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. 3,476 posts. No reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist. 1 alias.


1 to 50 of 3,476 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Shadow Lodge

Well, you do get the initial damage boost to d6.

Shadow Lodge

Ughbash is correct.

You can also make Attacks of Opportunity with either. This is useful if your 2 hander is a reach weapon and you are using UAS to threaten adjacent squares, or if you have a feat like Snake Fang or Vicious Stomp that lets you make extra AoO but requires those attacks to be UAS.

Shadow Lodge

First, I notice that Spirit Totem gives a miss chance because the spirits make it difficult to see the barbarian, which sounds like it's intended as a concealment miss chance even if it's not explicitly stated.

Second, James Jacobs has stated that miss chances are not intended to stack even if they don't come from concealment. This is not official and he has been wrong before (making a statement that is later overruled by an FAQ) but I'm inclined to agree with him. You can check out this thread to see if you agree.

James Jacobs wrote:
Normally, multiple effects that grant concealment do not stack. I'd say that having blink and displacement effects going simultaneously would only result in one 50% miss chance as a result (even though blink's effects grant a miss chance in a manner rather different than actual concealment, the in-game effect is identical). By not having multiple rolls to determine if the concealment works and consolidating them all into one, combat should run quite a bit smoother (since any time you can eliminate the need for a die roll during play, the result is faster combat).

Shadow Lodge

Misdirection can mask the magic aura from her Change Shape, though the person detecting magic gets a will save.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Keegan Btutters wrote:
Im allowing the player a chance to be resurrected because of the crazy circumstances of the characters death. In all honesty, he could just be dead with no chance at coming back.

Did you let your players know ahead of time that Raise Dead would not be available in your game? The game assumes that Raise Dead will be available to higher-level parties with cash. You don't get points for not taking away something that the players thought they could have.

However I sympathize with wanting to make coming back from the dead more of an event. In my current game I have decided that Raise Dead doesn't directly return the soul to the body - rather it Plane Shifts the caster and friends to the region of the afterlife in which the target's soul is. You have to find the soul and bring them back through the portal you entered by. To prevent the dead PC's player from getting bored, either make the "finding them" part very easy compared to getting out, or else provide them with a psychopomp to play for the first half.

No one has died yet but I think that this will provide significance to the event and also emphasize why not every rich person is always brought back from the dead - there's some amount of risk to plane shifting into purgatory and not everyone has someone will do that for them.

Shadow Lodge

So you shouldn't simplify how Ghoran Seed works with Many Lives but you should simplify the Reincarnation tables?

The GM's job is to interpret the rules in a way that makes sense and is fun. That's Rule 0. If the rules seem to say something that doesn't make sense or isn't fun, the GM changes them. That's the game.

If I had someone playing a Reincarnated Druid with a non-humanoid race I would absolutely take 15 minutes before the game to make up a proper reincarnation table for that character. It's not a hard issue to see coming. Playable options include ghoran, vegepygmy, frost fir, leaf leshy, gourd leshy, mandragora, fungus man, or fungus leshy - remove the racial HD and you're set. Plantoid Servitor works if you tone down the poison a bit (particularly the spawn effect). That's as many playable plants as there are native outsiders in the ARG!

Native Herald wrote:
Why does Raised Dead matter? Negative Level is not a Magical Disease or Curse, so why cite that part? It is not mentioned as a hold over, so why would it be?

The fact that Raise Dead explicitly says that magical diseases and curses aren't fixed disproves your earlier assertion that all effects are removed upon death. However, that doesn't mean that the spell fixes everything that isn't a magical disease or curse. Spells do what they say they do, nothing more. If a spell doesn't say that it removes negative levels, it does not remove negative levels.

Similarly, reincarnate, the effect in question here, only states that it removes physical afflictions.

Native Herald wrote:

And no as Ghoran 1 reincarnating into a Human for example no longer has the Ghorus Seed ability and so is not subject to that racial ability.

No more then a Human who was reincarnated from a Drow would still have Light Blindness.

When reincarnated, you swap physical racial traits, such as light blindness. Mental traits don't change, just like mental afflictions aren't repaired. The negative level and impending death - a death independent of any physical wound or affliction - is not a physical affliction or trait. Therefore it is not affected by reincarnation.

Native Herald wrote:
I am not getting the % chance of survival odds you figured, care to explain how you figure that?

Rose, the Ghoran, plants a seed. Later that day Rose is eaten by a Grue. Within 2d6-1 days the seed will sprout and when it sprouts Rose will die. Now, Many Lives will save Rose, but only if she doesn't die (the seed doesn't sprout) within 7 days of being reincarnated (in which case the death is permanent). That means she dies permanently if 2d6-1 < 7, or if 2d6 < 8. There's about a 60% chance of the total of 2d6 being 7 or less, so a 60% chance that Rose dies permanently when her seed sprouts. (I'm not sure if Many Lives works if you die precisely 7 days after being reincarnated so I erred on the side of it working. If it doesn't, then Rose dies permanently if 2d6 < 9, which is 72% likely.)

That's assuming that you're not applying Rule 0, which is possible if for example this is the BBEG and stopping a reincarnating plant army is the plot.

Shadow Lodge

Native Herald wrote:
Death would remove the first -1 level from the Ghoran ability as Death removes negative levels and all effects as it kills you.

No it doesn't.

Raise Dead wrote:
Normal poison and normal disease are cured in the process of raising the subject, but magical diseases and curses are not undone. While the spell closes mortal wounds and repairs lethal damage of most kinds, the body of the creature to be raised must be whole. Otherwise, missing parts are still missing when the creature is brought back to life. None of the dead creature's equipment or possessions are affected in any way by this spell.

Clearly death doesn't undo all effects. It does not state that it removes negative levels, and rule of thumb is that spells do only what they say they do, so negative levels are not removed.

Similarly, for Reincarnate (the relevant effect for Many Lives):

Reincarnate wrote:
Since the dead creature is returning in a new body, all physical ills and afflictions are repaired.

I do not believe there is a good argument for considering a negative level to be a physical ill, so it sticks.

Note also that the line indicates that the dead creature is returning in a new body - therefore it's still the dead creature and any effects relevant to the dead creature still apply (aside from physical ills and racial abilities which are specifically removed by the spell). Note as well that the Many Lives indicates that the reincarnated druid appears within 1 mile of her body, not within 1 mile of the previous character, because it's still the same character.

So the new Ghoran may or may not be the same character as the druid, but the reincarnated druid definitely is the same person as they were when they planted the seed and that means they die as soon as their duplicate sprouts.

