquisitors of nature deities. (and presumably they couldn't take the badlands or serpent domains)

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

With CR cap, 8th level aasimar urban druid, hoping the +2 racial wis and 2 points of ability score increase from levelling brings my Wis up to a tolerable level. I'd volunteer at a local hospital and for disaster relief and work on sustainable development using a combination of magic and science.

No CR cap, Solar Angel and try to save the world.

Shadow Lodge

So... what were your party members doing while this was happening?

Loengrin wrote:

Oh and something a lot of DM forgot : the grappler has the grappled condition too...

Oh, I have a question : is a grappled character considered has being in a grappling ? And can you rake while being graplled ?


EDIT: Rake can be used on a "grappled" opponent, and as you say, the controlling character is still grappled. To prevent rake, the controller has to pin its opponent, which prevents attacks/physical actions.

Shadow Lodge

Are there any other domains that do that?

Shadow Lodge

If it seems too good to be true, it probably is.

The devs aren't technical writers and they occasionally write ambiguous rules. VRMH's interpretation makes as much semantic sense as yours and makes more rules sense, so it is almost certainly correct.

The wording being inconsistent with similar abilities isn't good evidence it doesn't work the same way, especially since the wording of those abilities isn't consistent with each other. Uncanny dodge has about half a dozen slightly different wordings between rogue, barbarian, etc. Doesn't mean there are half a dozen versions of uncanny dodge.

Shadow Lodge

boring7 wrote:
On the flip side, let's do an impromptu poll. If this feat was available, how many characters would you make that would NOT take it? And no cheating by saying "well I have this bard/rogue who..."

My current character (martial arts barbarian) would not take it. Not enough feats.

My monk and inquisitor from previous campaigns also needed feats more than skill points.

My bard and druid might have taken it. They didn't have particularly feat-heavy builds and there were skills I would have liked them to invest in more.

I would probably take it if I were to play a cleric, fighter, or paladin, because all of them are typically skill-point starved. But it depends on whether I was trying to do anything fancy with them (eg shield bash pally).

I typically spend FCB on skill points, with the exception of the monk and inquisitor, who used their human race benefits (1/4 ki point and spells known).

Shadow Lodge

Why the heck does a domain replace a druid class feature?

Shadow Lodge

I don't think Invoke the Harrow is that good.

You can't control what stat it applies to, so you could use it in combat and get +4 Int.

It only lasts for minutes a day.

It's an enhancement bonus, which means it doesn't stack with stat-boosting items that you will use to enhance your most important stats. You could pull +4 Cha and have it do nothing because you have a Headband of Cha +4.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm OK with that too, it's just that "do you want to be a dragon or angel?" is a very different question from "do you want to be an elf wizard or dwarf cleric?"

Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:

A level 8 psion would be a strategic threat to the US military. Taking her out would require concentrated artillery fire or a direct strike from a nuclear bomb. She would laugh off the world's deadliest poisons and eviscerate the most masterful of assassins.

In this world she would be a demi-god capable of bending nations and even the world to her will. Heaven forbid she actually develop her power further.

I'm not familiar with the psion specifically, but I think 8th level = demigod is a bit of an exaggeration. Rifles do d10 damage. An AK47 fires 40-600 rounds/minute which amounts to minimum 4 attacks per round - and with a range of over 1000 feet, farther than a long-range spell at level 8 and well out of "medium" range. Not sure exactly how many well-equipped and well-trained soldiers it would take to threaten an 8th level caster but it's sure not the entire US military. Not to mention things like drones and heat-seeking missiles.

Tricks like invisibility would be harder to deal with but infrared and physical detection methods (like flour) would probably become commonplace among police and military groups before too long. Plus, magic runs out.

Keep in mind also that the original quote was:

Dexion1619 wrote:
Some things about magic to keep in mind. The lower level stuff is actually significantly weaker then modern technology, with some exceptions. Magic Missile isn't likely to kill anything in one shot, not even the family dog. Compare that to what any handgun can do (Let alone a beast like a .460 or .500 Mag). Mage Armor isn't likely much better then a good quality IIIA vest. Things like Comprehend Lang. on the other can would let you write you're own ticket in some fields.

4th level combat spells are pretty fantastic, but that's not "lower level" and while Magic Missile is a low-level spell, it's not proper low-level magic at CL 5.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

False Focus would be a decent way to get around hard to find components - pick up a gold necklace with the icon of your choice on it for about $10 and you'd be able to ignore most component costs.

