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

Weirdo's page

Pathfinder Society Member. 4,564 posts. No reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist. 1 alias.


RSS

1 to 50 of 4,564 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Shadow Lodge

Did this with a campaign end boss.

Tristalt wizard//cleric//fighter - had the abilities of all three classes and had three turns each round, one in which to cast a wizard spell, one in which to cast a cleric spell, and one in which to attack. The turns were staggered in initiative order.

Super challenging fight, but it was a high powered campaign and thanks to the West Marches-style player/character rotation we had going, there were about a dozen PCs for the finale.

Lots of fun.

Shadow Lodge

RAW, you are correct.

RAI, you are probably correct, but it would have been much simpler to just say "defensive training and hatred racial traits, dwarf" if the intent was to keep gnomes ou.

Shadow Lodge

Yes. Neither are spells and there is no indication that either require patience or concentration.

Shadow Lodge

Speaking of not useless...

Goth Guru wrote:
Sneakers of walking it off: If you can walk at least a 5 foot step, all your lethal damage is transformed into subdual."Go take a nap in the nurses office."

Seeing how subdual damage is much less lethal than lethal damage, these sneakers would be super handy.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

And yet associating with an evil person is not automatically an evil act, nor to the best of my knowledge is using an Unholy sword.

You can even in rare circumstances have a creature with the (evil) subtype - literally made of evil and affected aligned spells accordingly - but without the evil alignment.

thejeff wrote:

And yet there are also players who believe in objective morality, who find all this modern relative morality stuff very much wrong.

You can't please everyone.

You can't please everyone, but you could have pleased more people by writing one sentence somewhere (preferably soon in the development process) indicating that evil spells actually do inevitably increase the amount of suffering in the world, even if it's not directly apparent. Or that they do slowly alter a character's outlook similarly to a Helm of Opposite Alignment. Or even a sentence indicating that because evil spells are supposed to be more than just tools, the GM should determine a consequence or cost which suits their table/campaign and which would make Good characters hesitate to use such spells.

There's a whole paragraph summarizing the "goblin baby dilemma." Surely it would be possible to provide a little context for [evil] spells.

(And to be absolutely clear, I am not advocating relative morality in the game, I am advocating non-arbitrary justification for the objective morality system the game does have.)

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Orfamy Quest wrote:
Not buying the product is, indeed, the ultimate critique.

Yes, ultimate. As in, final, as in, not the first form of critique. If I never bought anything I could find fault with, my bookshelf would be much less cramped.

Orfamy Quest wrote:
"Objective morality" is a deeply controversial philosophical position in the real world. But in Pathfinder, it's less controversial than heliocentrism, because it's much easier experiment to perform. And precisely because of the objective nature of Pathfinder morality, contentment is not a necessary component of the inhabitants' lives.

It is not the contentment of the characters that I'm concerned with, but that of the players.

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't think a creator is obligated to respond to critique of their work, but also don't think that it's appropriate to say that consumers shouldn't engage in critique.

Not understanding or agreeing with the rationale behind how the moral system works in this game decreases my enjoyment of the game. It doesn't bug me much because I play in a home game (and often GM) so we can hit it with Rule 0. But for some people it may become an actual issue in their game, and that can be upsetting.

This sort of negative reaction and emotional critique occurs in plenty of places other than alignment. See for example the repeated arguments about martial-caster disparity or certain bits of errata (Fencing Grace being a recent example).

And yes, there are cases in other media where fans actively ignore things the creator put in their work because doing so increases the fans' enjoyment.

HWalsh wrote:

That's a bit of shakey reasoning. There is no requirement to use it, thus no reason to sow distrust. In fact in my last 8 Pathfinder campaigns it's never been cast.

It's only 10 HP over 10 rounds, so it's efficient, yes. However it's slow, useful only out of combat, and only worth casting really if someone is dying and you have nobody who can make the heal check.

So if the idea was to make people paranoid it's a poor gambit as it doesn't scale. So virtually nobody of significant power would get snared.

It's much more likely it is a, "Hook 'em while they're young." Situation.

If it's almost never worth casting, how is it going to be effective bait? Besides, didn't we just establish (starting here that the out of combat use is precisely the appeal? Especially for wizards and such who don't get CLW - also the most likely to in-character see spells as tools without inherent moral meaning. If you've never seen it used at your table, it's probably because the rest of the group also believes that it's [evil] and thus unsuitable for heroes. This is not necessarily true of people in the game.

Orfamy Quest wrote:
I'd consider this a lot more responsive -- or even relevant -- if I thought there were a huge number of PF players, writers, developers, or publishers in 13th century Iceland, or Mesopotamia c. 3000 BCE, or Coruscant "a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away." Oddly enough, for a game written in the 21st century and published almost exclusively in English (and US English, at that), the game as written assumes the reader has the cultural trappings of the early 21st century United States.

Sharing cultural trappings is not the same thing as sharing moral frameworks. Hence continued heated debates in the US about everything from gay marriage to doctor-assisted suicide to genetic modification of human embryos.