EDIT: Thanks to Hazrond's phylactery example, I am noticing that this actually does work but for an entirely different reason than the one you originally suggested. Since the Ghoran Seed isn't a death effect, Many Lives will trigger on the original reincarnated druid when it is killed by the Ghorus Seed effect - if the seed sprouts 8 days or more after the original death/reincarnation. This is about 40% likely assuming that the character dies immediately after planting the seed, and odds go down sharply for every day's delay. So you could build up an army of duplicates by planting seeds and immediately committing suicide if you were willing to suffer a 60% casualty rate for your non-ghoran reincarnated "cuttings." The phylactery Hazrond mentioned works for the same reason - it triggers on the character's death - and doesn't have the same failure rate due to the sprout growing too quickly. Given that the Ghoran "Past- Life Knowledge" ability implies reincarnation I still think this isn't supposed to work, but it does do so if you're keen on having this work by RAW. Though I'm not sure why it would be that important - if you're the GM you can make it work however you want and if you're not then the GM shouldn't let you do ridiculous things just because it's RAW.

Shadow Lodge

Investigator is more complicated but I don't think it's quite that hard to mess up.

If you take Quick Study, Studied Combat is also a swift action with unlimited uses/day (though it costs inspiration to re-activate it against a single target). In my experience with Alchemists, it's not hard to take your mutagen before combat. A 10 minute/level duration is pretty forgiving.

So your level 3 discovery is Mutagen, your level 5 discovery is Quick Study, and you take Power Attack or Weapon Finesse/Weapon Focus/Fencing Grace as you qualify, and you're pretty competent. That'll reliably give you about an 18 to your attack/damage stat, effectively more than full BAB against your studied combat target (1 1/4 level), and a 1/2 level damage bonus. It's not AM BARBARIAN but pretty in-line with what I'd expect from an Inquisitor (which is relying on limited use Judgment and Bane).

Combat Inspiration and an Inspired weapon make sure you don't taper off at high levels but I don't think the build falls apart if you don't get them (or use them) at exactly the right times. Likewise, extracts are a bonus - you're functional without them, if not fantastic.

Studied Strike does complicate things, but I think you'd do OK just using it right before Studied Combat expires.

Shadow Lodge

I was working on a post and accidentally closed my tab. The roll function is lost so you'll have to trust me when I say I got:

Fighter, Swashbuckler, Paladin, Druid

Order of the Tempest

Mages both malevolent and negligent often create dangerous creatures - undead, aberrations, and more - that terrorize the innocent. Anton Bywater (halfling swashbuckler/paladin) devoted himself to destroying these creatures and bringing their creators to justice. The Order of the Tempest upholds that legacy.

Paladins and druids make up a significant portion of the order for philosophical reasons. Less spiritual members tend to pursue the fighter or swashbuckler classes in the course of emulating Aton's signature Tempest style, centered around disorientingly fast strikes of a scimitar (mechanically, Dervish Dance + the Disruptive feat line). However the Order also contains a smattering of other martial and divine classes, notably including those cavaliers who favour a swashbuckler-like fighting style. Though the Order does not formally condemn all arcane magic, many of its members hold broad enough grudges that such casters feel distinctly unwelcome.

That attitude is unfortunately reinforced by the current leader or First Sword of the Order, Teska Clearbrook (LN human fighter). Teska joined the order after the rest of her adventuring party was slain by a berserk flesh golem. In her tenure she has seen enough plagues and undead scourges started by power-mad cultists that she distrusts not just arcane magic, but divine magic in the hands of mortals. This has strained relations with the divine spellcasters within the order, most of whom would prefer the more moderate Rhen Faolain (NG half-elven urban druid). As First Sword, Teska wields Anton's weapon, a scimitar known as the Silver Tempest:

The Silver Tempest:
This +2 Distracting Scimitar can cast Dispel Magic on command once per day (CL 7). In addition, once per day the wielder may reroll a saving throw against a spell or spell-like ability. This reroll must be declared after the roll is made but before the results are known, and the wielder must take the result of the reroll, even if it's worse.

And for the daring champions:

Cavalier Order:
Edicts: A cavalier of the order of the tempest must destroy aberrations, undead, and constructs that threaten innocents whenever he encounters them. He must work to bring the creators of such creatures to justice.

Challenge: Whenever an order of the tempest cavalier issues a challenge, he receives a +2 bonus on all saving throws against spells or spell-like abilities cast by the subject of his challenge. If the subject is an aberration, undead, or construct, he also gains a +2 bonus on saves against the subject's supernatural abilities.

Skills: An order of the tempest adds Spellcraft and Knowledge (arcana) to his class skill list. He receives a bonus equal to 1/2 his level when identifying aberrations, undead, and constructs.

Order Abilities: A cavalier belonging to the order of the tempest gains the following abilities as he increases in level.

Forewarned Dodge (Ex)

At 2nd level, whenever an order of the tempest cavalier identifies a spell or spell-like ability as it's being cast, the cavalier gains a +2 dodge bonus to AC and reflex saves against that spell. In addition, when the cavalier uses a Knowledge skill to identify an aberration, undead, or construct and exceeds the DC by 5 or more, he gains a +2 dodge bonus to AC and reflex saves against that creature's supernatural abilities. The cavalier cannot benefit from this ability when wearing heavy armour. If the cavalier has panache, he may spend a point of panache to grant this bonus to an adjacent ally against one attack. This is a free action that can be taken outside the cavalier's turn.

Spell Interference (Ex)

At 8th level, an order of the tempest cavalier gains Disruptive as a bonus feat, even if he does not meet the prerequisites. He may use his cavalier level as a fighter level when qualifying for feats that have Disruptive as a prerequisite.

Defensive Knowledge (Ex)

At 15th level, an order of the tempest cavalier grants adjacent allies the defensive boons of his cavalier challenge. In addition, as an immediate action, a number of times per day equal to the cavalier’s Charisma modifier, the cavalier can allow an ally adjacent to him to reroll a single failed saving throw against a spell or spell-like ability from the target of his challenge (or supernatural ability if the target is an aberration, undead, or construct). The ally must be able to see and hear the cavalier in order to gain this reroll. If the cavalier has panache, as a free action he may spend a point of panache to increase the range at which he grants both these abilities to 10ft for one round.

Shadow Lodge

If homebrew is an option, you could make a feat similar to Unsanctioned Knowledge except that it would add druid spells (or spells from a particular domain) to your oracle list. I'd let it give you one spell of every level you can cast (since you still have to select them as spells known) but making a "Greater Unsanctioned Knowledge" to cover the higher level spells would also be appropriate.

Shadow Lodge

And if your ghoran is reincarnated into a human due to Many Lives, the human is still your original character, just modified. Reincarnation won't get rid of the negative level you get from depositing a seed, so why would it get rid of the contingent death?

Shadow Lodge

The easiest thing to do is probably to build a slayer similarly to how you'd build a ranger - the combat style talents allow you to develop your, well, combat style very similarly. TWF is the best style for sneak attack, but you could also make a decent switch hitter if your group needs more ranged (likely, if you've got a lot of rogues all going for sneak attack). I'm less inclined to go full archer with the slayer because it makes sneak attack difficult.

Then check the rogue guides to see if there are any other well-ranked talents you can use. Keep in mind you've got much better accuracy and durability than the standard rogue so that might change ratings.

