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

Weirdo's page

Pathfinder Society Member. 5,333 posts. No reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist. 1 Pathfinder Society character. 1 alias.


RSS

1 to 50 of 5,333 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Shadow Lodge

ohako wrote:
Could I assume that each kind of part weighs 1 lb, and price it accordingly? 500gp for the mithral reeds, 375gp for darkleaf bellows, and...I dunno, 110gp for darkwood boards?

Sounds reasonable for a home game. For PFS... *shrug*

Silver Balladeer wrote:
A silver balladeer gains the bardic performances listed below. These bardic performances all require the use of a silver or silver-stringed instrument, which costs twice as much as a normal masterwork instrument.
Darkwood wrote:
To determine the price of a darkwood item, use the original weight but add 10 gp per pound to the price of a masterwork version of that item.

So I'd guess a silver-stringed darkwood lute should cost twice the same as a normal instrument plus 10gp per pound.

I'd say no on the flute since it's only one material - though it's a bit odd that a mithral or singing steel weapon counts as alchemical silver but a mithral or singing steel instrument doesn't count as a silver instrument. I'd probably house-rule that as a GM.

Shadow Lodge

Kai_G wrote:
What are some tasks that Clerics are typically responsible for in parties? Healing and...? Instead of the norm for groups, perhaps I should use the salty MMO healer's jobs and attitudes for finding tasks.

Healing is the most iconic job for clerics, but they can actually cover a lot of roles in a party - including a martial combat, summoning, buffing (blessing the party), debuffing (aka smiting the party's enemies), and handling undead (controlling or countering them).

Thematically, clerics advance their deity's agenda and/or see to the needs of the faithful.

So tasks for a low level cleric might include:

  • Spending a certain amount of time working in a place of healing.
  • Making contact with an allied outsider and either assisting or requesting assistance from the outsider.
  • Defeating an enemy of the church (possibly an undead, not necessarily in combat).
  • Protecting an individual of significance to the church.
  • Recovering a relic.
  • Guiding a member of the community through a crisis of faith.

Given what you've mentioned about the setting, I might also suggest:

  • Tending a valuable plant until it matures (and perhaps can be harvested for medicinal purposes).
  • Keeping vigil over a sacred lamp and performing associated rituals or services.

Shadow Lodge

It doesn't matter whether the marked character is the cleric. The presence of clerics implies some form of spiritual or philosophical devotion must exist in the setting.

Have you developed this at all, or is that part of why you're having difficulty visualizing the Hall of Service?

Shadow Lodge

Swapping the associated stat might make the item more valuable, though.

Int-based skills: Appraise, Craft (any), Knowledge (all 10), Linguistics, and Spellcraft

Cha-based skills: Bluff, Diplomacy, Disguise, Handle Animal, Intimidate, Perform, Use Magic Device

So Intelligence gives you a bonus on 14 skills while Charisma gives you a bonus on 7 skills. Also, I think there are more ways to make a check into an Int-based check than into a Cha-based check.

Noble Scion does turn Initiative into a Cha-based check, which is a big benefit, but I doubt that this was taken into account when pricing the Circlet of Persuasion.

Shadow Lodge

I'd read "run into" as "had someone in the party targeted by an effect that can cause."

A balor might have Power Word Stun as a spell-like ability, but if it never actually uses that SLA I wouldn't say that I'd run into stunning in that encounter.

Though in this specific case, "been personally affected by" is actually more relevant, since it's only if you've been affected by a condition that the Padma Blossom's effect would be useful.

Shadow Lodge

Yeah, lack of somatic components makes it good for psychic types with caster builds - though psychic casting classes with warrior builds are still probably going to have their hands full.

Which is what makes the downsides a really big deal for everyone other than the characters that benefit from it most.

Ryan Freire wrote:
Matthew Downie wrote:
Xenocrat wrote:
The downsides aren't anywhere close to balancing all of that.

Using up a hand slot is a pretty big downside. Do you fight with a greatsword? Two daggers? Bow and arrows? Then this item is unlikely to be good value. Caster? You probably want to keep one hand free for a metamagic rod and the other for somatic components.

So it's a really good item, for a small subset of possible builds.

That small subset being, basically every psychic caster. If rods of metamagic got their price cut in half it wouldn't somehow be less OP because a fighter didn't want one.

Which is the argument for increasing this item's price a little. On the other hand, it was designed before the psychic classes and thus is intended to be something that non-psychic characters might want.

Kind of a shame that it's hard to balance in a way that it's affordable for non-psychics but also not a no-brainer for psychics.

Shadow Lodge

Philippe Lam wrote:
Weirdo wrote:

I'd absolutely accommodate an all-paladin group. It sounds like a fun time.

That said, "accomodate" doesn't just mean I'd avoid/softball encounters that paladins underperform at. I'd also use higher-CR versions of paladin-friendly encounters like undead and demons - keeping the overall campaign challenge/threat level similar to a more typical party.

Also, when playing a build that takes a while to come online, it's not just about surviving the early game but also about feeling like you are contributing to the party's success. I would feel pretty bummed if I were playing a paladin that did half the damage of all the other paladins for most of the campaign, even if my character survived. And some players might get annoyed if they feel another PC isn't pulling their weight.

I don't play the same way so I'll clearly give a different response. For me this is already softballing the session. Not doing this would involve using encounters where paladins can't use everything like facing Lawful Neutral kolyaruts. The viability of a PC is seen on how it fares overall and not in a specific case happening only in a minority of cases.