Also, while understanding the law is not necessary for being held legally responsible, it is often necessary for feeling content with obeying the law, especially when doing so is inconvenient. For example, if I understand and agree with how my taxes are spent, I'll be a lot happier about paying them. This is the difference between a player accepting that the GM will change their character's alignment if they cast Infernal Healing too regularly, and a player actually feeling like their good-aligned character shouldn't want to cast Infernal Healing.

Shadow Lodge

alexd1976 wrote:
Due to a cooperative GM (and a fairly lucky find of a stash of healing potions that he slipped into the ale keg)...

*snort*

Shadow Lodge

Patrick C. wrote:
The operative words here being "some circumstances". If a Paladin starts to kill willy nilly, he is not a Paladin anymore. The same reasoning applies to alignment and using evil spells.

Except that as written, casting an evil spell is always an evil act, but killing is not always an evil act.

Patrick C. wrote:

Again - Why does Infernal Healing exists? Because Hell wanted to give it's minions an easier, more efficient way of healing themselves? One which could be easily found by Hell's enemies and used to their advantage?

Or because Hell inserted some subtle malicious corrupting influence on a spell that just seems to good a deal to pass up?

Or because it wants a spell that it can use to efficiently heal its own minions which also has a stigma attached to it that makes enemies hesitant to use it and causes suspicion and paranoia to fall upon any of its enemies who do use it. Distrust among goodly peoples is gold for fiends, and the belief that your friend the wizard has been corrupted by dark magic may very well become a self-fulfilling prophecy...

Shadow Lodge

Patrick C. wrote:
Except killing people can very easily turn you to Evil. Killing innocents is evil. Killing when you have the option of simply knocking off is evil. Killing as anything but a last measure is very close to the Evil end of Neutral. It is certainly not Good.

I agree. However, that does not mean that every act of killing is an evil act. A paladin is allowed to kill in at least some circumstances.

Patrick C. wrote:

See: why use Infernal Healing when Healing is available? Why Summon Devils when summoned Archons, or heck, even hired hands could do what you want them to do?

Because it's easier. Because it's more expedient. Because I wanna show them who's boss

All of which are the kind of thinking that will eventually lead someone to lose consideration for others... Which is the opposite of what the Good alignment is all about.

But expedience is only evil when it actually comes at the expense of others. Killing someone because it's easier than taking them prisoner, yes. Buying a prepared meal instead of cooking, no. Again going back to my "where's the harm" question, if casting an [evil] spell doesn't actually come at the expense of someone else somehow somewhere down the line, why is it evil?

Patrick C. wrote:
I mean... At the very least, you are using the energies of planes who are objectively Evil, bent on corrupting you, and dedicated to spread suffering, oppression and despair through the whole multiverse... How is that not evil?

But what does it actually mean to use the power of objectively Evil planes? Does it strengthen those planes (either directly or indirectly by increasing the amount of suffering and despair in the world)? Does it increase those planes' claim on your soul after death? Or does it actually weaken those planes by drawing on their reserves of magical power?

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

There actually is a (very rough) rule for tracking alignment points in Ultimate Campaign. And at least one 3PP with a much more detailed system. Agreed these systems aren't standard, though.

Orfamay Quest wrote:
Weirdo wrote:
HWalsh wrote:

Also, take into account what is needed for Infernal Healing...

Unholy Water (requires an evil spell being cast by someone to create)

This is begging the question.

No, it's a tautology. Evil spells are, by definition and by game rule, evil.

Except the argument is about how the tautology is justified. And it's begging the question when you try to prove a tautology using that same tautology.

"True by definition" is logically valid, but as I explained earlier is a deeply unsatisfying justification for this particular tautology - hence the resistance to this explanation and the search for other justifications such as the many interesting explanations presented on this thread.

Shadow Lodge

4 people marked this as a favorite.

I think it's correct that society could develop in a fantasy world differently from how ours has developed. For example, sexism is not the norm on Golarion in the same way it is on Earth.

On the other hand, I also think it's worth considering how the way we approach these issues in fiction reflects on how we relate to them in the real world. This is why people become concerned when some fantasy works portray "good races" as mostly European-looking, while "evil races" are dark-skinned or otherwise reflect racist stereotypes. In this instance, by overstating the actual differences between gender in our fiction or by presenting overly strict and possibly asymmetrical gender roles in a favourable light, we give credence to the idea that in our world it is indeed reasonable and desirable to treat gender difference in this way.

It sounds like part of the reason the Aslan work well is because they actually run counter to our usual ideas about how gender dynamics work, which causes the reader to examine their own assumptions.

Finally, because I think this was dismissed too easily earlier in the discussion, I do believe that the stereotype of incompetent dads is a form of misandry. It might be limited in scope and softened with a sort of tolerant affection, but there's a dose of contempt here of the same sort as seen here. Of course, this doesn't disprove Ms. Price's overall point. The "dumb dad" is yet another example of a scornful attitude that developed in order to support a sexist system by assigning the duties of homemaking to women - because a man "can't" do them right. Predictably, this leads to career sacrifices for many women. As an added "bonus", hostility towards male parenting efforts combined with the general devaluing of feminine pursuits punishes men who try to fight the system and be equal partners with their wives.