Shadow Lodge

I had a second look at the Scholar and I agree with kestral287. Most of the secrets are really minor and overall the Bard gets most of the stuff that the Scholar has that's worth having. (Grievous example: the Scholar splits the bard's minor Jack of all Trades ability into three separate advanced secrets.) But there are a handful of very good secrets, mostly Smart Weapon and Creature Focus depending on your stats/enemies, and these plus Smart Defense and Evasion make it a really good dip.

Consider also the Investigator (Empiricist archetype) - an Int-based class with the same skill ranks, BAB, and saves as the Scholar, and lots of skill-based abilities. It's a good choice if you see yourself only entering melee occasionally and skills are important to you.

Shadow Lodge

If you can benefit from the extra use per day of Elemental Fist wen not in your stance, why not the other abilities that are listed before the phrase "When using this style"?

I think brightshadow360 is correct that putting that phrase halfway through the feat indicates that some style feats are intended to provide minor benefits even when not in the style stance.

They are all IIRC really minor abilities. It's not OP for someone with two style feats to be able to deal slashing or piercing damage with an UAS and also get a +2 bonus to Sense Motive (Boar + Snake Style).

Styles are intended to be mostly mutually exclusive but that's why all the good abilities are behind the "When using this style" line - things like the extra damage from boar style or the ability to use Sense Motive defensively for Snake.

Shadow Lodge

It isn't defined as a reincarnation, but it's more like a reincarnation than a death effect.

In any case I believe my interpretation of how the two abilities work together is correct.

Shadow Lodge

I would take Kensai for action economy reasons. Spell combat let's you fight and cast in the same turn (using Arcanist spells with Broad Study) while the Scholar seems to have a lot of secrets that are used as standard or full round actions and thus compete with casting and some exploits for your actions.

Honestly I'm not that familiar with the scholar but its secrets look really unbalanced compared to each other. One grants Into to Bluff checks and another grants Int to attack - seriously? Depending on what your stats look like you might want Scholar 2 / Kensai 18 // Arcanist 20, just for that secret (smart weapon) and Evasion - especially if you then get access to an "Extra Secret" feat to pick up one or two other OP secrets like Creature Focus.

Shadow Lodge

Ghorus seed is more of a delayed reincarnation than anything - I certainly wouldn't call it a death effect. Death effects are specifically labelled.

It's true that you'd reincarnate as a plant, but I'm not sure what's so bad about being a vegepygmy. A ring of eloquence would solve the not speaking thing, and it's a handy item for a druid to have anyway.

Shadow Lodge

If the druid reincarnates using the Many Lives ability, they're still the "original" for purposes of the Ghorus seed ability, which is active on the character not the body. (I believe the flavour is that your soul returns to occupy the duplicate, and being in a new form doesn't impede that.) So if you plant your seed and then reincarnate, your reincarnated form will die once the duplicate sprouts. The end result would be that as long as you continue to plant seeds, you'll be returned to your Ghoran form shortly after any reincarnation - though you'd be running around with negative levels pretty frequently if you're planting these seeds as contingencies.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
SilvercatMoonpaw wrote:
Weirdo wrote:
SilvercatMoonpaw wrote:
Isn't this a consequence of needing to be scientifically consistent and instead you could simply solve it by stating that the distribution of magical power follows no observable pattern?
Even if there's no clear pattern in the distribution of casters you'll still be able to figure out how many of them there are relative to noncasters.

What I'm saying is "What if you can't?". That if you go "1 in X per area Y" suddenly you run across a whole city of them that skews this all wildly for no known reason. You say "This city has X00,000 people so they should have Y number" and the city doesn't have a one.

Statistics only work if you assume the world behaves with scientific logic.

I'm not sure I follow.

Statistics basically means describing observable things with numbers. You can do that whether there are scientific rules dictating those observations, or whether it's random, or whether it's some combination of both.

If the numbers you are using aren't telling you anything meaningful, that doesn't mean that it's useless to use numbers, it means you're not collecting and using your numbers properly.

For example, the mean is often unreliable as a measure of "average" if you have outliers such as a magic-free city. (Example: 10 employees each earn $10/hour, the boss earns $1,000 per hour, the mean is $100/hour but that doesn't reflect what's really going on.) Depending on how many cities you have with a lot of mages, and how many have very few, you might have a large standard deviation for your "caster percentage" measurement over geographic areas, or possibly you have a non-normal distribution (eg with a lot of very low-magic cities and a lot of very high-magic cities, and few in the middle.) Getting a few more numbers tells you a lot about the setting.

Someone who understands demographics (better than I do) doesn't let peculiarities with the data get in the way of drawing useful conclusions.

Shadow Lodge

Yes, because he can make two claw attacks as a full attack (and can use claws with Pummeling Style).

Oddman80 wrote:
This does not allow Monks to flurry and use the natural attack as part of the pummeling attack.

It should, just with the normal restriction on FCT that you use your natural attack instead of an UAS when flurrying, not in addition to.

Shadow Lodge

Sandslice wrote:
Weirdo wrote:
Yes, I understand. However, I'm not sure why you don't consider it to be a mitigating factor. Your initial statement was "you caused the harm, doing more bad to uncause the harm doesn't fly," however in this case the person who caused the first harm is not the same as the one who is proposing to do more harm for the greater good.

You, collectively, as the party, since there are 4-6 characters collectively involved in the situation; I do wish we had the perspective of the other 3-5 here though.

Nor is the second PC in command of the first. I see no reason to make the second PC morally responsible for the first PC's behavior. They have been handed a bad situation through no fault of their own and they're trying to do damage control.
If I am doing so, it's not consciously.

By saying that the party is collectively to blame for the first PC blowing their cover, and that this has moral implications for the second PC, you are holding the second PC morally responsible for the first PC's actions. Does that make sense?

Sandslice wrote:

If they happen to be law-abiding citizens - or, as quite a few River Kingdom-folk do, at least tolerate the Hellknights' lawful tendencies because they do a fair job protecting the area - they might feel some sort of obligation to do so --- and might even make the mistake of planning to do so within earshot of the party. I doubt they'd threaten directly.

The version of the scenario I have in mind is that the minion overhears the plans to kill him, and tries to save his bacon with "What about them? They heard it too, and we kidnapped some of them from Fort Inevitable! Surely the Paralictor would love to hear about Pathfinders in her backyard!"

That should be easy enough to resolve by diplomacy. If the hostages were kidnapped despite the Hellknights' protection, and the party rescued them, the hostages owe the party more than they owe the Hellknights. There's still a risk that the hostages would tell, but it's relatively small compared to the minion's statement of intent, and therefore not enough to justify killing them in self-defense. This is like the difference between attacking someone who walks past you with a knife in their belt and attacking someone who is waving a knife at you.

Sandslice wrote:

-While the choice is between kill / let die, or take prisoner, there's no default moral position (unless your CoC / guiding philosophy prescribes one.) If this is true of the baby goblin problem, then surely it's true of the prisoner problem.

