|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
It's intended to make magic item creation easier. Same reason PF doesn't have 3E's XP cost for crafting magic items. Ideally, you'd know all required spells, but if you don't it's still possible to make the item - just harder.
It also evens the playing field a bit between characters who have access to a lot of the spells used as prerequisites (like wizards) and those with more limited access to those spells (like sorcerers or even more so bards).
Orfamay Quest wrote:
However, if Gaius Severus Manpowerius is considered the wronged party, as opposed to the person who was actually whipped, then you are treating the whipped person as if they do not inherently have worth apart from being the property of Manpowerius. In other words, you are denying the moral dignity of the slave - an act incompatible with the good alignment.
Slavery is more than just a restriction of freedom, it is the reduction of the person to property. It is difficult if not impossible to do that and still respect the dignity of the slave.
Caster levels of items don't always match the minimum level to cast required spells.
Note that you don't have to have CL 10 to make a flaming sword - it only determines the DC to make the sword (or to affect it with Dispel Magic).
The only CL requirement is CL 6 for the +2 enhancement bonus.
And remember that that requirement as well as the requirement for Flame Strike can be bypassed by adding 5 to the DC to make the item (per requirement).
Thanks, everyone, for the interest in this "resurrection". And thanks, zainale, for the humor. But I am the GM, and it's a rules question I have, specifically the application of a spell-like ability. My Drow player response to light sensitivity is to cast darkness on himself. He believes that this will negate any penalties and still allow him to see normally--as if he were wearing sunglasses, so he need not even spend 200 gold. I reviewed the Paizo blog entry on how light and dark work, hoping for guidance, but it didn't seem to cover this. My basic question is the legality of this solution or if I'm missing something. I guess the question is what happens when a character with light sensitivity looks through darkness to daylight? The only consideration I've seen given to this is in the novel Pirate's Honor, when the half-Orc Grogul, looking into a cave, says the outside residual daylight is messing with his darkvision. In short, if this Drow solution is allowed, daylight mostly ceases to be a problem at the Greater Drow Nobility feat.
You take the light blindness penalty when in bright light. If you are in the range of a Darkness or Deeper Darkness effect, you are no longer in bright light.
Greater Drow Nobility (granting Deeper Darkness at will) does give you a way to ignore light blindness, assuming you're OK with a wide radius around you becoming at least dim light. This will draw a lot of attention to the drow and also potentially cause problems for any allies without darkvision (as enemies will have concealment against these allies).
The Sword wrote:
They are fair questions, however, I think the point is, this tavern brawl was not significant, just a throwaway line to say what the character has been doing for the last few days.
If it's just a throwaway, then why is the GM unwilling to retcon it when it's clear that the player considers it a significant departure from character?
The Sword wrote:
It also doesn't look like the player is heavily invested in the character... As he is trying to kill him off.
You can be heavily invested in a character's story without being heavily invested in a character's well-being. I've seen players do suicidal things with their characters because it is in character - I've had at least one friend say they'd rather the character die than do something out of character.
The Sword wrote:
It is very plausible for two people to bludgeon themselves to the brink of unconsciousness and be unable to continue, I have seen it in many films. The character is seeking a worthy death, why would he be pissed someone who get very very close. Even if he is pissed who cares - he's a fictional character made up by the OP. You choose the way you play your character.
Yes, you choose the way you play your character. The OP chooses to play a character who would be pissed after fighting to a draw because of the character's frustration at coming very close to getting the death he wants, but not actually getting it. The OP is frustrated because he feels the GM has not respected his very clearly stated preference about how his character is played.
Acting out of character may not be a negative consequence for the character, but it can certainly be a negative consequence for a player who is heavily invested in that character's story. While trashing the campaign out of spite would definitely be overreacting, I can definitely understand why OP is upset.
And as a GM, if I knew I had planned a significant character moment for a player who was going to be absent (and for an understandable reason) I would try to put a little effort into revising my plan to account for the absence. Ideally it would be possible to postpone the duel, but if not, was there any way that the fight could have been resolved without either killing OP's character or having him act out of character?
Would it have been plausible for the NPC to incapacitate OP's character without killing him (leaving your character pissed and looking for a rematch)? For the NPC to retreat even if OP's character was still keen to fight to the death? For some third party to intervene in such a way that OP's character might grudgingly accept the need to "finish this later"?
@j b 200 - That's a good point, though if you use rolled stats like my group you can't sacrifice secondary stats to increase your highest stat.