For game design or character building, absolutely you need to take a class/PC's weaknesses into account and make sure they're not too severe. However when designing encounters as a home GM my goal is to make sure that my specific players are having fun and being appropriately challenged. If my players decide that an all-paladin party will be a fun time, I'll do my best to make sure that the party neither trivializes demon encounters nor risks a TPK because I threw them against a tick swarm that they couldn't effectively damage.

Philippe Lam wrote:
Strict parity contribution is b&$*#&!s. If one PC gets above the melee in contribution ranking, so be it. Mostly that comes down to a pre-session agreement to plan moments where someone should get active or can stay idle. If I speak about the early game, it's not innocent. Not being able to properly handle it doesn't bode well for what follows.

I'm not exactly clear on what you're saying here. I agree that it's not realistic to expect everyone to contribute exactly equally, but combat encounters are a lot less fun for me if I feel like I'm clearly and consistently the least valuable combatant on my team - like if I'm doing half the damage that anyone else is doing.

Shadow Lodge

It does seem very useful for a psychic caster, but I think it's more in the "slightly increase the item's cost" box than the "BAN" box.

I don't see the confused or dazed conditions much, and stunned only slightly more often. Fear immunity is pretty handy, but there are other ways to deal with fear - including the 1st level spell Remove Fear.

In fact, for non-psychic characters I think it's a little pricey for what it does.

Shadow Lodge

Entothropy, like Lycanthropy, doesn't simply reverse a character's existing personality. Instead it gives them a second, independent set of drives.

The specifics are up to you, but it seems likely that the werespider would be more sedentary due to web-building instincts. It might not be outright hostile to the character's friends but would certainly lack concern for them. I would also expect a preference for ambush targets.

For more ideas, you could look at the behavior of the werespider from which the PC contracted the curse.

Shadow Lodge

This is a very interesting ability and it deserves to work.

Shadow Lodge

RAI/headcanon alert.

I've always taken the disguise bonus for polymorph to mean that the accuracy of your appearance depends on how well you can visualize the new form. Someone untrained in disguise isn't going to have as vivid or accurate an image of a crow in their head, so they might for example get the proportions off a bit. This is in addition to the active "mannerisms" component.

With that in mind, it would be flavourful to give a bonus to see through polymorph if the perceiver has a better scent ability than the polyporpher. The average human knows what a wet dog smells like well enough to fool a human, but not well enough to fool a dog. A half-orc with a nose to rival a bloodhound might very well be able to convince one that he smells like another dog.

Shadow Lodge

Snake Fang requires Snake Sidewind, so it doesn't come together until level 13.

Shadow Lodge

Also, the penalty from Bane will stack with the penalty from Prayer:

Glossary: penalty wrote:
Penalties are numerical values that are subtracted from a check or statistical score. Penalties do not have a type and most penalties stack with one another.

Shadow Lodge

Philippe Lam wrote:
It's yet to be seen if the career plan is sound or not. Being happy to handle the average joe is fine but if it means stumbling heavily against what can counter paladins, the group is going to suffer much. And I'd advise the GM to not accomodate the group on their single-mindneness.

I'd absolutely accommodate an all-paladin group. It sounds like a fun time.

That said, "accomodate" doesn't just mean I'd avoid/softball encounters that paladins underperform at. I'd also use higher-CR versions of paladin-friendly encounters like undead and demons - keeping the overall campaign challenge/threat level similar to a more typical party.

Also, when playing a build that takes a while to come online, it's not just about surviving the early game but also about feeling like you are contributing to the party's success. I would feel pretty bummed if I were playing a paladin that did half the damage of all the other paladins for most of the campaign, even if my character survived. And some players might get annoyed if they feel another PC isn't pulling their weight.

Shadow Lodge

Bloodline familiar will replace the dragon claws bloodline power - and therefore also the Dragon Bite power of the Dragon Disciple (since you only get the bite when your claws are out).

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I also appreciate otyughs and were-rats.

Got a goblin market down there in one currently-running campaign.

Shadow Lodge

Mysterious Stranger wrote:
Your party seems to have the role of healer covered well enough. The investigator also seems to have invested valuable class features to cover this role so may not take it well if you character comes in able to cover it better than he does. For this reason I would avoid the cleric.

I wouldn't assume that. I once played an inquisitor as the party healer, taking the Healing (Restoration) sub-domain and learning several condition removal spells (including Remove Disease, which came up surprisingly often in that campaign).

I would have been quite happy to have a cleric join the party because it would mean that I could stop spending half my spells per day plus valuable spells known on healing - maybe even retrain a few.

Infusion is a useful discovery for buffing even if you never plan on passing out a healing extract, and having spent a few extra gold on formulae you won't use much anymore isn't a big deal.

Shadow Lodge

Merellin wrote:
If I was going to ignore whats useful to the party and play fully for what I want to play, i'd either make a Alchemist cus I love that class, Or a Summoner as I'v wanted to try it ever since I first read it.. But the Summoner I worry about so much due to all the hate it gets online.. People talking about how it destroys the fun for everyone else in the game and is so horribly OP.. And because our party is somewhat big.. But I want to try it some time.. But I worry so..

The Summoner doesn't have to be a problem. You can avoid OP builds with a little effort and if you use the eidolon (or a single summoned monster that you know how to handle in combat) it doesn't slow your turn down any more than any class with a pet.

That said, the big party (and excess of melee strikers) would definitely give me pause here. It looks like you've already got 7 other bodies in this party including the ranger's pet, and 5 of them are melee. Which means not just longer combat rounds, but also potential for the melee types to start crowding each other out.

So if you're looking for the best party fit, I'd add a vote for evangelist cleric, with caster bard and witch as runners-up. Alchemist overlaps with investigator and lacks group buffs.