-But in the same light, each choice itself has a default moral position attached to it. If you adopt the goblin babies, they're off the menu. If you save the cultist from death with intent to interrogate him, killing him is a problem (even if your friends accidentally give him a reason to give you a reason to do it.)

I don't think that changing your mind is any more evil than picking either option in the first place. Consistency and keeping your word is more of an issue on the Law/Chaos axis. The exception is if by changing your mind you're increasing the harm associated with your new choice - for example the goblin babies may suffer more if they come to trust you before you kill them, thus making that worse than just killing them outright.

If you take someone prisoner and the results of interrogation show that they are dangerous, or guilty of a serious crime, it is in fact less evil to kill them after the interrogation than to let them die, since the person you're killing is now confirmed dangerous/guilty.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Using the minimum town size to determine the overall density of casters is flawed. If we have three small towns, populations 200, 800, and 1700, and one 1st level caster per town, then we have three 1st level casters per 2700 people, or 1 per 900 people. Since it doesn't establish the maximum number of casters in a certain town you could say that a small town has one 1st level caster for every 200 people. That simplifies the demographics but doesn't directly follow from the spellcasting availability guidelines. Casters who set up shop in smaller towns may be somewhat territorial and prefer not to live in the same towns as casters of similar skill - more social casters would gather in the larger settlements eg a college with 30 1st & 2nd level wizards in a metropolis of 27,000 people (1:900).

Additionally, as Mathius points out, we don't know how common each type of settlement is. You could easily, based on historical demographics, have 4000 people living rurally to support one small town of 500 people with a single 1st level caster. Or the existence of spellcasters might mean that a smaller rural/agricultural population is necessary to support towns.

Therefore the spellcasting level of a town only tells you the kinds of magic that town has access to, not what the situation looks like in the world as a whole.

SilvercatMoonpaw wrote:
Isn't this a consequence of needing to be scientifically consistent and instead you could simply solve it by stating that the distribution of magical power follows no observable pattern?

Even if there's no clear pattern in the distribution of casters you'll still be able to figure out how many of them there are relative to noncasters.

Shadow Lodge

Sandslice wrote:

It's not my intention to suggest that it's an aggravating factor - only that it's not a mitigating factor. That is:

-The act, in a vacuum, would be slightly evil in my mind, because of the heal and kill. The complication doesn't make MORE evil.
-But because the complication was caused by a party member, the act doesn't become LESS evil due to lesser-of-two-evils or for-the-greater-good principles.

Yes, I understand. However, I'm not sure why you don't consider it to be a mitigating factor. Your initial statement was "you caused the harm, doing more bad to uncause the harm doesn't fly," however in this case the person who caused the first harm is not the same as the one who is proposing to do more harm for the greater good. Nor is the second PC in command of the first. I see no reason to make the second PC morally responsible for the first PC's behavior. They have been handed a bad situation through no fault of their own and they're trying to do damage control.

Sandslice wrote:
So say the minions had innocent hostages. Would the party member's faux pas entitle / obligate the party to kill the innocents, on the grounds that they are also threats?

You mean if the minions were killed, the hostages were rescued, and the PC then mentioned that he was a pathfinder? Presumably the hostage would not threaten to tell the Hellknights on their rescuers. That's where the threat is coming in - not just that they have the info, but that they indicate an intent to use it. (From the OP's post: One of my party members extends the offer for him to join the Pathfinders, to which he replied "I bet those Hellknights up there would love to hear this eh?") If they do threaten to bring down Hellknights on the party then they have waived their status as innocent bystanders and the party has the right to prevent them from doing so - violently if necessary. Honestly it's pretty stupid of a prisoner to suggest he was going to sell them out - the more sure the party is that he'll do so, the less morally wrong it is to kill him.

Sandslice wrote:
I'm not making it a blanket evil act to kill a prisoner (or to not even take them.) In the case, though, you've adopted the responsibility first, and the question relates to whether it's justified to abrogate it once adopted.

I don't believe it's correct to say that you've adopted responsibility for someone by taking them prisoner, because that suggests that it's possible to waive responsibility for someone by leaving them to die. That might not be your intent but it's been voiced by several on this thread. The OP probably could have found an alternative to killing the prisoner so I don't think this was 100% justified, but he has a point that it would almost certainly have been unremarked on if the party had just let their enemies die - and that's not right either.

Divvox2 wrote:
(consider the Geneva Conventions have rules against killing captives for a reason)

They also have rules that forbid leaving an enemy to bleed out on the ground, probably because they don't want to make it easier to just ignore the wounded than to take them captive.

Geneva Convention 1949 Article 12 wrote:
Members of the armed forces and other persons mentioned in the following Article... shall not wilfully be left without medical assistance and care, nor shall conditions exposing them to contagion or infection be created. Only urgent medical reasons will authorize priority in the order of treatment to be administered.


More detailed discussion

Leaving someone to die may feel nicer than patching them up, interrogating them, and then executing them, but it's no less wrong, especially since leaving them to die doesn't give them a chance to seek mercy or redemption.

If a GM makes it impossible for a party to deal with prisoners then they are creating a perverse incentive for the party to not take prisoners (see: 1, 2, 3). Having the occasional execution of a prisoner who proves an ongoing threat - even if the decision is morally dubious - is preferable to me. If you do want to fully express real world morality in the game, that's great, but you need to do so in a way that makes sense, not in a way that unevenly punishes actions that feel wrong while ignoring greater acts of moral negligence.

Shadow Lodge

kestral287 wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:
So, are people claiming that greater magic weapon and keen edge work on flame blade as well?

Nope. Different requirements. The Gloves call out "wielding a weapon", and Flame Blade is wielded as a weapon. But for Magic Weapon, it's "Target: weapon touched", which means the spell would need to explicitly say that Flame Blade is a scimitar.

Pretty significant difference.

Incorrect, though understandably so. Darksol quoted the relevant FAQ:

FAQ wrote:

Ray: Do rays count as weapons for the purpose of spells and effects that affect weapons?

Yes. (See also this FAQ item for a similar question about rays and weapon feats.)

For example, a bard's inspire courage says it affects "weapon damage rolls," which is worded that way so don't try to add the bonus to a spell like fireball. However, rays are treated as weapons, whether they're from spells, a monster ability, a class ability, or some other source, so the inspire courage bonus applies to ray attack rolls and ray damage rolls.

The same rule applies to weapon-like spells such as flame blade, mage's sword, and spiritual weapon--effects that affect weapons work on these spells.

Shadow Lodge

I am generally of the opinion that if you are going to consider it a blanket evil act to kill a prisoner, you must also consider it an evil act to withhold medical treatment from the wounded and dying after fighting has concluded and the wounded are no longer an immediate threat. Failing to admit your responsibility for the life of the defeated enemy does not absolve you of that responsibility.

Sandslice wrote:
-I do not think the prisoner's intention to inform the Hellknights is a mitigating factor, because a player character caused that complication through negligence.