Shadow Lodge

Closest I've ever come to detailing out a spell prep ritual was with my druid. Instead of mistletoe, she used a medicine bag as a holy symbol. To prepare spells, she meditated on the items within and their meaning. A shard of her animal companion's horn, for example, represented her kinship with animals.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:

Also, take into account what is needed for Infernal Healing...

Unholy Water (requires an evil spell being cast by someone to create)

This is begging the question. Casting Infernal Healing is an evil act because it requires Unholy Water. Using Unholy Water is an evil act because it's created with an [evil] spell, which is evil because casting [evil] spells is an evil act.

HWalsh wrote:
Devil's Blood (there are a bunch of ways to get this, most notably by having someone make a deal with a devil which is probably an evil act, or slaying one, which also means that someone had to call it to this plane to begin with, which is an evil act.)

Because nonevil adventurers are highly unlikely to have to fight and kill an evil outsider that they didn't personally call to the material plane.

HWalsh wrote:
And most (sane) GMs won't let you "Eschew Materials" the Devil's Blood component, simply because the other component that can be substituted is 25 gold pieces a pop indicating that the cost of Devil's Blood is likely too high for Eschew to cover.

Absolutely disagree. If devil's blood has no listed cost, it is not unusually expensive. It would be a house rule to prevent Eschew Materials from working with it, or to require a caster to purchase it at 25gp per casting. Aside from creating restrictions beyond those included in the text, it also cuts against one of the most interesting thematic aspects of the spell - that it is tempting/corrupting specifically because it's easier and cheaper.

Patrick C. wrote:
Will this necessarily happen? No, not necessarily... It might not happen. But everyone has to agree that it is easier to fall from "it's okay to use devils to save children" to "it's okay to use devils to beat my enemies" than from "it's never okay to use devils at all".

It's also easier to fall from "it's OK to use lethal force to save children" to "it's OK to use lethal force to beat my enemies" than "it's never okay to use lethal force at all." And yet killing is not considered inherently evil in PF despite the fact that it can easily be used for evil ends.

Orfamay Quest wrote:
Classically, this is untrue. There's even a proverb about it. "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions." Taking evil means to a good end is still an evil act, as has been understood by nearly every theologian and moral philosopher going back to Plato.

Which is a fine argument if you're able to demonstrate that casting an [evil] spell is actually an evil means. As opposed to just using a power source that is inaccessible to those directly powered by good entities, which would sufficiently justify the need for an [evil] tag.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cyrad wrote:

I don't understand why they have ant haul, anyway. Their strength is already represented with a +2 Strength bonus. Kangaroos aren't known for having arms capable of carrying a lot of stuff. And somehow this race can carry twice the load of a quadruped creature of their size?

It's not the case that it's too powerful. It just strikes me as a very baffling place to allocate part of their power budget when a designer could invest that power elsewhere in abilities that make sense and fit the race concept better.

Carrying capacity as it's usually used (the weight of worn armour or gear in a backpack) is less about arm strength and more about the shoulders and hips. I can definitely see the argument for a kangaroo-like race having unusually strong hips. That said, I do agree it makes more sense for them to be treated as quadrupeds for purposes of carrying capacity than to grant Ant Haul. It also doesn't strike me as the best way to model sexual dimorphism for this species.

Perhaps a better option would be to give the males a "Powerful Build" trait that allows them to be treated as large for purposes of combat maneuvers? Male kangaroos are significantly larger than females...

Shadow Lodge

Silk is an electrical insulator, so possibly electricity resistance or a similar bonus?

Also while I like the idea that it's easier to disguise as clothing, the wording "cost" is a bit odd. Do you mean it's cheaper to add the glamoured property? I would consider a bonus on disguise checks, or a separate nonmagical property that could be added to the silk ("for an extra x GP, ironweave silk can be made to look like ordinary clothing, requiring a DC 20 Perception check to identify it as armour").

Shadow Lodge

I disagree.

First, there's definitely a tactical role for temporary defensive effects. That's why spells like Shield (or Shield of Faith, or Ironskin) exist in the first place.

Second, it's not uncommon to have more than three fights a day. In fact, I believe the standard is 4-6. You could be missing the AC bonus in as many as half your encounters.

Third, if you don't see the combat coming before initiative is rolled, it takes an action. An immediate action is certainly easier than a standard action, but it's still an action, and many characters will have another swift action buff they'd want to get active as soon or as often as possible (from Smite Evil to spending ki to Arcane Strike).

Fourth, even if you don't have competition for your immediate action, you can't use an immediate action when flat-footed, so you could still be targeted by quite a few attacks before your defense is active. If you get ambushed and your initiative isn't great, it could get quite damaging.

Now, if OP tends to run fewer combats per day and give the party lots of warning when they're about to enter combat, then OP should adjust the price estimate upwards. But I'd take a +3 Ring of Protection over the proposed item any day.

Shadow Lodge

Eh, it's Ant Haul. Lasts 2 hours/level, and while it's a lot of fun increased carrying capacity isn't exactly a game-changer.

Shadow Lodge

Nope. Casting a spell means casting a spell, not using a spell-like ability or a wand.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

So, not sure what advice specifically you're looking for, but I'd recommend having a discussion about how evil you want to be. You don't want one person playing Snidely Whiplash while another person is eating babies. You might have had a similar conversation about the kinds of things you're willing to have villains do in your usual games, but it can get somewhat more intense/uncomfortable when the baby eater is on your team.