Actually, how society would change around this is probably a more interesting question than most peoples' picks. 1% of the population isn't all that rare - that's about the percentage of the population that is red-headed worldwide, or on the autism spectrum in the USA. And an 8th level full caster probably is a low to mid-tier superhero. Mutant registration anyone?

Liam Warner wrote:
Since I'm not trying to balance this for an actual game (grin) almost anythings allowed race wise. unstatted or 3rd party is fine just no house race of +1 billion to everything, automatically returns from the dead blah blah blah. Yes you can be a dragon, drider or aboleth in fact one person already has taken the dragon option. Of course you can't take 50 different races half breeds or those with a minor ancestral touch as you can get in the current rules (half-elf, bloodline etc).

You might want to stick a CR cap on the "race" since otherwise that becomes way more interesting than 1-8 levels in a spellcasting class.

For example, I become a Solar Angel. Immortal, and DR/epic and Regen 15 (evil) makes me practically unkillable. SR gives a partial defense against other new casters. Plus Wish as a (free) spell-like ability 1/day, a set of other SLAs including constant True Seeing, and spellcasting as a 20th level cleric.

And being an Angel is good PR.

Shadow Lodge

Yeah, we'll have to have a chat at the next session and again once our player figures out what he's in for.

grimdog73 wrote:
If he gets posted to eastern Ontario after, I can help with the location of some groups and stores so he can get stuff and meet other gamers.

I'll pass that on, thanks.

Stockvillain wrote:
When I got deployed to Iraq (2004), Paizo even got my issues of Dungeon & Dragon magazines out there to me! Loyal customer ever since.

Now there's a special delivery.

Kelsey MacAilbert wrote:
We didn't get internet access, either. Basic training is s**@ty. Basic training is supposed to be s!!+ty. You don't relax and wind down, and the stress is kept intentionally high. Time off to Skype with your buds isn't something you will ever have.

The basic info on basic training I found said internet access was available on weekends conditional on performing up to an unspecified standard, and training schedule. I was hoping a Canadian would be able to chime in on how hard that standard is to reach, and how much training is scheduled during the weekends. I think we'll have to wait until he gets there. Thanks for the warning, though.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Liam Warner wrote:
It's 1 you still are on the books as attending a single sex highschool it'd just be a girls only one somewhere else or boys if your a girl and none there would remember that person attending while your original school does but has no records to prove it. Your So remembers the original version of you but any photographs the two of you took would shift to show two people of the same sex. Only physical records are changed and they're changed to keep things as close to the original as possible with no concern for anyone's preferences. However no memories are altered so unless you call your highschool or they have a reason to look up old records they wouldn't even know you'd changed if that makes it clearer. The point is that Bob or Barbara had a full set of records backing up their new existence however they'd have to convince their family of the changes (backed up by the new records)

I'd go for level 8 aasimar urban druid then. If it's just my official records that change I think I could cope with becoming trans and transitioning back - plenty of people have to deal with that without getting 5 levels of supernatural power in the bargain.

I'd take crafting feats and hope that the 1% of the population that's now magical could figure out how to get a materials distribution thing going on.

BTW my SO also would take the 8 levels, elf druid. Nature warrior couple, go!

Shadow Lodge

We just got off a three-month hiatus and I'm not eager for another long gap. I suppose it's an option but I'd have to talk about it with the rest of the group.

Kelsey MacAilbert wrote:
Weirdo wrote:
I was worried about that. Luckily we had a bit of warning and just finished his main character arc but it would suck if he had to drop out because he couldn't get one afternoon every other week to himself.
In basic, you never get to go off base. Ever. Later on in training, you may be able to get weekend pass, but the regulations and frequency differ extremely wildly, and not all personnel can get it at all. After that, it really depends what you do in the military and where you are stationed. For the first several months, he's not going to be able to game with you at all. Assuming Canada is similar to America in this regard, of course.

Getting off base is not a problem - we already play over Skype because our group moved apart after graduation. All he needs is 4 hours online during a weekend afternoon or evening to connect.

Shadow Lodge

I'm glad our hobby has a pretty good rep these days.

Mokshai wrote:
Just advise him that there will not be any real time for the first 6 months of training.
Kelsey MacAilbert wrote:
I'm American, not Canadian, but yea, you don't get time to do much of anything in basic. I remember Sunday morning for personal time, and that was it.

I was worried about that. Luckily we had a bit of warning and just finished his main character arc but it would suck if he had to drop out because he couldn't get one afternoon every other week to himself.