You can't be held morally responsible for things you have no control over, and the OP's character didn't appear to have the opportunity to prevent his party member from creating the threat. Therefore it shouldn't count against him in this situation any more than a paladin would fall because the party rogue killed an innocent.

Sandslice wrote:
The problem is, your party stopped him from dying in order to get information from him in a neutral context. Using someone up and discarding him...

That would be a problem if the OP's character killed the prisoner because he had no more information. However, OP's character killed the prisoner because he became a threat. Killing someone who is a threat is morally less wrong than killing someone who is simply of no use to you.

Sandslice wrote:
In the case of him attacking, he's attacking - OF COURSE you can kill him in self-defence!

The fact that someone is not actively attacking you doesn't mean that they are not a potentially lethal threat. If someone walks into a public place and begins assembling a bomb, they are a threat. If an unarmed Nazi walks into my attic and spots the Jews I'm hiding, they are a threat. If the character has reason to believe that the prisoner will inform the Hellknights, and that the consequences of him informing the Hellknights is not just inconvenient but dangerous for his party, the prisoner is a threat. It is of course preferable to find a solution to threats other than killing them, but I don't see a moral difference between killing someone who is attacking you with a knife and killing someone who is running to summon armed reinforcements to kill you. There may be a legal difference, but that's not always the same thing.

Now, if blowing the party's cover would be merely inconvenient rather than dangerous then the prisoner is not a bodily threat and it would be morally worse to kill him. How bad it is would depend on what the alternative is - is it actually possible to bring captured bandits to some proper authority for trial? I don't have enough information about the scenario to judge.

Sandslice wrote:
-I do think that responding to "the act will make you evil" with "fine, I'll pay for an atonement" is evil.

Given that it's an OOC remark that looks more like a player not wanting to argue with the GM about whether an alignment shift is appropriate, deciding it will be less disruptive to have his character seek atonement (suffering relevant costs). That sounds like reasonable player behavior to me. You can then RP the atonement any way you want - perhaps the character realizes when reflecting on the mission that it was indeed not right but merely a lesser wrong and seeks church guidance.

This is particularly relevant because it's PFS and you can't play as a character who as slipped morally into evil and may or may not later regret their actions and be redeemed. Would you accept anything near this level of GM fiat when it comes to whether a character dies and can be resurrected?

The GM may be acting in good faith based on his understanding of morality but this does boil down to someone losing their character over a difference of opinion in a morally grey area - without the opportunity to use the game mechanic that exists to prevent someone from losing their character due to a morally grey situation.

Shadow Lodge

Nimoot wrote:
Yeah... I've told the GM I don't want to be in his next campaign (which is the one I'd be playing in Potentially...) if he's going to be this nit picky... He's forcing all players to multi-class,

Is he disallowing all characters from combining the special abilities from their two classes?

No using Favoured Enemy while Raging?

No Smite Evil bonus when you use Flurry of Blows?

Shadow Lodge

Paladin of Baha-who? wrote:
In Robert A Heinlein's The Puppet Masters a married couple is doing target practice with guns on their private land. Since it's very secluded and it's summer, they're doing it starkers. Nonetheless, the female character (who, as per Heinlein's preferred type of character to write, is red-headed, beautiful, highly sexual, and a badass secret agent with killer martial arts skills) has two guns hidden on her, one in her hair, and the other "hidden in plain sight" according to the story, which isn't entirely clear what she means.

I'm guessing boobs. There's actually a holster for that, though pulling it off completely in the nude would be tricky.

Shadow Lodge

Race 1: 1d100 ⇒ 89 Goliath
Race 2: 1d100 ⇒ 65 Derhii (winged, intelligent gorillas)
Race 3: 1d100 ⇒ 19 Suli
Race 4: 1d100 ⇒ 7 Gnomes
Race 5: 1d100 ⇒ 4 Half-Orcs

I'd rather not have half-orcs as a crossbreed in a world without humans or orcs, so I'll tentatively call them the Greenskins.

The setting is a mountainous region with jungle along the lower slopes and the bases. The jungle is a dangerous place subject to frequent storms, but is also abundant in life from fruits and medicinal plants to game animals to monstrous predators.

The greenskins have recently come to dominate the jungle due to a combination of their fecundity and ambition. As their population grew they took territory from their less militaristic neighbours and transitioned to an agricultural city-building culture, in which form they have more or less stabilized for now. They worship an ape god of strength and an eagle goddess of wisdom. During a coming of age ritual, young greenskins venture deep into the jungle alone. A small fraction of youths are transformed by this experience into imposing winged apes, the Derhii. This is seen as a sign that you have attracted the gods' interest, and such youths are under great pressure to excel and lead - those that fail to live up to expectations are sometimes ostracized.

The gnomes, a much older and slower race, were driven to the mountains by their more aggressive neighbors. There they made contact with the goliath. Though initial meetings were tense, the two races soon learned to cooperate, the gnomes providing the goliath with magical and mundane tools. Though most gnomes take to the goliaths' nomadic lifestyle happily they have also created a few towns which have become centers of trade in the mountains. Some gnomes, however, remember the settlements they left behind in the jungle - possibly still containing the treasures of their ancestors.

The suli, meanwhile, represent the descendants of those who responded to the harsh realities of their world by making alliances with the elemental powers that surround them - the sweltering heat, the storms, the freezing wind at the highest peaks. While initially it was common to negotiate only with one or two elemental powers, these deal-makers soon forged alliances among themselves and are currently intermixed enough that most have roughly equal connections with all elements. This fellowship also served them well in resisting the greenskin expansion; while the suli are by no means dominant they have largely retained their original territories.

While the gnomes and greenskins are no longer openly hostile, a racial grudge still exists. The suli typically act as intermediaries and merchants.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

1. Is there a direct correlation between good/evil and law/chaos?
No, though there's a natural tendency to see one's own side on the law/chaos axis as "more good."

2. Is anything inherently or irredeemably good/evil?
In PF, yes, though not many things. Anything with an alignment subtype is inherently aligned - if you were somehow to redeem a demon such that it obeyed a non-evil morality it would still retain a physical connection to evil that would make it respond to effects like Smite Evil - and if you somehow removed that subtype you've fundamentally changed the demon such that it's now something entirely different. IRL I'm not sure. I don't think anyone is evil enough that they can't be redeemed, but certainly many people aren't redeemed. I feel that certain actions are always evil, but intellectually I've seen convincing arguments that even these can be justifiable under extreme circumstances (eg killing someone in the direct defense of yourself and others is not considered murder).

3. Can you know how good or bad an act is without exploring the whole scenario first?
I'm of the opinion that the morality of an action is at least partly dependent on its consequences, but also partly dependent on intent. It's not evil to feed someone peanuts if you are unaware of their severe allergy. Therefore in theory we can come up with a pretty good approximation of the morality of an action based on the foreseeable consequences of the action from the viewpoint of the actor. (I say in theory because it's often difficult to determine what was or should have been known. Do you have an obligation to ask about nut allergies before feeding someone nuts?) In a PF example,

4. Should the morality of a player affect their character?
5. Does the morality of a player affect their character?

It's possible for a person to play a character with an entirely different morality. However many people (including myself) generally prefer to play characters with a morality sympathetic to our own, and even when we try to take on a different moral viewpoint find ourselves reflexively reacting in certain ways. Character morality can even affect player morality eg if the player comes to sympathize with an alternative point of view or uses the character as a model (I've heard people say they aspire to act the way their paladin characters would). None of this is wrong.