Neal Litherland wrote:
The goal, Weirdo, is to offer ways around the negatives one takes to Strength, and the difficulty of wielding small-sized weapons. For players whose entire experience in combat is, "big weapon, big Strength score," playing someone small can require and adjustment in thinking. The goal is to point out there are other ways to be an effective combatant than superhuman strength combined with a greatsword.
I've never had this mindset, so I needed to think about it a bit from that perspective. And I think it's still more than one goal.
Goal 1: Describe options for playing a character who isn't "big weapon, big strength score." Because if that's really your entire experience, you'll need someone to explain the advantages of being an archer, swashbuckler, or mage. But this could just as easily be explaining to someone why they should consider an elven swashbuckler or dwarven monk instead of a half-orc barbarian. Indeed, nothing in your point 4 is at all particular to small characters, and while 2 suggests that sneak attack is particularly useful to small characters it doesn't actually sell the idea of a halfling rogue compared to a human one.
Goal 2: Describe how small characters in particular can fill these roles. 1, 3, and 5 all address this, though it's worth extending 5 a bit to contrast a small dex-based character with an elf (size bonus to AC/hit outweighs low damage die, no Con penalty, advantage of Cha for some builds). And as I mentioned previously, 2 and 4 both essentially make the same point that in the long run weapon die and racial strength modifier do not contribute a whole lot to your damage output - except that you never actually state that point!
The other thing to keep in mind is that as you see in this thread there are a lot of people who actually want to play a small character with a big weapon, or at least a strong small character, and are looking for that issue to be addressed when you talk about overcoming the difficulties small races have in melee. Again, points 2 and 4 start moving in that direction but it's worth making that more clear and also pointing out j b 200's point buy trick or the usefulness of combat abilities specific to small characters. In addition to mount maneuverability (point 3) you could point out good racial defenses or the Risky Striker feat. Notably the good racial defenses are also useful for small casters or dex-based fighters.
The difference is a bit bigger than that. First, for a strength-based character, the hit bonus for being small is cancelled out by the reduced strength bonus to hit. Second, you're also not including the opportunity cost of not getting a strength bonus. A greatsword-using human who puts their racial +2 in strength has +1 attack and +4.5 damage compared to a small character. And if you hit both characters with Enlarge Person (or at high levels Righteous Might), the damage difference goes up to 5 points and only the medium-now-large character gets reach. That difference certainly does get less significant at higher levels when you have more sources of bonus damage, but it's not so trivial that it doesn't need to be addressed in some way.
Small greatsword avg damage = 5.5 + (1.5*2) damage from 14 Strength
Medium greatsword avg damage = 7 + (1.5*4) damage from 18 Strength
13 - 8.5 = 4.5
Enlarged Small = 7 + (3+1) = 11
Enlarged Medium = 9 + (5+2) = 16
Now, a guy in my group played a halfling titan mauler barbarian, house-ruled to be in line with developer intent such that by the end of the campaign he was using a large-sized adamantine earthbreaker one-handed, with a shield in the other hand (total -2 to hit). The character was quite strong defensively, partly due to the size bonus to AC and racial bonuses to Dex and saves. The Dex bonus also came in handy offensively when he picked up Come and Get Me, giving him an extra attack in some circumstances. Finally, he was a riot at the table, especially since he was fond of disguising himself as a human child and taking people massively off guard.
One of the things I really liked about that character isn't just that he was thematically against the grain, not just that he was effective despite being smaller, but that he was in some ways effective because of being smaller.
Are you trying to tell people how they can build a small character to be as effective a combatant as a medium-size one, or convince them that the decreased damage from being small isn't all that important in the long run? Points 3 and 5 address the former, while 2 and 4 address the latter. Point 1, meanwhile, seems to just be saying "don't build small characters for martial combat" which is completely the opposite of what I'd expect from the title.
Recommend revising your points or else re-titling it to "5 reasons to play a small character." Even then sneak attack (2) is basically a sub-set of class features (4) unless you want to talk about the racial stealth bonuses or halfling dex (initiative) bonus making it easier to get sneak attack in the first place.
Risky Striker, a significant damage boost for halflings.
The Charisma bonus on both halflings and gnomes is a significant advantage for paladins.
Taunt is maybe worth mentioning as it makes a demoralization build plausible, though it doesn't really make them better than for example a half-orc who spent a feat on Intimidating Prowess instead.