Shadow Lodge

Glewistee wrote:
The fluff behind the mechanics is that the pally gets his powers because he is good, not that he is good to get his powers. They are a reward for him being what he IS, at his core. He isn't "so-called virtous" in order to retain his powers, he gains his powers because he IS virtous.


Glewistee wrote:
The mechanics are a benefit given to help the player keep his character on the “straight and narrow”. Basically, if a player wants to play a “paladin like character”, the mechanics give her a benefit outside pure RP.

So why do you only get a mechanical benefit if you want to play a paladin-like charismatic warrior, and not a paladin-like arcane spellcaster?

Glewistee wrote:
Sure a lot of players will roll one purely for the mechanical benefits, and those players are usually the ones who give the class the Lawful Stupid reputation.

I don't think it's that simple. It's not just crunch fans who see paladins getting powers in exchange for rather than as a result of virtue (and the distinction between the two is complex).

I've seen people on the forum argue that a paladin must make an explicit vow to follow the paladin's code in order to formalize the exchange of powers for virtue - and that you cannot play a paladin who isn't aware of their paladin status and follows the code because it's the right thing to do.

For many people the paladin's and the world's awareness of the threat of falling is part of the mystique. Just look at the story linked on the first page. The villain says "you can't torture me because you would lose your powers" and the paladin says "If I'm going to lose my powers for torturing you, I'm going to make it worth it." "I look forward to falling," while dramatically impressive, is not the sentiment of someone who follows the paladin's code because it's the right thing to do - of someone who is the code.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Liam Warner wrote:
Weirdo wrote:
My SO wouldn't like it and the ret-con might erase the relationship entirely. If I was sure that I wouldn't lose my SO (either I could transition back medically or magically or the retcon changed my SO's orientation), I would probably go for level 8 wizard.
If your not taking the Ap option you could instantly try to go back to being Bob Thompson it's just that every bit of physical evidence is in Barbara Thompson's name ID, school transcript, hospital records etc.

The problem with only physical records changing is that there are parts of my life to date that don't make sense if my gender changes. I have a straight SO and went to a single-sex high school. There are a few options I see for how this works:

1) My records change but everyone remembers me as my original gender.

2) My records change and everyone remembers me as my new gender, but for some reason don't think it's odd that my SO isn't attracted to and my and high school doesn't enroll that gender.

3) The things inconsistent with my new gender also change to be no longer inconsistent - my SO becomes gay or bi, and my high school stops being single-sex (at least for the years I was there).

4) I lose the things inconsistent with my new gender - I am no longer in a relationship with my SO and went to a different high school (in which case, would I remember having them or would my memory change to fit?)

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

My heart says level 8 Urban Druid. Thousand faces (gained at level 6) makes the race/sex swap essentially irrelevant, which is kind of gaming the system but I love druids, and the Urban Druid fits my lifestyle. I've had an interest in druidic/new age faiths since I was a kid and I think I could pull off being a sustainability activist, especially with druid magic to back me up.

My brain says I do not have the Wis to be a successful druid and would probably be better off as a 3rd level wizard. I don't want to deal with the sex change without Thousand Faces. My SO wouldn't like it and the ret-con might erase the relationship entirely. If I was sure that I wouldn't lose my SO (either I could transition back medically or magically or the retcon changed my SO's orientation), I would probably go for level 8 wizard.

No way am I risking an AP. I think I have a better chance of dying than surviving and getting the levels.

Shadow Lodge

@Haladir: Rule for GMs: never assume player failure or NPC survival.

I pitted three level 11 players against a 18HD fey lord who was invulnerable as long as he was sitting on his throne, which was also invulnerable. They targeted the ground, knocking him off the throne. A set of readied attacks (and a lucky x3 crit) later... luckily the plot didn't rely on the fey's survival, it was just intended to be a non-combat encounter.

Shadow Lodge

Talk to your GM before playing a paladin. There are a ton of different potential ways to play a paladin. Any given person/GM will accept a different subset of those ways as being a proper paladin. This thread is proof of that.

As for being a stick in the mud, the biggest thing to remember is that while a paladin wants to encourage their teammates to be Good, and preferably LG, they don't have to hold others to the same standards as they hold themselves.

@Tectorman - that is a problem inherent to a class with a fall condition. Any idea to fix it, aside from avoiding the class? phantom1592's suggestion is a decent one from an RP perspective but not perfect. And of course while you certainly can play any class and keep to the paladin code, some people do enjoy the paladin mechanics.