6. Does committing an evil act make you evil?
7. Committing several evil acts in pathfinder will change your alignment to evil. How does that relate to real life? Is that an accurate portrayal of morality?

Generally I agree with the people who have stated that evil acts don't make you evil, evil people perform (more and worse) evil acts. However it is possible for minor acts of cruelty to erode your sense of empathy which does make you more evil in the sense that you are more able to accept or justify evil acts. Alignment is in this way and others a simplification of morality, but it's not as bad a system as some make it out to be.

Shadow Lodge

Icyblaze13 wrote:
Animal Archive wrote:
The moment the spell takes effect, an animal companion ceases to be a class feature, and instead becomes a person—an NPC whose Intelligence has increased by 3d6 (potentially making it as smart as or smarter than the caster), and who has an increased Charisma score and knows at least one spoken language.
I agree with what you said Snowblind, but when checking again I saw this. The two seem to contradict each other. Also, I wouldn't say it's useless for int based casters. 27 int is nothing to sneeze at.

I think "by" is a mistake here, and they meant "to." I would not take this as sufficient evidence to contradict the CRB.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

You're 12th level and your party doesn't have a way to deal with invisibility? See Invisibility? Faerie Fire? Glitterdust? Flour? Or did you try something and it was countered/dispelled? (I find it's really useful to have spare scrolls or potions for those situations.)

Maybe Lay on Hands if party members are injured, or use any buffs you have that might assist or protect those who are able to threaten him (eg casters with area effects).

If you can pinpoint his square (with the help of an ally who can sense him or by spreading about powder or water) then you can also attack blindly. It's not a great option but hitting half as often is better than not hitting at all.

If you can't locate his square it might be possible to ready an action to attack when he reveals his location (which might occur if he makes an attack or casts a spell with verbal components).

Shadow Lodge

noble peasant wrote:
kestral287 wrote:

The big edge that Cha has is that it's the most powerful stat to invest in.

Int's skills give you information, but I don't think anyone's ever complained about "help, my PCs have too much knowledge of the dragon they're fighting!" Cha's skills can be much more game-defining (still limited, but far more measurable).

And, of course, you can turn Diplomacy or UMD to Int with a trait.

You can add Cha to initiative, all saves, AC (multiple times even), Will again, and CMD. All on the same character.

So, while Charisma has the least mechanical advantages in the baseline, it is very easy to give it more mechanical advantages than any other stat, which makes it a very strong stat on the whole.

While you can do these things with a decent bit of effort, I've never actually looked into it, but I heard that it is questionable whether you can add the same stat to something twice. I'm just saying that it was mentioned in some Iroran Paladin guide that that is super iffy.



Do ability modifiers from the same ability stack? For instance, can you add the same ability bonus on the same roll twice using two different effects that each add that same ability modifier?

No. An ability bonus, such as "Strength bonus", is considered to be the same source for the purpose of bonuses from the same source not stacking. However, you can still add, for instance “a deflection bonus equal to your Charisma modifier” and your Charisma modifier. For this purpose, however, the paladin's untyped "bonus equal to her Charisma bonus (if any) on all saving throws" from divine grace is considered to be the same as "Charisma bonus (if any)", and the same would be true for any other untyped "bonus equal to her [ability score] bonus" constructions.

A Nymph Oracle with Nature's Whispers would get Charisma to AC twice - once as a Deflection bonus due to Unearthly Beauty, and once as a "Charisma" bonus from Nature's Whispers. A Nymph Paladin adds Charisma to saves twice, since they get Charisma to saves as a racial bonus.

However a Paladin / Lore Oracle with Sidestep Secret doesn't get to add Charisma to Reflex twice.

Shadow Lodge

Galnörag wrote:
Haladir wrote:
If I were the GM, I'd allow Smite Evil to work on a worm that walks. Not letting it work seems like a technicality.
Gotta disagree, the Smite Evil effect is a really powerful tool, and it can invalidate a lot of BBEG, especially undead, dragons and outsiders, especially once aura of justice kicks in. I'm not advocating for screw the pally here, I think they should be allowed to do that, but it puts pressure on the GM to balance encounter design to let other players shine in the spotlight. In a campaign like say Wrath of the Righteous the Worm that Walks might be the only thing one cannot smite.

That's IMO a problem with WotR. Home games I play in have a wide variety of enemies such that characters specialized to fight a particular type will sometimes have the advantage and sometimes not. It's not hard to throw in an occasional major antagonist or monster with a neutral alignment. I can sympathize with a GM watching a paladin steamroll WotR but that's not a good reason to make the Worm immune to Smite.

a shadow wrote:

I'm curious- since a lot of you seem to think a Worm isn't immune to Smite Evil (which I believe is an effect- and a physical one), what effects would a Worm be immune to then?

If you say 'physical effects', tell me what physical effects then.

Effects that directly damage the target:

  • Disintegrate
  • Polar Ray
  • Finger of Death
  • Frostbite
  • Shocking Grasp
  • Harm
  • Inflict (X) Wounds
  • Destruction
  • Slay Living
  • Vampiric Touch

Directly hamper or afflict the body:
  • Hold Monster
  • Suffocation
  • Imprisonment
  • Contagion
  • Poison

Or transmute their physical form:
  • Baleful Polymorph
  • Flesh to Stone

This is not an exhaustive list but a good sampling. Effects that I would consider non-physical include not only the obvious mind-affecting effects but also Bestow Curse, Magic Jar, and Enervation.

Shadow Lodge

I agree with Bran that it sounds like great roleplay and it's a fine idea for the GM to want to turn that into something other than a fall.

But what exactly is the player roleplaying at this point? Refusing the church's help atoneing indicates that the character doesn't regret his actions, and that's more significant than simply having a fiendish influence.

If he has realized that he can use his anger and even his fiendish heritage to serve the cause of good, then a change of patron seems in order. Ragathiel is very much about righteous anger, and as the son of the archdevil Dispater he's also an inspiration for someone with fiendish heritage seeking to ensure their anger stays righteous.

However if the character doesn't regret his actions because he no longer cares about his commitment to maintain the highest standards of moral behavior, he's abandoned his calling as a paladin and should retrain to bloodrager. It is a thematically appropriate representation of the character's drastic change in outlook and not a mechanical punishment for the player. Bloodrager should play pretty similarly in terms of party role and combat style, albeit with little or no healing ability (spelleater gets some self-healing).

Shadow Lodge

Snowblind wrote:
CRB druids get pounce (Beast Shape II+ gives it). IIRC they are the only ones that can get it in the CRB without using a polymorph effect.