Any particular reason why the GM hasn't thrown an overwhelmingly powerful opponent at you during a session that you attend, so that you can retire this character in the way you desire and start a new one?
Or, you know, retire the character and leave the campaign gracefully, if you've tried and failed to work out your larger concerns about this game.
You know, much as I think that bardic performance is supposed to work with rage, I wouldn't be shocked if the devs decided otherwise.
I do think however it's way more likely that it'd be because "Yes, it counts as a use of a Perform check, an exception to the usual rule that using a skill requires a check" rather than because it's a supernatural ability that uses the charisma stat or because it makes Inspire Ferocity irrelevant.
Chess Pwn wrote:
fire is fairly useless to take as an elemental annihilator. The devastating can only work on physical blasts.
Right, forgot about that.
Still a possibility for earth depending on taste and how much differentiation you want between PCs. Though I think even without archetypes kineticist as a class allows a good amount of mechanical and thematic differentiation - similar to sorcerers and oracles, thanks to bloodline/mystery and spells known.
Warning and alignment shift seem like enough for now, especially since Sarenrae is the type to give second chances to straying followers.
However I would definitely be prepared for the cleric to fall in the future, probably requiring shifting allegiance to a new deity.
I would also keep in mind the potential conflict with the paladin. While it is possible for a paladin to adventure with an evil party member it can be difficult to roleplay and the player was probably not anticipating the cleric's alignment shift. The paladin's player seems to be doing OK for now, but if the cleric actually hits evil (and especially if the cleric starts worshipping an evil deity) it's going to increase the strain.
All bard parties seem popular.
All vigilante party is thematic and also allows a diverse set of abilities, including arcane and divine casting. Zealot is not the best healer, but you could manage, especially if you use sneaky tactics to avoid damage.
I think an all kineticist party with different elements would be fun, though harder to balance. Kinetic Chirurgeon, though overall a weak archetype, does provide a minimum amount of healing. Add an earth tank, air (or water or void) controller, and fire blaster. Earth or fire character could take elemental annihilator.
Agreed with CBDunkerson.
The phrase "If it would normally gain this ability at 7th level" means that the second half of the animal patron section does not apply to familiars that would not normally gain the speak with animals ability at 7th level (such as valet familiars). Thus the only change that the animal patron makes to such familiars is to give them Speak With Kind at level 1.
Without the conditional phrase, the animal patron would be incompatible with familiar archetypes that replace Speak with Kind.
The spell ends if the subject attacks any creature. For purposes of this spell, an attack includes any spell targeting a foe or whose area or effect includes a foe. Exactly who is a foe depends on the invisible character's perceptions. Actions directed at unattended objects do not break the spell. Causing harm indirectly is not an attack. Thus, an invisible being can open doors, talk, eat, climb stairs, summon monsters and have them attack, cut the ropes holding a rope bridge while enemies are on the bridge, remotely trigger traps, open a portcullis to release attack dogs, and so forth.
I think casting Cloak of Dreams while adjacent to an enemy would break invisibility (casting a spell whose area includes a foe) but casting Cloak of Dreams outside range and then walking up to an enemy would not break invisibility, since at that point it seems as indirect as triggering a trap whose area includes the foe.
re: conditions The intent of my comment is to look generally at things that affect both skills and abilities and to ask the question of whether or not rage/anger is similar to fear (which affects skills and abilities),
No, fear affects ability checks. An ability check is not the same as an ability any more than a sea lion is the same thing as a lion.
A shaken character takes a –2 penalty on attack rolls, saving throws, skill checks, and ability checks.
A frightened creature takes a –2 penalty on all attack rolls, saving throws, skill checks, and ability checks. A frightened creature can use special abilities, including spells, to flee; indeed, the creature must use such means if they are the only way to escape.
Note that the frightened condition addresses "ability checks" and "special abilities" separately. If the restriction on "ability checks" also applied to "special abilities" then it would not be necessary to specify that you can use special abilities when frightened - the description of how ability checks are affected would have been sufficient.
re: dodge You specified the dodge feat and, further, dodge bonuses are clearly specified to stack. Otherwise, the conceptual point of the supernatural comment was to say that, considering that rage powers include supernatural abilities and where rage powers are the definition of the special class abilities that a barbarian can use while raging, and where Inspire Courage seems like a conflicting class ability for all the reasons previously stated, the fact that Inspire Courage is a supernatural ability still doesn't (for me) override that potential class ability conflict.