Shadow Lodge

Yup. Couple notes, though.

First, if Roo Punt only works during Flurry of Blows and requires you to move during the action, it is only useful to Unchained Monks with Flying Kick, or possibly Pummeling Style. Consider rewriting to something like: If you move at least 20ft and then make an unarmed strike, you may also knock your target back as if using the Awesome Blow feat. A Roo Monk may use this ability with a Flurry of Blows.

Also it's not necessary to rewrite e cover rules under the pouch - you can just say it grants cover. And thematically I think it makes more sense to have one mundane pouch with both functiond than two magical ones, but your call.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gun Dragon wrote:
How should I rework the pouch?

I'd give a +4 bonus to Sleight of Hand checks to conceal items within the pouch.

Also, instead of granting a magic armour bonus to a creature inside, it should grant cover (+4 to AC and +2 to reflex, don't provoke attacks of opportunity) - and if the creature ducks down fully into the pocket as a move action they get total cover and can't be targeted at all. Useful place for a familiar...

Shadow Lodge

Looks interesting and I like the cooperative effects, but I think it's better than the greatsword you posted given the sword's disadvantage.

Shadow Lodge

Brooch: I would price the new version between 12-18K. It shouldn't be more valuable than a +3 Amulet of Natural Armour or Ring of Deflection because the benefit of having an extra +1 AC and +2 Reflex is not more significant than the advantage of a constant item.

@Wonderstell - the price for shield bonuses or other AC bonuses assumes they are constant, while the brooch functions in 1 minute intervals (more like the Shield spell). A 3/day True Strike item would be balanced and affordable, unlike a constant True Strike effect.

Black Arrow Cloak: Wonderstell's estimate is close, though as a 24h duration spell Endure Elements is less valuable to have as a constant effect than most other 1st level spells (by the table, 1000gp instead of 2000gp). That leaves the final price around 8-9K, depending on how much you weight the Stealth limitation, which sounds reasonable to me.

Wiggz wrote:
Weirdo wrote:
Mask...
One of the things I often do it set the save DC for a magic item as if the character had cast the spell themselves - a luxury of handing out custom items intended for specific player characters. Would that clarify the pricing of this item, lock it in at the aforementioned 40K? Also, how much would that cost go up if I added a permanent Deathwatch spell to it?

Yeah, if the save scaled that would at least warrant the 40K price. Deathwatch is a 1st level spell with a 10 min/level duration, so 1*1*1.5*2000*1.5 = 4500gp, for about 45K total. Might even bump it up to 50K depending on how high much your players like to optimize for saving throws.

Shadow Lodge

Nope, it just means you need to have the trait and otherwise be able to take the Trickery or Knowledge domain (usually by worshipping a deity that grants those domains, but an ideal works assuming GM approval).

Shadow Lodge

Yeah, there's no increase in cost for multiple abilities on a slotless item.

Putting two abilities on the same slotted item is an increase in value compared to having to use two different slotted items, but putting two abilities on a slotless item gives you no advantage over two slotless items.

Shadow Lodge

Items that scale with character level are hard to price if you're talking about actual buying and selling because a character buying the item at a higher level will actually get a more valuable item than someone buying it at a lower level. That said, if the items aren't actually being traded and you're just trying to figure out relative value...

Brooch: My first thought is to value this one at about twice that of a 1/day shield spell. You can activate it as an immediate action, albeit at a penalty, also get +2 reflex, get an untyped bonus to AC, and in addition Shield is a personal spell which makes it more useful in item form than other spells of its level. So the value of this one would be 2* 1 * caster level * 1800 = 3600 * character level. However you see diminishing returns because most characters probably won't see more than 5 minutes or so of combat a day. So I'd value it at 4000 for each level up to 5, 2000 for each level up to 10, and 1000 per level thereafter. This means that you actually wouldn't be able to afford one of these until after level 10, when they become effectively unlimited use - personally I'd lower the uses/day and the cost so it would be an affordable item earlier on and also require more tactical thinking about its use.

Sword: Granting Improved Critical is the same as a Keen weapon. I would probably also treat the other two feats as +1 equivalent properties and price accordingly. At level 8, you have a +3 eqivalent weapon = 18K. At level 11, +4 = 32K. At level 14, +5 = 50K. And so forth for the last few enhancement bonuses.

Sheath: These should probably be slightly more valuable than +1 Light, Medium, and Heavy fortification armour, respectively, so 5K, 20K, and 40K respectively. Maybe 50K on the last once since by the time you hit level 16 you've probably got some really excellent armour and stacking heavy fortification on that will be very valuable.

Darkgem: Formula says 1*1*2000*1.5 = 3000 for the hide from undead effect, or 6K for slotless, plus 1*1*1800*3/5 = 1080 for the Inflict Light Wounds (assume CL 1), or +2K for slotless = 8K total. Seems a little high for me given that these aren't the most useful spells, but not too far off. I'd go for 6-8K.