Wild shape is a polymorph effect, it's just not a polymorph spell.

Shadow Lodge

Big Blue 22 wrote:

I think the demons and devils have a stronger historical connection to fire than goodly forces.

The only real historical uses of fire that I can think of that were supposedly in the cause of good were the Spanish inquisition, the burning of witches, and burning books. None of which in hindsight promoted the cause of good.

Good historical uses of fire:

Boiling water (for purposes of sterilization)

If you're looking at historical uses of fire as a weapon, then of course it's going to look pretty bad, because historically most uses of weapons were not what we would recognize as good.

"Holy fire" is pretty common as a concept, probably because fire is so important as an energy source while still also being dangerous and thus inspiring a certain amount of respect and awe. EDIT: fire certainly is associated with devils and demons, but as a manifestation of God's wrath visited upon evil, not as a weapon of evil.

Cold is not as obviously necessary to human survival - you notice it mostly when it's cold enough to hurt. Thus cold-associated figures tend to be malevolent, though this isn't always the case. Holiday patrons like Santa are the most common exception I can recall - remember the hallmark of the reign of the White Witch in Narnia was that it was always winter and never Christmas. Of course, such winter holidays tend to heavily feature themes of light and warmth in the midst of cold and dark.

Shadow Lodge

As supernatural abilities, bloodrage and demonic bulk don't function in an antimagic zone, but can't be dispelled.

Special abilities Abilities wrote:
Supernatural abilities are magical but not spell-like. Supernatural abilities are not subject to spell resistance and do not function in areas where magic is suppressed or negated (such as an antimagic field). A supernatural ability's effect cannot be dispelled and is not subject to counterspells. See Table: Special Ability Types for a summary of the types of special abilities.

Note that barbarian rage is extraordinary, and does function in a magic-free zone.

claudekennilol wrote:
What if I beast shape into something that has claws and then I enter a bloodrage. Would my abyssal claws replace my beast shape's claws?


Polymorph wrote:
While under the effects of a polymorph spell, you lose all extraordinary and supernatural abilities that depend on your original form (such as keen senses, scent, and darkvision), as well as any natural attacks and movement types possessed by your original form. You also lose any class features that depend upon form, but those that allow you to add features (such as sorcerers that can grow claws) still function.

Shadow Lodge

It's possible OP was asking about powerful bloodlines in order to establish a pecking order between different kinds of sorcerers, with the idea that the sorcerers with bloodline that has a reputation for greater power would get more respect. That would be a neat variation on the historical politics involved with noble families.

Shadow Lodge

The enlightened warrior trait lets you play as TN, and you can get it through Adopted if you don't want to be an aasimar. Alternatively, your GM may just waive the alignment requirement - my group doesn't pay much attention to them.

Is there any particular reason that you think high Int (logical thought, fast learning) is more characteristic of Khal Drogo than high Wis (intuitive thought, willpower)?

Kensai // Cavalier is pretty good, though, given that the OP is OK with adding spellcasting to the character. I'd say a horse is vital to the concept of any Khal, but if you're already departing from the concept a bit the Daring Champion is a mechanically stronger match for the Kensai.

Also, with some thought I'd suggest Barbarian/Fighter for Clegane, possibly with the Unbreakable archetype on the Fighter half (and Hurler to trade out Fast Movement if he's going to wear non-mithral full plate). Take the Stalwart and Improved Stalwart feats plus Combat Expertise for massive DR - normally this eats up almost all the barbarian's feats, but the fighter provides enough bonus feats to cover offense. Unbreakable improves the character's ability to shrug off non-HP hazards, though at the cost of Weapon Training.

Also note that an Untouchable Spelleater Bloodrager can only benefit from Fast Healing, not spell eating, since he has no spell slots to "eat" for healing.

Shadow Lodge

Monk (sohei) // Cavalier for Drogo. Light or no armour, great mounted combat, generally strong fighter.

I am not a fan of barbarian // bloodrager. Have you determined how you'll handle the two different rage pools?

Shadow Lodge

Agreed. Each attack in a full attack is a separate trigger for any abilities that respond to an attack.

Shadow Lodge

mplindustries wrote:
Daspolo wrote:
2. I am trying to make components an especially important part of this playthrough, as in my interpretation the material components are the source of the wizards actual magical energies and the thing that sets them apart. I'm considering changing the material components so that they are divided by which domain they align with and thus simplifying it to a manageable level. Do you think this will work? Are there any better ways to go about this.

Since everything is controlled by Sorcerers, and they get Eschew Materials as a bonus feat, I feel like you're focusing on the wrong thing here.

And Material Components are not the source of a wizard's power because there are lots and lots of spells without Material Components.

This is in the other thread OP linked - wizards are a relatively new development in the world and potential challengers of the sorcerers' power. OP is also planning on making material components more significant for wizards, including a requirement that they be tracked - hence being interested in components that work for multiple similar spells.

Shadow Lodge

1. This is a really hard question to answer - there are certainly stronger and weaker bloodlines, but they're too close to easily rank. It's easier to pick top bloodlines for specific purposes. For example, the Fey bloodline is great for controllers, while the Orc bloodline is fantastic for battle sorcerers. Consider skimming this guide on bloodlines to get a sense for their relative power. But keep in mind that there's a lot more that contributes to a sorcerer's overall power than their choice of bloodline. Arcane is pretty widely considered top-notch, though.

2. Domain as in spell school, as in powdered snakeskin being useful for transmutations? Or descriptor, as in powdered ruby is useful for fire spells? Or general effect, as in arrowroot is used for spells that enhance or create ranged weapons? That should be do-able. The more general your "domains" are and the less overlap there is between them the easier it will be to keep track of. So for example having all components match exactly one school would be quite easy. However it's not necessarily the most flavourful.

3. Model them closely off existing spells and be prepared to adjust the spell if it proves disruptive in play - ensure your players understand that such adjustments may be made. Consider changing the flavour of an existing spell rather than making a new one. For example, if the player wants to be able to summon semi-solid shadows to protect a character, use the shield or mage armour spell but describe the effect as composed of shadows.

4. Try to do as much preparation as you can in advance, and be prepared to improvise through any gaps. You have less ability to flesh out just a few sessions ahead of the players than you would in a more linear campaign - though if you can get the players to give you a heads-up on where they're headed that gives you more opportunity to prep appropriately. Having a map pre-prepared with attached encounters is particularly useful - that way, when the party goes to a particular location you can pull out the right encounter. It may be useful to have zones of the map with different CR ranges of encounters such that the party can gravitate towards level-appropriate zones (rather than trying to level each encounter with the PCs or let them run into a lot of very easy or very hard fights at random). It's also a good idea to have a firm idea of what your world's major NPCs, locations, and events are so you can foreshadow them appropriately. Make sure your party has a motivation to explore, and give them the opportunity to find more modes of transportation as the campaign progresses, such as mounts, vehicles, or magical portals.