"Rage powers are abilities that can only be used in rage" =/= "The only abilities that can be used in rage are rage powers."
"Humans are animals that can only breathe in air" =/= "The only animals that can breathe in air are humans."
The rage power is also limited for number of rounds per day equal to barbarian rage.
Yes, but if you're a single-class barbarian you'll have many more rounds of rage than a barbarian X/bard 1 will have rounds of bardic performance.
Anyway, I agree that there are balancing discussions that are possible, but at lower levels, maybe even through 7th level, Inspire Courage seems superior (to me), conferring +2 in bonuses without any penalties (other than needing charisma and/or extra performance to make the best use of it), whereas the rage powers provide +2 in bonuses with -2 AC in penalties and a range limitation.
Are you comparing a 7th level bard to a 7th level barbarian? Because you don't get a +2 bonus from Inspire Courage with just a dip in bard. And the relevant comparison here isn't a single-classes bard with a single-classed barbarian that took Inspire Ferocity, it's a multiclassed bardarian with a single-classed barbarian that took Inspire Ferocity. Obviously a full bard is going to be superior at inspiring. They question is whether multiclassing is unbalanced, and the lack of scaling on Inspire Courage is the reason it's not.
re: condition discussion: I am referring to the "condition" of rage (anger) vs. the fear tree. Rage is an (Ex). If fear affects both things, why shouldn't rage?
But fear doesn't affect supernatural abilities. It affects ability checks. You want to say that a barbarian can't make a Charisma check to influence a charmed person while raging, fine, makes sense, but saying that they can't use a supernatural ability that references the charisma stat is something else entirely.
Further, rage powers include supernatural abilities, so it appears that rage powers are required even to use supernatural abilities while raging, which is another reason why Inspire Courage doesn't necessarily deserve a free pass.
No, that doesn't follow at all. This argument would also "prove" that a barbarian can't use dodge bonuses while raging. "Rage powers include dodge bonuses, so it appears that rage powers are required even to use dodge powers while raging."
If we're looking for clues to developer intent, it's worth noting that in 3.5 rage and bardic performance were compatible. ("The 'bardarian' has two choices in a battle: use a mix of party-aiding spells and attacks, or rage and use inspirational music to urge the rest of the party on as he attacks.") Given that rage and performance were generally more restrictive in 3.5 than in PF (eg you couldn't use Combat Expertise when raging or cast spells while maintaining a bardic performance) it seems unlikely that the PF team intended to add a new restriction against using bardic performance or similar abilities when raging.
The above examples are obviously not exact parallels but are conceptually similar in certain ways to the issue at hand. When I ask the question about whether or not it makes sense to allow a bard ability to (as I see it) undercut a relatively similar barbarian ability that is specifically designed to work in rage and that is much more difficult to obtain (4 levels, 2 rage powers with penalties vs. 1 level and no penalties) and when there seems like an oversight in the rage description that allows it, I don't see that the question is without a mechanistic precedent from a rules/FAQ standpoint.
It is easier for a bard to inspire people than it is for a barbarian to do so because inspiring people is the bard's primary role, while a barbarian's primary role is fighting. Multiclassing can add breadth to a character but thanks to the way major class features tend to scale, a multiclassed character usually ends up with weaker class features than a single-classed one. This is the balancing factor that I think you are not considering.
As a barbarian who wants to inspire people, you can either spend two rage powers to get the Inspire Ferocity ability without sacrificing a significant amount of combat ability, or you can spend a level in bard in order to get level 1 Inspire Courage. And while full progression Inspire Courage is definitely better than full progression Inspire Ferocity, 1st level Inspire Courage is limited in uses per day, requires a standard action to use (instead of a move for Inspire Ferocity), and doesn't scale with your barbarian levels. Meanwhile, the single-classed barbarian with Inspire Ferocity has an extra point of BAB, about 2 HP more, and a level earlier access to upgrades to their rage ability including high-level rage powers and scaling of powers like Inspire Ferocity.
Similarly, a sorcerer who takes a few levels in paladin is going to be better in combat than a single-classed sorcerer, but their spellcasting will suffer. And while the levels in paladin don't remove the sorc's armour restrictions, the sorcerer isn't prevented from gaining the AC bonus from smite, or using other "tanky" abilities derived from paladin levels.