Glewistee wrote:
Agree... Pally-hood is about faith in a higher power, and Carrot hasn't really shown any. Of course this seems to be pretty standard on the Disk. There are a LOT of gods (they have a god of Hangovers for dog's sake) but the religions don't seem to have a huge impact on the day-to-day lives of the inhabitance. Then again, Carrot can be said to have faith in goodness. He seems to believe in the goodness of everyone, despite the evidence to the contrary.

Faith in goodness is enough.

Pratchett likes to play with all kinds of fantasy tropes and I feel like Carrot and Vimes are intended to explore different takes on LG. Neither of them are strictly speaking paladins but they're fine models for players of paladins - though I personally think of Vimes as an Inquisitor, not because of his behavior but because of his skill set (including stealth, knowledge local, perception, survival for tacking/traps)

Shadow Lodge

First PF campaign. Party is fighting a cult headed by a worm that walks and his six lich servants. Party decides to weaken the cult with a blitz attack on their main garrison. Turns out the cult saw this coming (again, liches) and evacuated all but a token force meant to distract us while they attack our hometown, causing a whole lot of damage and killing many including the sheriff, high priestess, and the paladin's son.

Morals of the story: don't leave important things poorly guarded, never forget the "scry" in "scry and fry."

Shadow Lodge

One of my players is joining the military. I know some modern militaries (such as Israel) still frown on D&D and related games like PF but many others (including US) are OK with it. I cannot find anything in particular about the Canadian military - except that they limit laptop use and forbid video game consoles during basic training.

Anyone know if my friend is going to get hassled in general for being a PF player?

Anyone know if my friend is going to have a hard time Skyping in to our bi-weekly game during basic training?


Shadow Lodge

I believe that utilitarian ethics are perfectly compatible with a good alignment. However, you have to make every effort to determine the course of action with the best possible results, not simply justify the action most convenient for you because it will have some good consequences.

The OP's party members have suggested attempting a diplomatic solution. A Shelynite should be all over diplomatic solutions - especially if it discredits the Hellknights' needless brutality.

Mrpops wrote:
We have not actually been payed or been offered any reward or motivation for this.

This is not the reasoning of a good character.

SAMAS wrote:
Hellknights may be wrong, in many ways, but they are not Evil.

Correction: Hellknights aren't all evil. All three Lawful alignments are represented in their ranks. So "how bad are these Hell Knights" is a reasonable question. These particular Hell Knights tortured the OP's character, so they probably are not only the LE sort but also at the bottom of the list of people the character would give a fig about. It would make sense if he decided to leave them to their fate - but it's not consistent with CG ideals or those of Shelyn, which value life and forgiveness.

Shadow Lodge

My druid liked being targeted. Her second-highest stat was Con and huge water elementals can soak up some serious hits.

Shadow Lodge

Shelyn is pretty big on saving innocents and redeeming evil. CG characters also should also want to save innocents wherever possible, especially when your actions put them in danger in the first place.

In your case it's understandable that you'd want to leave the Hellknights to their fate and you're certainly allowed to act out of alignment and decide to let the innocents go hang, too, but that should be a significant decision and not just "I'm not interested enough in this quest."

Deylinarr wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:

Doesn't the Inquisitor class description give you the right to wave religious clauses if they would interfere with your specific mission for the church?

Seems like it is up to you whether this warrants that waving, but you are the person that basically does the wet works for your God. You're supposed to have looser morals. Beyond that, it's context and roleplay.

^ This. Ive always seen this as the distinction between a Cleric and an Inquisitor: the cleric HAS to say yes, the Inquisitor has to pause and consider the big picture before answering.

Yes, inquisitors get more leeway, but their decision to go against church doctrine is supposed to be backed up by the big picture or a specific competing mission. Being "above many of the rules and conventions of the church" doesn't mean can do whatever - you still need to serve your deity's will.

As always, it's a good idea to check with your GM about how they handle divine classes & characters.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The Inquisitor class is pretty versatile. They're good at investigating whatever the deity wants investigating as above, but also can be used any time you want a divine caster with lots of skills. My homebrew goddess of knowledge uses them as her main holy warriors because they tend to be more knowledgable about their specific enemies (especially with Monster Lore). She also has paladins, but those tend to act as standard-bearers and bodyguards. My Artemis-inspired moon goddess uses them as hunters (dat track).