5. Try posting these concerns separately, you're more likely to get people weighing in.

Shadow Lodge

Orfamay Quest wrote:
Weirdo wrote:
And that's where it would be useful for Hunch to scale on the sense motive side. With a DC 30-40 check you might notice that the baron's daughter is trying to hide something from her father, but wants to talk to the duke about it, and that whatever the butler is hiding has something to do with the duke's horse.

So, you're complaining that by rolling dice, you can bypass the mystery, and your solution is you want to roll more dice and bypass more of the mystery?

This is a problem, and the solution is to make it worse!

No, I'm complaining that the relative skill of the characters involved in getting a hunch is irrelevant. A character with a very high sense motive should be able to understand peoples' motives with a little more depth, and the motives of a character with a very high bluff should be harder to read even when they're not directly lying to someone.

People invest in Sense Motive in order to bypass mysteries (or at least get a leg up on solving them). People invest in Bluff in order to be mysterious. A good system supports both those things.

I'm working on rewriting these skills and I'm treating the hunch a bit like a knowledge check, where you get an additional detail for every 5 points by which you exceed the hunch DC (which is partly determined by the bluff skill of the target in the same way a knowledge DC depends on CR). That way the amount of information you get is related to the difference between your skill and that of the person you're trying to read - and the most meaningful contests will be between people of similar skill, just like in a combat scenario. Of course, real social combat would involve multiple rolls but I think this is still a step in the right direction.

Knowledge checks seem to work pretty well in that they can provide important clues or tactical tips and scale fairly well even with very high check results, but don't spoil adventures. You just have to build the adventure with the assumption that the PCs will have access to certain clues early on and make sure that finding out who, what where is only half the problem - the other half is what to do with it. Do you help the baron's daughter elope, do you mediate between her and her matchmakers, do you try to convince her that the political match really is the best idea? And if you uncover the duchess' secret in the process, do you tell her husband?

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

And that's where it would be useful for Hunch to scale on the sense motive side. With a DC 30-40 check you might notice that the baron's daughter is trying to hide something from her father, but wants to talk to the duke about it, and that whatever the butler is hiding has something to do with the duke's horse. This is not itself enough to unravel the full story: The baron and the duchess have arranged for the baron's daughter to marry the duchess' cousin, but the baron's daughter prefers her riding instructor and hopes the duke will intercede on her behalf (the duke is a known romantic). The baron, unbeknownst to his daughter, discovered the relationship and had the riding instructor polymorphed into a horse, which was then sold to the duke. The duke discovered these events by chance when he used Speak with Animals on the horse and is plotting with his butler to assist the lovers in spite of his wife. Meanwhile, the duchess is hiding her own sorcerous powers, which she manifested as a young girl and which she suspects are of infernal origin...

However, it gives the canny character a bit more to go on when investigating and rewards investment in a skill.

I think that rewarding investment in a skill is a good idea, especially if you can do so without trivializing an encounter.

Also, while real spies don't often impersonate someone with a high profile it does sometimes happen, it's something that's really fun to pull off as a character who has heavily invested in Bluff, and it's a gambit that is often vulnerable to just a little suspicion.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Haven't seen it, but that scenario sounds exactly like the problem I have.

A person with a massive bluff modifier should be too good at staying in character to slip up while ordering drinks.

Remember, we're talking about someone with a +30 modifier, capable of casually convincing someone of the impossible (which applies a mere -20 on the bluff check). As "real" people, the characters in the movie are probably looking at +15 at most, appropriate for a 5th level character with 18 cha and skill focus.

EDIT: As for the rules issue.

DM_Blake wrote:
Pathfinder SRD, Skills, Sense Motive wrote:
Retry? No, though you may make a Sense Motive check for each Bluff check made against you.
With no retry, and only one Bluff being used against you, you can use Sense Motive only once: to oppose that bluff or to get a hunch but not both.

So if no one tries to bluff you, you get no Sense Motive check and therefore no ability to get a hunch?

There are clearly situations in which the number of Sense Motive checks you can make are greater than the number of Bluff checks made against you.

DM_Blake wrote:

Further, I submit, if someone is using Bluff against you, then YOU don't get to decide to sense a hunch or sense his deceit. He does. He bluffed you, no roll your sense motive to see his bluff or forever believe his lies. You would only get a hunch when you're observing someone who has something to hide but isn't actively trying to hide it from you right now.

This is based on:

"Pathfinder SRD, Skills, Bluff wrote:
Bluff is an opposed skill check against your opponent’s Sense Motive skill.
If somebody uses Bluff against you, it IS an opposed skill roll against your Sense Motive. Period. You don't get to say "Nah, I don't wanna beat his Bluff; I'm just gonna roll against DC 20 to get a hunch."

Generally speaking, you get one skill check per task you are trying to perform.

For example, if you are trying to tumble to avoid AoO and jump to clear a gap in the same turn, you make two Acrobatics checks, one vs your opponent's CMD and one with a DC independent of your opponent.

Getting a hunch (which is not an opposed check) and opposing a bluff check are listed as two separate uses of the Sense Motive skill. There is nothing clearly indicating that the two uses are mutually exclusive. It is not illogical nor clearly forbidden to both make a Sense Motive check to oppose the bluff "I am Duke Fancypants" and to make a Sense Motive check to get a hunch about the general social situation in the conversation you are having with him.

In fact it makes sense that you could get the general idea that there was something off about Duke Fancypants without being able to tell that he lied about being Duke Fancypants. It just doesn't make sense as a flat DC.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

There's certainly more evidence for than against, and I personally prefer to err on the side of allowing something.

Though if I were GM I'd probably suggest refluffing the metals as monstrous spider silks, more interesting that way.

Shadow Lodge

You can add all bonuses except the +3 for training a class skill.

A halfling with a +2 racial bonus to acrobatics, +1 trait bonus, and +3 Dex bonus would have +6 to acrobatics before spending the rank.

If they have acrobatics as a class skill and put a rank in it, the bonus increases to +10.

Shadow Lodge

Cloistered Cleric.

Problem: You lose proficiency with medium armour, shields, and your better weapon options and also have diminished spellcasting with a loss of a domain. That's a significant loss in both fighting and casting ability. In exchange, you get slightly better at skills. Yay?


  • d6 HD and Poor BAB
  • Lose Diminished Spellcasting.
  • One of your two domains must be the Knowledge or Rune domain, independent of whether your deity offers that domain. The other domain is selected normally from those granted by your deity.

Shadow Lodge

I'm not sure how conclusive a random item table is, especially since the only three materials available are dragonhide, mithral, and adamantine. It's not something I'd put a lot of thought into in editing.

But I don't really care.

If you want to spend 1000gp on mithral studs to make your silken ceremonial armour weigh 2 lbs less, that's dandy.

Though in the case of the studded leather you'd definitely make it out of darkleaf cloth instead of mithral. It says specifically you can make studded leather of darkleaf and it's 250gp cheaper for the same benefit, so why not?

1 to 50 of 3,476 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 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.