Circlet: As a ballpark I'd say 30K, similar to the Laurel of Command

Cloak: I'd go for 30-40K, somewhat lower than the Charlatan's Cape. Shadow Walk is a spell level lower than Ethereal Jaunt, and the limitation on Dimension Door is significant. The extra stealth bonus is nice, but not enough to make the items quite equally valuable. (Note: the item formula here suggests closer to 60K but the comparison to the Charlatan's Cape is more important).

Shadow Lodge

That's what I get for looking it up in my actual copy instead of using the internet. Though, to be fair, without any more context than a page number I didn't know where to look online.

I'm glad it works that way because I'm pretty sure that's the way my group has been doing it. Probably, again, because we mostly use the pfsrd as our actual rules reference.

thaX wrote:
Weirdo, the penalty is the -5 for the natural attacks, the same as when a primary is used and the lesser attacks are at that same penalty (Bite, claw/claw)(full, -5/-5)

That's what I said...

Weirdo wrote:
So a character with only one dagger and a bite could make an attack routine at dagger at -4 (primary manufactured attack) and bite -5 (secondary natural attack) but if the character has TWF the dagger penalty is only -2, and if he has Multiattack the bite penalty is only -2.

Shadow Lodge

Mask: The item formula prices this one around 40,000gp. Widened Fear is effectively a 7th level wizard spell (min CL 13) = 7*13*1800/5 = 32.7K, plus about 3.75K for the AC bonus and 3K to the saves bonus. However, that seems very overpriced to me given that the save DC for the Fear effect would still only be 16, which is extremely low for the threats you'd likely fact at a level where the item would be affordable. Also, the Fear portion of the effect costs more than the Drums of Panic, which produces a larger area of fear than the proposed mask (and again, that DC 16 save makes me doubt whether the Drum is actually worth its stated price). I would probably set the mask at 30K.

Dawnflower: Item formula says 45K for the constant effect (spell level 3 * CL 5 * 2000 * 1.5), then add maybe another 5-10K for the additional effect. (Daylight or Invisibility Purge 1/day = 5400gp, and the fact that you get both at once (with the superior range and duration) more than makes up for the less frequent use. 50-55K total seems fair compared to the Lantern of Revealing, seeing as Discovery Torch is always useful but Invisibility Purge is usually OK to have occasionally available.

Well: This item is most similar to seven combined minor rings of spell storing, which would cost 18+(6*18*1.5) = 180K by the formula. While it allows a slightly higher spell to be stored, each charm can only be used to store one spell (as opposed to the ring storing any number of spells whose combined level = 3). It also has a slightly harder activation condition (spell trigger instead of anyone) and is tied to specific schools of magic. These limitations are significant, so I'd value it altogether at maybe 100K? That also makes it similar to seven 4th level Pearls of Power (112K). Definitely the most useful item of the three by far.

Shadow Lodge

I, also, think it would be nice if you got a little something for both the suggestion and the patience.

Shadow Lodge

Citing the rule in context would help.

CBR wrote:
You can make attacks with natural weapons in combination with attacks made with a melee weapon and unarmed strikes, so long as a different limb is used for each attack. For example, you cannot make a claw attack and also use that hand to make attacks with a longsword. When you make additional attacks in this way, all of your natural attacks are treated as secondary natural attacks, using your base attack bonus minus 5 and adding only 1/2 of your Strength modifier on damage rolls. In addition, all of your attacks made with melee weapons and unarmed strikes are made as if you were two-weapon fighting. Your natural attacks are treated as light, off-hand weapons for determining the penalty to your other attacks. Feats such as Two-Weapon Fighting and Multiattack (see the Pathfinder RPG Bestiary) can reduce these penalties.

So a character with only one dagger and a bite could make an attack routine at dagger at -4 (primary manufactured attack) and bite -5 (secondary natural attack) but if the character has TWF the dagger penalty is only -2, and if he has Multiattack the bite penalty is only -2.

It appears that you can still TWF and use natural attacks at the same time, at no additional penalty, though I'm not certain.

Shadow Lodge

It doesn't. The monster ability is not the same as the paladin ability, and the former doesn't say anything about DR.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Steve Geddes wrote:

I think that implication would be strong if both books were written at once. Personally, I think the alignment system was intended as a model of morality (a poor one) not that the terms were intended to "have moral implications".

It's a subtle distinction, but I think it's meaningful (and would remove a lot of the irritation people seem to experience in alignment debates where complex real-world moral views are poorly modelled by the primitive alignment system).

While I agree that it's worth recognizing the limitations of a game system to model morality, I'm not sure it diminishes my point about the alignment system having moral meaning, which makes people uncomfortable or frustrated when it conflicts with their own moral reasoning.

(It's not just alignment, either. Aside from arguments about how well the game models/should model physics, I've seen people get quite annoyed about liberties the Bestiaries take with mythological creatures eg Efreet and Ifrit being different things.)

Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Weirdo wrote:
A gaming group certainly could agree that the game world acts deontologically but for people who don't agree with deontological ethics that means divorcing alignment from morality. That is to say that just because an act or person is evil doesn't mean it's morally wrong, as in the case of a character who gains an evil alignment and thus is sent to Hell solely as a result of saving orphans with castings of Infernal Healing.
If someone writes that kind of story, they rightly deserve the derision it would bring.