Plus in a good church they're likely not so much "Catholic Inquisition" as "Internal Affairs," investigating and moderating any grievances people outside the church have with the clergy, or disputes between clergymembers. Again their Diplomacy and Sense Motive skills make them a solid "face" - unlike most clerics they can max out both skills and still have ranks for stuff like Knowledge (Religion) or (Local) or Linguistics. My inquisitor character was a bureaucratic member of a knightly order who found himself called into active duty.

The 8th Dwarf wrote:
I think there needs to be more of a focus on cultural interpretations of deities in the write ups. In the real world you can't walk two blocks without running into 2 or 3 different ways of worshiping one of the monotheistic goods and umpteen different interpretations of that gods message.

There are a few such tidbits, like Shimye-Magalla who appears to be an amalgamation of Gozreh and Desna, and Storm Giants see Gozreh as two separate deities of sea and sky. But more would be good.

Shadow Lodge

Goblin Slayer wrote:
Ooooo cool! A roc? Thx! I wanted to fly on a bird. Another Q.....can you train a roc as a mount and how long would it take?

I believe it's standard for a starting animal companion to already know its 1st level allotment of tricks, which allows them to be trained as a combat mount (though a medium druid would not be able to ride the roc until level 7 when it becomes large).


Handle Animal wrote:
Combat Training (DC 20) An animal trained to bear a rider into combat knows the tricks attack, come, defend, down, guard, and heel. Training an animal for combat riding takes 6 weeks. You may also “upgrade” an animal trained for riding to one trained for combat by spending 3 weeks and making a successful DC 20 Handle Animal check. The new general purpose and tricks completely replace the animal's previous purpose and any tricks it once knew.

Shadow Lodge

Kain Darkwind wrote:
Blackbloodtroll wrote:
Are we noting a difference between physical, and psychological torture?
I don't think people have gotten into what actually constitutes torture. Just that torture is evil.

There were a few posts to that effect on page 2: (link 1) (link 2) (link 3)

Shadow Lodge

If an agent of the law does not have the authority to execute someone for a crime, they should not have the authority to torture a confession out of them, because an overwhelming majority of the time the suspect will confess whether guilty or innocent. The confession doesn't prove anything. If your law enforcement is not trustworthy enough to be absolutely confident in a suspect's guilt prior to torture, then they will end up torturing false confessions out of innocents and that is obviously evil. If law enforcement is trustworthy enough to be absolutely confident in a suspect's guilt prior to torture, then just skip the torture and authorize your law enforcement to convict.

The only reason it would be legal to torture a confession out of someone is if the legal authority cares more about convicting the suspect and looking legitimate than about finding the guilty party. Such a system is LE and and a LG person should not be a part of it unless they are trying to change the system from within.

Might a LG person trapped in a LE system resort to torture out of desperation? I would say that they could - but only if it is portrayed as an act of true desperation and the character then redoubles their efforts to eliminate torture by finding alternative methods that are both moral and effective. Drowning out your conscience with alcohol doesn't cut it.

Theodor Snuddletusk wrote:

Weirdo: "Your inquisitor may intend ..."

But this is where i belive different. It is true, if the same idea that the inquisitor has is used by another person (or himself) and it is an innocent, or the torture is done on a basis that is evil. Fx: To find out where the innkeeper stashes his gold. Than it is evil. But if the intent is good, the motivation is good, and the result is good, than the evil act (as i see it) is not enought to alter the allignment of the inquisitor.

I do believe that results and intentions matter. But before you excuse an action because it has "good results" you have to examine all the results of your action, both direct and indirect, intended and unintended. And before you excuse an action because of "good intentions" you need to determine whether those intentions are realistic or delusional given your actions. If I grab a bottle of asprin from the medicine cabinet, check the instructions, and give my grandmother a pill for her headache, and it turns out that the asprin was mislabelled and I have poisoned my grandmother I am not morally guilty because I had good intentions and did my due diligence. If I grab a random bottle out of the cabinet and just shake out however many pills seem right I am absolutely guilty of poisoning even if I didn't "intend to" because a reasonable person would have anticipated the poisoning.

An evil action that has reasonably forseeable bad results is immoral.

In your inquisitor's case:
1) The result is not good because while he has directly convicted an evil person, he has indirectly supported the use of torture as a tool for gaining convictions, which is systemically Evil as explained above regardless of whether a corner case exists in which it might be justified.

2) If your inquisitor repeats this action even though it yielded bad results, he either is not actually paying attention to the results of his actions or doesn't care. His good intentions are not backed up by due diligence and thus they are morally meaningless.

Theodor Snuddletusk wrote:
Weirdo: A lowlvl inquisitor in a lowlvl setting might have to be forced to use it as a tool. If the spells are avalible and he just cba to use them it is by far not a good sign for his allignment.