Shadow Lodge

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Depends on the rest of the party.

If we've got a wizard, fighter, and rogue, a cleric is great.

If we've got an oracle, cavalier, and inquisitor, I'd prefer an alchemist or maybe a witch.

Paladin, slayer, hunter? Witch or bard.

Druid, summoner, and ranger, all with pets? Bard please.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, my group's home games tend to wrap up somewhere in the level 10-14 area.

Haven't seen the archetype yet, but as a home GM I will probably implement the following house rule:

Robert Brookes wrote:
For GMs running at their home (sorry PFS folks) my house rule would be increase die size by one step for each natural attack you could have that you choose to sacrifice. So like, when you form your natural attacks if you only form 1 instead of 3 your damage die for that one attack goes up by two steps. Probably not optimal but it gets the idea across.

Yes, you can also get one big attack with feats but given that the oozemorph is supposed to have some flexibility with its weapons it seems like a nice feature to have baked-in, without further investment.

(I am also considering making it slightly easier for the oozemorph to use magic items and/or stay in humanoid form, but this can probably wait for a bit of playtesting.)

Shadow Lodge

Java Man wrote:
Weirdo wrote:
LordKailas wrote:
Otherwise, you could rule that they have to make a survival check DC 10 + the monster's CR.
This sounds like a good houserule, with a few modifications for creature type (eg animals should be easier, especially if not poisonous; aberrations are probably more difficult to cook). And I'd allow Profession(cook) as well - or a synergy bonus if you have both.
Even among normal animals and plants there are surprising things that can injure/kill you. European explorers became extremely ill or died from consumption of polarbear liver.

That's why I said that eating animals should be easier, not automatic. You might get a massive Vitamin A overdose from eating polar bear liver, but given the choice of eating a random animal from the Bestiary and a random aberration, I'd pick the animal.

graystone wrote:

The survival skill finds things THAT ARE ALREADY EDIBLE. You can chew on a fish without gutting/cooking it or peeled a cattail and eat the heart raw. NONE of that requires processing the food found.

So you have survival, and you find already edible berries, nuts, small game ect. It might not be palatable but it's edible and you aren't going to starve.

That is different than having a naturally dangerous/inedible item and making it edible food.

So with survival, you might catch a trout and eat it. Profession cook would let you take a fish you'd normally throw back, like a puffer fish, and make it safe to eat. Different ways to get to the same place.

This is why I suggested using either - with a bonus for both. Survival lets you figure out what parts of the monster are edible, if any (eg that you shouldn't eat polar bear liver). It should also cover the basics of being able to cut apart the edible parts of a polar bear and put it on a spit, because cooking is an important part of getting proper nutritional content out of many edible things. Profession (Cook) lets you prepare the polar bear meat in a tasty enough way that you can make a living from selling polar bear stew.

There's an argument for some specialty foods like puffer fish requiring Profession (Cook) to prepare. On the other hand hunter-gatherer societies can develop methods for safely preparing hazardous forage (see Cunjevoi and Burrawangs. I would describe these people as having a high Survival skill rather than all being trained in Profession (cook).

Shadow Lodge

LordKailas wrote:
Otherwise, you could rule that they have to make a survival check DC 10 + the monster's CR.

This sounds like a good houserule, with a few modifications for creature type (eg animals should be easier, especially if not poisonous; aberrations are probably more difficult to cook). And I'd allow Profession(cook) as well - or a synergy bonus if you have both.

Shadow Lodge

Does it work - are their paws are able to manipulate objects with sufficient dexterity? Or does this clause kick in?

Familiar Skills wrote:
For each skill in which either the master or the familiar has ranks, use either the normal skill ranks for an animal of that type or the master’s skill ranks, whichever is better. In either case, the familiar uses its own ability modifiers. Regardless of a familiar’s total skill modifiers, some skills may remain beyond the familiar’s ability to use. Familiars treat Acrobatics, Climb, Fly, Perception, Stealth, and Swim as class skills.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Lesser Animate Dead is a 3rd level wizard spell, so it becomes available to you at level 5.

You could certainly get a scroll or wand earlier than that, but I'm not sure it's worth the extra resources. I'm also not sure how to handle the variable material component cost - you'd probably have to decide ahead of time how many HD of undead the specific scroll or wand was intended to create.

If you chose Command Undead as your bonus feat for the Power Over Undead school ability, you can use that to control any undead you happen to come across.

You might even be able to hire a 3rd level cleric to cast Lesser Animate Dead (60gp plus cost of Onyx) or a 5th level cleric to cast Animate Dead (150gp plus Onyx) and then use Command Undead on those undead.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

They do appear to be unlimited use - but using the abilities also requires the hags to all be within 10 feet of each other. So if OP wants a coven without having to worry about the PCs making saves vs Baleful Polymorph or Charm Monster, then they just need to make sure that the party has ample opportunity to take out one of the coven members alone - any one coven member.

EDIT: Of course, clairaudience/clairvoyance may still give the coven the chance to spy on the PCs beforehand...

And yes, for CR reasons you'd want at most two actual hags in the coven. Possibly one green hag and two humanoid coven hex witch/shamans. The humanoid coven member(s) would make at least one good intermediate encounter.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I might play in such a game, but I would have to trust both the GM and the "Main Character" player to make sure that everyone has a good share of the spotlight and a roughly equal amount of plot agency. Even if the plot does revolve around the "MC," the other PCs have to be able to make decisions that matter.