I think it would be really interesting to tell a story in which "evil" and "morally wrong" aren't necessarily the same thing. I mean, the cosmic forces of alignment seem to correlate with our moral intuitions, but what's to say it's a perfect correlation? Maybe "good" and "evil" really are just "radiant" and "shadow" forces. Should we accept this standard simply because it's objective, or defer to our own reasoning as sentient beings who can experience suffering and compassion - even if that means accepting a subjective morality? But it's not a story I'd necessarily want in an adventure game, and certainly not one I'd introduce without some very loud disclaimers at the start of a campaign.

Deadmanwalking wrote:

A better comparison would be [fire] spells causing one to gradually like fire more and more and be more inclined to use it. To watch fascinated as things burn. And as for that...who says [fire] spells don't do exactly that? Not to the point of psychosis, but, well, many spellcasters focus quite a bit on one energy type and like that energy a bit more than is strictly normal.

That's certainly true of both published NPCs and a lot of PCs I've seen. Who's to say it's not from the preponderance of [fire] spells? There's no rule for it, since there's no rules in the game for really liking fire (unlike Alignment)...but it would sure explain a lot.

Sure would, but like [evil] spells making you want to do more evil things, it's not actually discussed in the rulebook.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
That said, it does seem like you could create a society where men and women have very different spheres of public authority and have them be considerably more equal.

I'm working on a culture like this. It's a seaside region in which the men spend a lot of time on the water sailing - fishing and trading with other settlements along the coast - and therefore have control over foreign policy. Women stay home and farm, giving them control over domestic policy. Men own ships, women own land.

Shadow Lodge

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Having an objective standard for good and evil does not mean that that objective standard has to be deontological in nature.

The cosmic forces of good and evil could just as easily react to / calculate up the total good and evil effects of an action to determine the effect on the soul/alignment in the same way one might calculate the total physical forces on an object in order to see what way the object moves.

A gaming group certainly could agree that the game world acts deontologically but for people who don't agree with deontological ethics that means divorcing alignment from morality. That is to say that just because an act or person is evil doesn't mean it's morally wrong, as in the case of a character who gains an evil alignment and thus is sent to Hell solely as a result of saving orphans with castings of Infernal Healing.

Shadow Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Alignment in PF is written to reflect morality. It certainly would be interesting to use an alignment system in which we “replace 'good' and 'evil' with stand-ins that lack moral implications, such as 'radiant' and 'shadow',” doing so is presented as a variant rule (Unchained p 101), indicating that the moral implications of “good” and “evil” in the main rules is intentional.

Generally speaking I prefer that the morality in my games match up with my own moral thinking. I don't think I'm alone in this given the design team's previous concerns regarding whether LG Torag was portrayed as genocidal, or LG Erastil was too patriarchal, neither of which would be a problem if “meh, game morality is different” was an acceptable response.

I see morality in terms of some sort of harm. You can debate about where you look for the harm - harmful means, intent to harm, net total of harm, whether potential or abstract harm qualifies (eg your partner didn't know about the infidelity, but it would have hurt them if they knew so it's immoral) - but if there's not even a potential harm to be found it's not evil. And the general description of alignment seems to agree with that, seeing as it describes evil as "hurting, oppressing, and killing others."

Thus, when I see something that is described as "evil" but does not seem to involve any harm, it clashes with my sense of morality and causes the same sort of discomfort as if someone had told me that torturing goblin infants was a "good" action.

The only way I can see resolving this sensibly is either to assume that [evil] spells cause subtle unseen harm (every time you cast Infernal Healing, a devil gets its horns) or to say that it has a corrupting influence on your later actions - while casting Infernal Healing isn't itself harmful it somehow makes you more willing to cause harm in the future. Neither of them is stated in the rules, and the latter reverses the usual rule that behavior determines alignment (in that the sequence runs "cast evil spell" > "alignment shift towards evil" > "perform harmful actions" instead of "perform harmful actions" > "alignment shift towards evil").

ryric wrote:
Casting an Evil spell is like stealing money from the tip jar. It makes you a not perfect person but if the rest of your life is pretty good it doesn't make you Evil, just a jerk. Similarly if your day job is spent ruining people's lives and you decide to give $5 to someone on the street it doesn't "make up" for it.

The thing is, I wouldn't call someone who cast Infernal Healing to save a life “a jerk.” I wouldn't even say the action was a “jerk move” - unless you add unwritten consequences to that action such that casting the spell actually causes some kind of harm somewhere.

Shadow Lodge

Sundakan wrote:

So if you do end up having to activate it in combat, it takes a round, presumably, just like any other ability that takes a Standard to activate.

That's kind of like asking why hour/level spells aren't Swift actions if they're going to be up all day.

Hour/level spells still have a duration, and a less than 24 hour duration to boot.

If I'm engaged in overland travel at level 4, I either need to cast Mage Armour multiple times, use Extend Spell, or risk it not being active when we hit a random encounter. The decision to have it "up all day" so I never need to cast in combat costs me extra resources. At very low levels, it's impossible to actually have it active all the time with the resources I have. Though this becomes less of an issue at high levels, I never reach a point where one non-extended casting of Mage Armour lasts 24 hours.