Lesser Beast Totem lets you grow claws while raging - does that mean that a catfolk shouldn't be able to use their racial claw attacks when in rage? The Knockdown rage power allows to trip opponents during a rage without provoking AoO - does this mean a barbarian shouldn't be able to use the Improved Trip feat while raging? Guarded Stance, Rolling Dodge and Staggering Drunk give you limited dodge bonuses - should a barbarian be unable to benefit from the Dodge feat or other "better and easier" dodge bonuses? You could argue that the -2 AC penalty in the base rage ability indicates that a barbarian isn't supposed to be able to defend themselves properly while raging except as defined/allowed by these specific rage powers.
In addition, if you consider how various conditions apply, impact on skills and abilities is very common. For example, consider what happens with various negative conditions like sickened, shaken, frightened, panicked, etc. - they affect both skills and abilities.
They affect skill and ability checks, for example a strength check to open a door or a charisma check to get a charmed person to do something they wouldn't ordinarily do. A supernatural ability is not the same thing as an ability check.
They have improved evasion, so effects that allow Ref saves shouldn't be a serious threat.
Area effects that don't require line of effect would be a problem, but I think they're also pretty rare. Inhaled poison, environmental heat, drowning?
Most groups I have seen won't target familiars with attacks or other targeted effects unless the familiar is actually out and contributing to combat. And even then it may not be a priority target.
There should be some discount, but 75% is too much.
You're thinking about all the possible forms you could take with Beast Shape II, but really there are only two main functions of that spell: combat and scouting. The ring allows scouting, so that's half the function of the spell.
And yes, there is some loss of function in not being able to change the extra movement modes, senses, or cosmetic details of the form selected. But the person making or buying the ring will probably choose a generally useful form (such as a songbird for flight, or a bat for flight and blindsense) and ability to speak while in animal form will for most users be a bigger advantage than the disadvantage of not being able to turn into a fish.
So at most I'd give a 50% discount to the shapeshifting part of this item.
The discount on Speak With Animals could reasonably be more significant because the limitation is more limiting. While in most situations it will be equally useful to turn into a cat or fox, in most situations it will not be equally useful to talk to cats or foxes.
Crafting for other characters is actually a really good way to deal with half of the problem with extensive crafting: the crafter's wealth making them OP compared to the rest of the party.
If everyone gets extra wealth from the crafter, then you just have to deal with the other half: the party being overall more powerful than expected for their level. And that can be fixed by increasing encounter CR accordingly and/or reducing wealth coming in so that the group ends up having closer to normal WBL.
Note that since you still want crafting to provide a benefit, you should definitely allow some extra wealth unless your playstyle is ordinarily very restrictive on the type of items available, in which case getting the specific items you want is a big enough benefit even if the total value is the same.
Correct. The wording is a bit clumsy (usually this ability is called "see in darkness" as distinct from normal darkvision) but it does specifically reference Deeper Darkness.
Agreed with Jeraa. You can get the DR from Armour Master + Adamantine or from Armour Master + Stalwart, but not all three.
You can never combine bonuses that don't stack with each other - instead take the biggest set of total bonuses that do stack.
Stalwart Defender works similarly. You can have Stalwart Defender DR + Adamantine DR, or Armour Master DR + Adamantine DR, whichever is greater, but not all three. If you have Stalwart, you can also choose Armour Master + Stalwart DR, but if you try to add a third type you'll end up with something that can't stack. (Note: I think the text in Stalwart Defender about not stacking with any other source overrides the text in Stalwart about stacking with class features, so that Stalwart Defender + Stalwart doesn't work, but I'm not sure.)
Increased Damage Reduction Defensive Power improves your DR from Stalwart Defender, so you get to include that power any time you are using your Stalwart Defender DR, but not if you are using your Armour Master DR.
Well, Darkleaf actually is a bit cheaper than mithral (750gp vs 1000gp for light armour), so if you want it to cost as much as mithral it makes sense for it to be a little better than Darkleaf. As in, it could have one of those three benefits before increasing the cost.
I'm also still not sure what you mean by "nonmagical glamour effect at half the cost." Do you mean it functions like Glamered armour but at half price and it's not magic? That would be really weird since Glamered lets you actually change the type of clothing your armour looks like. On the other hand, there's no other reference for "half the price."
I understand that you don't want to worry too much about precise wording, but it's important to convey the concept clearly.
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.
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.
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.
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.)
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.
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.
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.
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:
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...
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:
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?
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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").
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.