Mykull wrote:

Sure, they'll get some lime-light, but not an equal amount. The sum of all of the individual co-stars' lime-light will equal the main character's. 50% for the lost heir, 50% for everyone else.

Think about A New Hope. Obi, Leia, Chewbacca, R2-D2 and C-3PO have almost no character growth/change/development. Han has the most of the co-stars.

I don't think it has to be quite that unbalanced. I'd say Buffy the Vampire Slayer is more like 30% Buffy, 60% secondary cast (Willow, Xander, Giles, Angel/Spike), 10% tertiary cast. Ron and Hermoione also get a pretty big spotlight in Harry Potter. And these are stories that aren't consciously trying to evenly distribute the spotlight - when Ron gets upset that people pay more attention to Harry, it's just a plot point, not a disappointed player.

For examples where a plot is centered around one character while not actually giving that character a majority of the spotlight, see Snow White and the Huntsman (everything happens around/because of Snow White, but the Huntsman is at least as important a character) or in the extreme case Willow (where the Chosen One is an infant).

sunnychoco wrote:

My own experience in a year-long campaign as the player of the "lost heir" restoring her kingdom, whose birthright had been usurped, was to play as a full support character ...

My character focused on team-support in buffing/inspire courage (oratory, which made for great royalty themed speeches later). It is important, I think, to establish that the lost heir can't do everything alone, she needs to trust and rely on her friends/companions. While there is no need to go completely into a "damsel in distress" mode, it may be less "in your face" to have the party support role be filled by the lost heir character, as opposed to the front liner or master of arcane arts. It lets you act as more of an enabler, helping the rest of the party members be more heroic and do cool things, and creates a nice subconscious reciprocal feeling of balance ("they are doing this to help the heir, and the heir is doing this to help them").

This sounds like a useful approach. As you say, it's thematic since it encourages the "heir" PC to have leadership skills. And by playing a buffing/support role the "heir" effectively shifts a lot of spotlight to the other PCs.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I find skills quite useful for most characters, since I usually don't see diminishing returns on skill ranks until I've got about 6/level.

Darkvision is very handy, but my group doesn't pay enough attention to light levels to make low-light vision meaningful.

Ckorik wrote:
Tacticslion wrote:
I have no idea how this post has not received more favorites.

ROFL because some people don't use the favorite system as a thumbs up?

:) I know ... the very idea....

I used to be very stingy with my favourites - until I realized I could use "list" to keep track of posts that I find really useful or inspiring.

Of course, I'm still not quite as generous with the favourites button as Tacticslion. :)

Shadow Lodge

Thematically, this is the kind of character who does have an innate appreciation for fancy clothes, but also understands the importance of presentation and that it is simply not practical to pack your entire wardrobe for a long expedition. So the Sleeves do feel in-character, and I think they may be useful for keeping a low profile - and possibly for giving the social benefits of the courtier's outfit if I don't feel like being low profile? I didn't hear any feedback on that idea, but it seems like it fits with what the Sleeves are supposed to do.

graystone, I think you are correct about outfits being separate from slots. If it comes up as a GM I'll let players get a single chest, shoulder, or foot implement out of the courtier's outfit but as a player I'll expect to buy them separately.

However, I think there's still some uncertainty over whether a pink neck guard counts. I've started a new thread, since I'd like to get some more viewpoints and I think that's more likely with a more appropriate title.

Shadow Lodge

Silksworn Implements wrote:
When a silksworn chooses an implement school, he does not choose a specific object. Instead, a silksworn must be wearing an ostentatious garment or magic item worth 10 gp or more of the appropriate type and in the appropriate slot: abjuration (wrists), conjuration (shoulders), divination (eyes), enchantment (neck), evocation (hands), illusion (head), necromancy (chest), and transmutation (feet). A silksworn who does not meet this requirement is treated as lacking the appropriate implement for the purpose of his class features, including spellcasting.

1) Does any appropriately-slotted item over 10gp qualify? For example, hollow-heeled boots? Or is the silksworn supposed to buy the item specifically named Ostentatious Garment:

Ostentatious Garment wrote:
This term covers items not listed elsewhere, such as elaborate wigs, silk-lined cloaks, and ruffled blouses. While such garments usually offers no benefit beyond fashion, a silksworn occultist must wear several such garments of suitable quality to access her magic.

2) Is it possible to just spend gold to make a non-qualifying garment into an implement? For example, if it's total value that qualifies, can I spend an extra 2gp for an extra-fancy 10gp pocketed scarf that counts as an implement? If you're supposed to be throwing extra money on the implement (on top of practical value), can I spend an extra 10gp to bling out my scarf?

In essence I think this is a question of whether this restriction is intended to simply limit your item purchases, require you to spend extra gold without practical benefit, or prevent you from using practical non-magical gear.

Continued from this thread.

Previous Discussion:

greystone wrote:
ALL "ostentatious" means is 'designed to impress or attract notice'. That means all it has to do is one of those. Paint that neck guard hot pink, and NOW it's "ostentatious". As such, I don't see why any item with a 10+ gp cost that's painted/dyed to 'to attract notice' isn't an implement for the silksworn.
Weirdo wrote:
The description also says: "While such garments usually offers no benefit beyond fashion, a silksworn occultist must wear several such garments of suitable quality to access her magic." Which implies that this specific item is required, and not other items worth 10gp or more.
graystone wrote:
That's not what the class says though. The requirement is "an ostentatious garment or magic item worth 10 gp or more of the appropriate type and in the appropriate slot". All the Quote you posted means is that the generic 'ostentatious garment' listed has no benefit. That means that if you take the example "elaborate wigs, silk-lined cloaks, and ruffled blouses", they don't give a bonus on disguise/diplomacy, help with bad weather, ect. It's to explain the listed 'ostentatious garment' is useless other than fashion: the fact that it "covers items not listed elsewhere" means it can't make an implication on those items. So I can't see the argument as a particularly valid one.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tacticslion wrote:
Gilfalas wrote:

Nodrog you cannot force people to enjoy the game the way you do. Likewise you cannot cite yourself at fault if your players do not see the game the way you do.