If Battlefield Presence has no duration, I activate it once as a Standard Action and never have to activate it again, just change the feat as a Swift action as necessary. Unlike Mage Armour there is no reason why I would ever have to activate it in combat, unless:

Grandlounge wrote:
Manly-man teapot wrote:
Battlefield Presence has no duration limit. You can activate it before combat and have it active. The writer of the archetype confirms that this is intended.

This is not strictly true because it does not function when flatfooted.

"This ability does not function if the paladin is flat-footed or unconscious."

So without my suggestion above you lose it and have to restart it in each combat.

This makes sense, but I think David Knott is correct that it's unclear whether the ability actually ends or is merely suppressed, and if the author intended it to be used before combat it's inconsistent with turning the ability off when flatfooted (ie in the beginning of most combats, absent an external ability).

Shadow Lodge

Then why make it a standard action to activate initially at all, instead of a swift action to activate or to change?

Shadow Lodge

Quote:
If at fifth level you take a level of brawler, you can give your team any teamwork feat in the game in mid combat for a move action(martial flexibility) and a swift action to swap out the holy tactician feat.

This only works if you've already activated Battlefield Presence as a standard action. Otherwise you's need a Move for Martial Flexibility and a Standard for Battlefield Presence.

Otherwise looks OK.

Note that not all useful teamwork feats are also combat feats. Escape Route is, but Stealth Synergy, for example, is not - so you can't pick it up using Martial Flexibility.

Shadow Lodge

Just a Mort wrote:
I haven't played shamans for very long(caster shamans for me), but you'll want to be human/half orc/half elf, so you can use your favored class bonus for cleric spells(if you're melee), so you gain access to divine favour.

I hadn't seen that FCB - that's pretty nice!

Shadow Lodge

Had two of these recently.

One was a Large vermin with a Small parasitic wasp growing inside, which burst out when the host was sufficiently injured.

The second was an incorporeal energy creature which was animating a material body. When the body was heavily damaged the animating spirit abandoned ship and started fighting with a vampiric touch ability.

Both had a positive reception despite the first being a complete surprise.

Shadow Lodge

I've heard they're disappointing in melee compared to other divine casters.

The Battle Spirit certainly does have fewer useful powers than the Oracle's Battle Mystery, and their spell list lacks some of the more powerful personal combat buffs such as Divine Favour or Righteous Might (though the Battle Spirit does grant Righteous Might as a Spirit Magic spell).

Shadow Lodge

WilliamInnocent wrote:
Is it really that simple i was thinking it may take even more than that. When it comes down to your "Spirit animal" Are my familiars/animals Spectral in nature or would i have to take the Bones Spirit?

Yes, it's really that simple.

No, the spirit animal isn't actually spectral in nature. Even the Bones Spirit Animal only gets the effects of Blur rather than being incorporeal.

The Ancestors spirit you were looking at grants the ability: The spirit animal can speak and understand a number of bonus languages equal to the shaman's Charisma bonus.

WilliamInnocent wrote:

It says i have to be in contact with my creature then i can choose my creature to be the toucher.

Why would I want to do that? If im touching my creature and my creature is in touch range of an enemy i would also be in touch range so why wouldn't I just touch in response?

Your familiar has its own actions, so it can move after you cast the spell.

Shadow Lodge

Agreed with Andre Roy and Claxon. I don't have a problem with druids selling skins, but they would have to approach it - like all hunting - respectfully, making use of as much of the animal as they can and not overhunting particular species. I also believe that a druid should hunt primarily for their own survival, or possibly for the survival of their immediate companions or community.

Evil druids may get more leeway, as evil is more willing to exploit others and has a lower value for life.

Shadow Lodge

Have you considered sticking with strength based and taking one of the oracle mysteries with a revelation that lets you add Charisma instead of Dexterity to AC (Lore - Sidestep Secret, Nature - Nature's Whispers, Lunar - Prophetic Armour)? It would make feat selection much less complicated. I would recommend doing this instead of Warsighted in order to get Cha to AC from level 1. If you still want life link, you could take Spirit Guide Oracle and select it as a life shaman hex at Oracle 3.

Note that since the Warsighted Oracle doesn't get a revelation until level 2, they can't select Extra Revelation until then, so you can't take Life Link at Oracle 1 / Paladin 2.

Alternatively, for a simpler dex based version you could use the Elven Branched Spear, which can be used with finesse from the get-go.

Shadow Lodge

As Arcane Addict says, the ARG's race point values are not always balanced. Yes, it says that +10ft speed is worth 1 race point, but the speed increase is significantly more valuable than +2 to Appraise non-magical metals and gems (also 1 race point). As another example, Greater Defensive Training (+2 dodge to AC, 4 rp) is much better than Battle-hardened (+1 CMD, 4 rp), since dodge bonuses also increase your CMD and +2 to AC and CMD is quite obviously superior to +1 only to CMD.

Kangaroos do have a very powerful kick, but that doesn't necessarily mean that you have to include that ability in the race or that it's balanced to do so.

