|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
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).
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.
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:
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.
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):
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Yes, because he can make two claw attacks as a full attack (and can use claws with Pummeling Style).
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.
Another alignment shift threat, seriously why is this so black and white? It's getting tiresome. : /
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Another alignment shift threat, seriously why is this so black and white? It's getting tiresome. : /
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.
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.
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.
(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.
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.
Another alignment shift threat, seriously why is this so black and white? It's getting tiresome. : /
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.
-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.
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.
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.
-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.
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?
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.
Race 1: 1d100 ⇒ 89 Goliath
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.
1. Is there a direct correlation between good/evil and law/chaos?
2. Is anything inherently or irredeemably good/evil?
3. Can you know how good or bad an act is without exploring the whole scenario first?
4. Should the morality of a player affect their character?
6. Does committing an evil act make you evil?
I think "by" is a mistake here, and they meant "to." I would not take this as sufficient evidence to contradict the CRB.
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).
noble peasant wrote:
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.
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:
Effects that directly damage the target:
Directly hamper or afflict the body:
Or transmute their physical form:
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.
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).
Big Blue 22 wrote:
Good historical uses of fire:
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?