Giving them all possible options is the best you can do (and may even be a little self defeating in certain corner cases but this does not sound like one of those).

The old adage of 'You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make them drink' applies here.

Bottom line = no one has failed. You just got a party mix you personally are not thrilled by. That will definitely happen as a GM but, IMO, the mark of a good GM is tailoring a game to the players and the characters THEY have chosen to play.

If everyone is having fun playing the game and your having fun running it then your ok. If your not having fun running it you need to examine if the problem is actually their character choices ruining it for you or something else.

I have no idea how this post has not received more favorites.

Yeah, I'm going to signal boost this, too.

There are multiple reasons for playing humans and core classes: mechanics, simplicity, even preferring the flavour. You could ask the players why they made these choices. You might even be able to use this information to convince your players to play something more exotic. For example, if someone chose a human fighter for simplicity, you might be able to point them at character builds that would be more "interesting," but still effective and fit the concept they wanted. If multiple players need bonus feats to get a build online at 1st level, maybe start at level 3 or just give everyone a bonus feat. If they feel like they would be judged for playing bizarre or non-optimal builds, have a talk with the group about these expectations.

But if your players really prefer humans and core classes, you haven't failed. In fact, you succeeded: the players are now playing the characters they really want to play, without being restricted by the GM!

Shadow Lodge

graystone wrote:
Courtier's outfit: The issue with trying to divide out what's in the outfit is there is no breakdown of what's actually IN one. There isn't even a way to prove the outfit even comes with shoes/boots for instance. Secondly, if you try to break it down, there are most likely more than 3 items in it, meaning that each would cost under 10gp. Let's say it has 'shoes/boots, hose or a skirt, a belt, a shirt, a vest or corset, gloves, and a cloak'. You're looking at around 7 gp per item.

Which is when we move on to the second question: If we assume that no single item in the outfit is worth more than 10gp, is a character wearing fancy boots, shirt, gloves, and cloak effectively wearing most of a courtier's outfit?

How would you handle a silksworn who wanted people to react to them as if they were wearing a courtier's outfit?

Because I could see a GM ruling that a PC wearing hollow-heeled boots, a neck guard, adventurer's sash, and smoked goggles can't also benefit from a courtier's outfit because these items either displace or spoil the effect of the outfit.

Could you use sleeves of many garments to mimic a courtier's outfit, since the bonus it provides is based on what people perceive you as wearing, rather than the physical properties of the clothes?

graystone wrote:
Ostentatious garment: The item is described as a fill in for "items not listed elsewhere". It's just basically there is you want something exotic not in the game. So if I want to wear a fake butterfly wings on my back, it costs 10gp and it weighs a pound.

The description also says: "While such garments usually offers no benefit beyond fashion, a silksworn occultist must wear several such garments of suitable quality to access her magic." Which implies that this specific item is required, and not other items worth 10gp or more.

Shadow Lodge

There's no school associated with the body slot, but there is a chest slot (for necromancy), which includes shirts, vests, and jackets.

Pretty much all of the outfits contain some kind of shirt and some kind of footwear, and often a cloak, so it seems like a courtier's outfit might include a shirt, boots, or cloak that individually is worth at least 10gp - though likely not all three.

Even if it is important to buy things slot-by-slot, it seems logical that a character with a shirt worth 10gp (chest), boots worth 10gp (feet), cloak worth 10gp (shoulders), and perhaps an extra 10gp in accessories (pants, belt) is effectively wearing a courtier's outfit.

The reason I'm asking is that I've played characters who are "well dressed" for social/RP reasons before, but this is the first character I'm playing where it's mechanically enforced. I'm trying to figure out how to translate between the slot-by-slot gear and the overall impression others get of my character's fashion choices.

graystone wrote:
You might as well get items that give bonuses or have other uses. ;)

While it's a good idea, I don't think all those items count. The items have to be not just valuable, but "ostentatious." The stiletto boots are actually described as "ostentatious," so they should be fair game. But I have a hard time seeing how a neck guard qualifies. Maybe if you add bling, but that should also increase the price.

Interestingly, I'm now noticing that Archives of Nethys has specifically listed "ostentatious garment" for this purpose.

Shadow Lodge

Cool, that makes sense, thanks. As long as I know how stylish I am, I'm magic.

Follow-up: does a courtier's outfit ("fancy, tailored clothes" costing 30gp) count as one or more implements? Or conversely, if I'm wearing a fancy shirt, boots, gloves, and cloak worth at least 40gp total to satisfy implement requirements (plus 50gp of jewelry), should it give the benefits of a courtier's outfit because I'm wearing more than 30gp worth of fancy, tailored clothing?

Shadow Lodge

If a silksworn occultist is using Sleeves of Many Garments, do they count as having the appropriate implement if:

a) They are wearing an ostentatious garment in the appropriate slot, whether or not they appear to be wearing such a garment.
b) They appear to be wearing an ostentatious garment in the appropriate slot, whether or not they actually are.
c) Only if they both are actually wearing an ostentatious garment in the appropriate slot AND said garment is visible.
d) Other?