I also don't think it makes sense to make it a limited-use ability since it's more of a base property of the kick. I would suggest something like:

Powerful Kick: Roo-folk receive the Improved Unarmed Strike feat for free. If they gain Improved Unarmed Strike as a bonus feat or class feature they may instead take Weapon Focus (Unarmed Strike). When a Roo-folk confirms a critical hit using their unarmed strike, they crack bones, dealing d3 points of Str or Dex damage.

Another racial feat "Shatter Bones" could increase the ability damage and perhaps add Con damage as an option. I would not use a feat similar to Death Strike, as even once per day it's unbalanced to have an instant-death effect that doesn't allow a saving throw or require the roo to actually confirm a crit. Roo Punt should probably work similarly to Awesome Blow, dealing unarmed strike damage instead of slam damage. Using it as part of a flurry sounds like a fair feature, though for the Unchained Monk I'd be tempted to make it a style strike.

I also agree with Arcane Addict that it would be nice to give them a minor bonus that wasn't best suited to a monk or brawler, possibly instead of the acrobatics bonus (since you're already representing their jumping ability with Jumper and the improved speed). Alternatively/in addition, you could rework the pouch to give a more mundane bonus to Sleight of Hand checks to conceal items on your person, which opens up some rogue-ish possibilities.

Shadow Lodge

It just says the familiar can use the master's bardic performance, not feats or other effects (such as skill bonus modifiers) that might augment the bardic performance ability.

Shadow Lodge

I think it's more powerful than the RP suggest.

First, the racial ability bonuses are unusually good since most melee characters consider both Str and Con to be very important.

Second, the "Fast" ability probably should be worth more than 1rp. Compare "+2 vs fear" or "+2 bonus on Appraise checks to determine the price of non-magical goods that contain precious metals or gemstones."

Third, the custom racial abilities are very good.

The shatter bones strike could easily deal massive ability damage. If I'm reading it right, that's half your total unarmed strike damage? So a 1st level monk with d6+4 damage from their UAS is dealing 2-5 Str or Con damage with one kick? At 11th level my monk/bloodrager does d6+26 damage on an unarmed strike before any outside buffs. The resulting 13-16 Con damage could flat-out kill a humanoid enemy, or reduce an adult black dragon to less than half HP with a single hit.

The free bag of holding is also a significant benefit, especially if it's difficult for others to notice or search.

Shadow Lodge

I've found the party paladin more or less on par with my bloodrager. He obviously demolishes BBEG, but I do better with mobs and neutral opponents (fairly common in our group). He's got broader defenses, but I've got better touch AC, mobility, and skills.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I like Tacticslion's suggestion that the weapon bypass DR as if magic. Does 1500gp sound fair for:

1) The ability to bypass DR/magic
2) A second weapon crystal slot
3) Masterwork cost included?

There would then be a 500gp discount on the initial enchantment, since the ability to bypass DR is redundant, meaning you're paying 700gp for the crystal slot.

Though elf-glass weapons and armour lack the fragile property, the material is not quite as durable as steel - it has the same weight as stone or obsidian and the same hardness and HP/inch. It also certainly is treated as glass for purposes of shatter, and I can include reminder text in the material description. I expect these two things balance out the benefit of being immune to rust.

Given the weight comparison with stone, which does the same damage as steel, I think it makes sense for bludgeoning elf-glass weapons to be neither more nor less damaging than their metal counterparts. (Thematically speaking, they'd have to be custom work since the elves don't normally make maces or warhammers.)

Note while the original masterwork elf-glass weapon would have had the same +1 attack and damage bonus as a magic weapon, it is definitely not the same thing. It wouldn't bypass DR/magic or incorporeal defense, and is much more fragile, with hardness 8 and HP 5 for an elf-glass longsword, compared to hardness 12 and HP 15 for a +1 longsword made from steel. I can definitely appreciate the consensus that the original 750gp price was too low, but it's because I was placing too much weight on the DR-penetrating properties of a magic weapon, not because I was unaware of the comparison.

I like the idea of silver-glass, but am not sure whether I want to tie it to creature types. Given that silversheen costs 450gp on top of a masterwork weapon, would it be fair to add 750gp for a silver-glass weapon that bypasses all DR/silver (+50% cost for “stacking” two material types), or 400gp for a version that is only effective against one creature type?

Aelryinth wrote:
Repair costs should require magic. You don't just bend glass links back into shape.

That would be reflected by a higher Craft DC to make (and thus repair) elf-glass items. I'd also probably require specific tools, such that if you were trying to repair it with standard Craft (armourmaking) tools you'd take a -2 penalty.

Note that glass has a melting temperature of about 1500C compared to steel at 2500, so it should require less heat to work – or in game terms, before the raw glass has been worked into elf-glass it has only hardness 1 and thus requires only 3 points of fire damage/round to melt.

Litchfield wrote:
As for pricing, you should look at increasing the prices some. I'd double the current weapon prices and adjust the prices on armor to match that of mithral.

The armour almost does match mithral pricing. However, I made the light armour cost 1,000gp more than mithral and heavy armour cost 1,000gp less. This is because elf-glass doesn't get the max dex, ACP, or general movement improvements that mithral heavy armour does. With a chain shirt those benefits are less relevant compared to the extra armour crystal slot and 0% ASF with arcane armour training.

1 to 50 of 4,564 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2016 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com 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.