Truthtelling is a level 1 spell.

Rysky wrote:
Weirdo wrote:
@Mikaze - Sorry, I think most of us were too busy trying to explain that "torture is evil even if you're pretty sure the victim is guilty/evil" that we missed out on "rape is evil even when it's a horribly contrived situation designed to give your character permission to rape."
No such thing. Ever.

I didn't say it gave permission to rape, I said it was designed to. When I was a kid I went out into the backyard and performed a magic ritual designed to summon fairies. Unfortunately, none answered.

Shadow Lodge

Scavion wrote:
Though it's really hard for an innocent to be convicted by an inquisitor. They have a very nice spell list for that.

Yes, inquisitors have such a nice spell list that they really shouldn't have to resort to torture to get a confession in the first place. A character capable of kidnapping and torturing a powerful person is certainly capable of sitting that person down in front of witnesses and questioning them under truth-compelling magic. Refusing to confirm innocence under such conditions could itself be taken as a confession (the right to remain silent is surely less inviolable than the right not to be tortured). Truthtelling is my personal favourite, but Confess has its charm. Had an awesome moment at my table when the party walked into a courtroom, accused the judge of treason, and put him on trial. Confess made short work of him, starting with "Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?" "No! I mean... I protest this treatment."

Also, Scavion, believe me that I have not forgotten about the Law/Chaos axis. I am a huge proponent of Chaotic Good being just as valid an interpretation of "Good" as LG. However I disagree with your characterization of Law vs Chaos.

Torture is not inherently non-Lawful. It may be contrary to some laws and customs (including ours), but is not contrary to all laws and customs. It also doesn't undermine a general preference for order which is the core of the lawful alignment. Torture is only non-lawful if a character has sworn to uphold a set of laws that forbid torture (eg a modern police officer). It has been an entirely lawful option for many authorities throughout history.

In this particular example the character is using torture instead of murder because torture is the more lawful/socially acceptable way of dealing with the problem. That is not the thought process of a chaotic person, who would probably find murder more "expedient" than jumping through hoops to prove to some court that an evil person deserves to be punished. Is murder better than torture? It feels less bad to me, but maybe that's because I'm desensitized by lots of heroic killings in games & media - in which case the solution is to have less tolerance for good characters committing murder in our game, not more tolerance for torture.

@Mikaze - Sorry, I think most of us were too busy trying to explain that "torture is evil even if you're pretty sure the victim is guilty/evil" that we missed out on "rape is evil even when it's a horribly contrived situation designed to give your character permission to rape."

Shadow Lodge

DoubleGold wrote:
Weirdo wrote:

Do you not like prewritten settings at all? Do you think that Cheliax or Varisia only have culture if the players give them one?

I love writing my own settings and mythologies, and if I did run a game set in Golarion it sure wouldn't be 100% as-written. But Paizo has done a pretty good job with theirs, including interesting and multifaceted deities of both genders.

I like playing pregens, but the roleplay part of the game is what people make it. 2 DMs could roleplay DM the same game, but have two different interpretations of a characters personality or what an NPC would do in said situation, unless instructions are specific to include all if's, and's or but's.

Sure, two people will have different interpretations of the same deity, but that's not the same thing as the deity having no personality. There are many interpretations of the character of Hamlet (even with an actual script to follow). That doesn't mean Hamlet has no personality.

Necromancer wrote:

Since I've been playing more than GMing recently, I've found myself more willing to try out clerics and divine-friendly characters. That said, I still treat deities as nothing more than a religion's mythology, but I can weigh in on this.

I prefer characters that are opposite their chosen deity.

Several options for good characters

  • I really want to try out a male inquisitor of Shelyn focused on recovering stolen art (Council of Thieves or maybe Hell's Rebels).
  • For Cayden Cailean, I could easily see creating a female urban inquisitor that keeps an eye on drunk revelers wandering home after dark, helps to keep want-ads near pubs honest (i.e. slavers and quests ending in frame-jobs), and brings everyone's spirits up when oppression and misfortune reign supreme.

I like these ideas. But any idea why you prefer characters of an opposite gender from their deity?

Shadow Lodge

Be careful, and make sure you know your group. Partly rescinding the effects might disappoint luckier characters, especially if you only undo the biggest benefits (like if one PC gets to keep +2 to a stat, but another has to give up his major magic weapon). The players might feel that by taking the risk they've earned the reward.

1 to 50 of 2,591 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 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.