Silksworn:
When a silksworn chooses an implement school, he does not choose a specific object. Instead, a silksworn must be wearing an ostentatious garment or magic item worth 10 gp or more of the appropriate type and in the appropriate slot: abjuration (wrists), conjuration (shoulders), divination (eyes), enchantment (neck), evocation (hands), illusion (head), necromancy (chest), and transmutation (feet). A silksworn who does not meet this requirement is treated as lacking the appropriate implement for the purpose of his class features, including spellcasting.

Sleeves of Many Garments:
The wearer of these sleeves can, when she slips them on, choose to transform the appearance of her current garments into any other non-magical set of clothing. These new clothes fit her perfectly and are always clean and mended unless she specifically designates otherwise. When she removes the sleeves, her clothes revert to their original form.

And just in case:

Sleeves of Many Garments FAQ:
The effects are illusion (glamer) like the glamered weapon and armor properties. This means they can’t be disbelieved like a figment could, but they do not actually physically change the clothes. The transformation changes only the appearance, including the feel, smell, and other sensory aspects.

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

You might be interested in the Alexandrian's system, which is similar to NeoTiamat's deal system but doesn't use hero points. This means that like the main rule it's not useful on PCs. On the other hand, it does both limit the scope of a Diplomacy check and codify situational modifiers in a way that I find useful.

Note the "Overcome Intransigence" application, which is meant to provide a "defense" for powerful NPCs who wouldn't normally listen to the party - without making it more difficult for PCs to ask favours of powerful NPCs who do have a reason to listen to the party. As alluded to in the design notes, you want it to be hard to convince the BBEG to consider a truce, but not hard for for a toddler to ask their grandmother the 11th level cleric for a cookie.

Personally, I wouldn't want to get rid of the Diplomacy skill because I think it's important for players to have a way to mechanically represent a character who is persuasive, even if they aren't very persuasive themselves. I'm also pretty skeptical of systems that take control of the PCs' actions away from the players. As a GM, I'm very light-handed with charm and compulsion effects.

Shadow Lodge

I like wights. They're familiar but not over-used. The energy drain does make it a bit risky for lower-level parties, but with the right group that just becomes a tactical challenge. You can also softball it a bit for a level 1 party by giving the wight ability damage instead of energy drain (did this once - I think it was an unlucky random encounter roll).

I remember really enjoying a Dullahan encounter a few years back, though unfortunately I don't remember the details. I think they may have chased us to the main adventure location?

Also rather proud of reskinning an undead raven swarm as a collection of various bones (hands, jawbones, etc) animated when an archaologist accidentally picked up a sinister necromantic amulet.

Shadow Lodge

It's not a fantastic trait, but it could be worthwhile. Making an extra attack is a good use of ki, so think about it as one extra attack on any adventuring day in which you run out of ki. You get 1/2 level + Wis points of ki, which is not a lot. In most games you'll probably run out of ki pretty often, so that extra attack is good to have if you don't have any other compelling options.

That said, if you're in a group that has relatively infrequent, short combats, Honoured Fist is not going to come up much. I'm playing a monk in a group that runs that kind of combat, so it wasn't a useful trait for me.

Shadow Lodge

I like the Healing Patron if your group doesn't already have a cleric - it gives you access to useful situational healing spells, particularly Lesser Restoration, Remove Disease, and Restoration. The Healing patron would also go well with QuidEst's suggestion that the familiar contain the soul of the character's dying spouse (or other loved one); the character made a deal for healing power, but didn't get the right power to save their loved one in the way they intended.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Bag of Treats: On command, this belt pouch fills itself with an assortment of confections. The Bag of Treats can produce enough food to sustain a single medium or small size creature, but because the treats are of poor nutritional value treat this as wandermeal. Offers of sweets may also provide a +2 circumstance bonus on certain Diplomacy checks, GM's discretion. (If you want it to be even more useful, allow it to produce a slightly wider variety of treats, such as dried fruit or jerky, and allow the bonus to be used on Handle Animal checks.)

Shadow Lodge

What level are you starting at? Level 1 as a commoner, level 5 as a budding sorceress with some backstory NPC levels, or somewhere in between?

The other posters are correct that these rules favour martials since they can get some BAB out of their NPC levels. But if you're starting from a higher level you at least know that you have your spells available - if you're playing from level 1 with the stats of a mage but no spells you're going to have a hard time.

Shadow Lodge

Animal Archive introduced them first, notably Valet.

Familiar Folio added more, including Mauler, Protector, and Figment.

Shadow Lodge

Oh, I'm not saying you can't fit cultists into a short or tightly focused campaign.

I'm saying that as you increase the length of the campaign and the number of side plots, the odds of running into cultists at some point in that campaign become very high, simply because the GM will run out of new enemies. And at some point I start to be surprised if we haven't run into cultists.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tacticslion wrote:

You wouldn't?! MY LIFE IS A LIE!! Q.Q

... also, no, I have no sausages. I do have freezer chicken, though, if you want some of that.

Oh, and hot dogs, but make sure to take the weiners, not the beef ones. The kids like the beef ones.

Acceptable. Your childrens' favourite hot dogs will be spared.

Shadow Lodge

Cultists are definitely a common enemy type. I'd expect to fight them at least once in any campaign that runs long enough (say, level 1-12) and that has frequent side plots.

If they're the only thing you're fighting in two campaigns in a row... might ask the GM(s) if they could mix it up a little.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Detect Evil can be also actively tricked by Misdirection (which can give an unwilling and completely innocent target the aura of an evil cleric), infernal healing, and certain other effects. A LG infiltrator inquisitor trying to infiltrate a demon-worshipping cult may very well detect as CE.

Boomerang Nebula wrote:
DM Beckett wrote:

No, Im honestly curious. In medical, we have a concept called triage, essentially a way to help the most people, based on needs and resources.

The Goblins Alignment shows that as clearly Evil, as far as I can tell.

I don't understand your rationale. I see triage as attempting to maximise goodness as per the definition given in the opening post.

The issue with triage is that in order to maximize the amount of helping you do, you have to require proof not just that the person asking you for help actually needs it, but that they are the most efficient target of your help at that time.

Non-life threatening injury? Someone else needs the help more.

Difficult injury? Sorry, I'm going to leave you to die so that I can save two other lives.

I don't think Goblins intended to condemn paramedics for using triage. A major theme of the comics is confronting prejudice, so this quote is probably about people who think they are doing good because they are "fighting evil," particularly when their idea of what is "evil" is informed by prejudice rather than actual evidence and particularly when they are more concerned with "fighting evil" than doing actual good.

But as DM Beckett's comment points out, the definition does also invoke a common feeling that compassionate people can't take a calculating approach to helping others - that trying to be efficient is "heartless."

blahpers wrote:
djdust wrote:
TheAlicornSage wrote:
This is really one concept I see everywhere, people who always need everything to be just right, who take command of their lives, while others simply accept things the way they are and just go with the flow. It is kind of hard to codify that really.
Popularly codified as Type A and Type B personalities.
Ugh. Those terms are as much flamebait as D&D alignments.

What about Jungian Judging vs Perceiving preferences?

Tacticslion wrote:

The problem is that, in Golarion, and some similar places, Goblins may not be inherently evil, but as a whole are more-or-less identical to the toxic constructs up above. They move in, wreck other peoples' stuff (and kill and eat the people), despoil nature, and cause ruin and devastation. This, fundamentally, seems like all the proof most should need to determine, "Goblins bad; destroy them good." Heck, there are entire villages that have been wiped out by the menaces - menaces known to be sneaky and deceptive (all in service to a good murdering, of course). Considering them all monsters in need of wiping out of existence isn't unjustified. "Proof" has been gathered in plenty.

And yet, as the comic points out, this doesn't have to be a universal truism. Perhaps bands or groups of them gather for benevolent or good purposes, or seek out heroism. But who can tell those from the ones that will literally sneak into your bedroom and murder everyone so they can eat their faces? Who can discern the liars from the honest? Especially when some of those sneaky murderers lie about their own intent?

I would never sneak into your bedroom and murder everyone so I can eat their faces. :(

Might raid your pantry, though. Got any sausages?

Shadow Lodge

elcaleeb wrote:
Weirdo wrote:
I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:
There's the Stymphalian birds of Hellenic fame - I don't recall whether Pathfinder's integrated them into any of the bestiaries yet, though.
Paizo hasn't, but Frog God Games has.
They are in the back of the second book of Council of Thieves
Dragon78 wrote:
The Stymphalidies appears in Pathfinder Bestiary 3.

Ah, didn't come up in my search because of the slightly different name! Nice to know there's an official version! Oh, and a swarm version! So lots of options, depending on what CR you want.

Shadow Lodge

I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:
There's the Stymphalian birds of Hellenic fame - I don't recall whether Pathfinder's integrated them into any of the bestiaries yet, though.

Paizo hasn't, but Frog God Games has.

Shadow Lodge

The definition of heresy is simply "belief or opinion contrary to orthodox religious (especially Christian) doctrine." It doesn't necessarily have to be a serious disagreement, though it's usually used that way.

Any given that there were/are a lot of Christian heresies, even a greatly reduced frequency of heresy in a fantasy world would probably still result in the occasional heresy popping up.

Bjørn Røyrvik wrote:
Slight tangent: As for the one step alignment shift thing, I much preferred how BECMI (and I believe 2e)did it: each Immortal listed allowed alignments of laity and clergy, which could be 'any'.

I like this idea and am considering implementing it in my current setting. For example, the god of punishment might accept only LN and LE followers, while the LN death goddess would probably be fine with any non-chaotic followers.

Shadow Lodge

Looks like I mis-remembered the wording on the Butchering Axe - thanks!

I was curious about how the entertainingly min-maxed giant axe build compared to the more conservative Two Hand Fighter//Metamorph that avr suggested, so I crunched some numbers.

Going to assume for simplicity everyone buys the belt of strength and a breastplate. DPR vs AC 17, not counting critical hits - again, for simplicity. I'm also going to reference the benchmarks here. In brief, a “blue” rating is optimal, green is a good level for a primary offense, and defenses should be in the orange-green range.

Two-Handed Fighter // Metamorph (Small Butchering Axe):

Stats: Str 18 (17+1-2+2) Dex 14 (10+4) Con 16 Int 10 Wis 12 Cha 8 (10-2)
Feats (5): EWP, Iron Will, Power Attack, Furious Focus, +1

Attack +10 = 4 (BAB) + 4 (Str) + 1 (MW) +1 (size)
--Mutagen +12
Damage d12+14 = d12 + 8 (x2Str) + 6 (PA)
--Mutagen d12+18
--Alter Self (Med) 3d6+16/20

DPR: 14.35 (low) 24.4 (high)

AC: 19 (+6 armor, +2 dex, +1 size)
--Mutagen 21
--Alter Self 18/20
HP 52 (max each level, without FCB)
Saves: Fort +7 Ref +6 Will +4

Special: Two discoveries

This is a pretty good build. Unbuffed attack bonus (+10) and DPR (14.35) are both green, and buffed DPR (24.4) is blue. AC is not great, but with the mutagen it hits the green level (21); HP is also pretty good (52), and at least one of the two discoveries can go towards defenses, so the durability should be fine. Saves are also OK; Will (+4) hits the orange mark, while the others (+7 and +6) approach green ratings. The last feat could go to Dodge, but I'd probably use it for Extra Discovery or something with a bit of utility, like Intimidating Prowess.

Titan Fighter // Titan Mauler (Large Butchering Axe):

Stats: Str 19 (18+1-2+2) Dex 14 (10+4) Con 14 Int 10 Wis 12 Cha 9 (11-2)
Feats (4): EWP, Weapon Focus, Power Attack, Furious Focus

Attack +4 = 4 (BAB) + 4 (Str) + 1 (MW) +1 (size) -8 (oversize) +1 (Big Game) +1 (Weapon Focus)
--Rage +8 (+2 Str +2 Reckless Abandon)
Damage 4d6+12 = + 6 (Str) + 6 (PA)
--Rage 4d6+15

DPR: 10.4 (low) 17.4 (high)

AC: 19 (+6 armor, +2 dex, +1 size)
--Rage 15 (-2 rage, -2 reckless abandon)
HP 56 (max each level, without FCB) +8 temp rage
Saves: Fort +6 (rage +8) Ref +3 Will +2 (+4 rage)

Special: one additional rage power

Despite the impressive 4d6 weapon die and putting a lot of resources into attack bonuses, DPR for this build actually drops pretty significantly, losing about 4 points unbuffed and 7 buffed. Predictably, defenses are also lower, with the raging AC of 15 falling below even the orange rating – higher HP will help, but I don't think 4 HP and 8 temporary HP is going to outweigh a 6-point gap in AC and the loss of two defensive discoveries (and we also have to worry about sudden barbarian death syndrome). Finally, the saves are worse. The Will save is OK when raging (+4), but terrible if surprised (+2). The Ref save (+3) is just bad.

Maybe an intermediate build could do better?

Titan Fighter // Metamorph (Medium Butchering Axe):

Stats: Str 19 (18+1-2+2) Dex 14 (10+4) Con 14 Int 10 Wis 12 Cha 8 (10-2)
Feats (4): EWP, Iron Will, Power Attack, Furious Focus

Attack +7 = 4 (BAB) + 4 (Str) + 1 (MW) +1 (size) -3 (oversize)
--Mutagen +9
Damage 3d6+12 = 3d6 + 6 (Str) + 6 (PA)
--Mutagen 3d6+15
--Alter Self (Med) 4d6+13/16

DPR: 12.4 (low) 19.5 (high)

AC: 19 (+6 armor, +2 dex, +1 size)
--Mutagen 21
--Alter Self 18/20
HP 48 (max each level, without FCB)
Saves: Fort +6 Ref +6 Will +4

Special: Two discoveries

Again, DPR (12.4-19.5) is lower than the Two-Handed Fighter. Defenses are similar, though HP and Fort save are a little lower due to the Str/Con tradeoff. And we're missing that last feat.

Titan Mauler // Metamorph (Medium Butchering Axe):

Stats: Str 19 (18+1-2+2) Dex 14 (10+4) Con 14 Int 10 Wis 12 Cha 8 (10-2)
Feats (2): EWP, Power Attack

Attack +4 = 4 (BAB) + 4 (Str) + 1 (MW) +1 (size) +1 (Big Game) -5 (oversize) -2 (PA)
--Buffed +10 (+2 mutagen +2 rage +2 reckless abandon)
Damage 3d6+12 = 3d6 + 6 (Str) + 6 (PA)
--Buffed 4d6+19 = 4d6 + 13 (Str) +6 (PA)

DPR: 9 (low) 20 (mutagen + rage) 23.1 (high)
No PA: 8.25 (low) 21.6 (high)

AC: 20 (+6 armor, +2 dex, +1 size +1 Big Game)
--Buffed 17 (+2 nutagen, -1 alter self, -2 rage, -2 reckless abandon)
HP 56 (max each level, without FCB) +8 temp rage
Saves: Fort +6 (+8 rage) Ref +6 Will +2 (+4 rage)

Special: Two discoveries, one other rage power

The most buff-dependent build, this fails to hit even orange DPR unbuffed (DPR 9) – though its fully buffed DPR (23.1) is solidly blue and only barely behind the THF//Metamorph. AC drops (17-20), though not as badly as the THF//Mauler, and the Ref save stays high; HP improves (56+8 temp) and we still have defensive discoveries. Fort and Ref saves are good (+6-8) and Will is OK when raging (+4). Overall this is definitely still a weaker build than the THF//Metamorph – though since it's not a huge difference the “fun factor” of carrying an orc-size butchering axe does make it tempting.

Two-Hand Fighter // Titan Mauler (Medium Butchering Axe):

Stats: Str 19 (18+1-2+2) Dex 14 (10+4) Con 14 Int 10 Wis 12 Cha 8 (10-2)
Feats (5): EWP, Iron Will, Power Attack, Furious Focus, +1

Attack +6 = 4 (BAB) + 4 (Str) + 1 (MW) +1 (size) +1 (Big Game) -5 (oversize)
--Rage +10 (+2 rage +2 reckless abandon)
Damage 3d6+14 = 3d6 + 8 (x2 Str) + 6 (PA)
--Rage 3d6+18 = 3d6 + 12 (Str) +6 (PA)

DPR: 12.25 (low) 19.95 (high)

AC: 20 (+6 armor, +2 dex, +1 size +1 Big Game)
--Rage 16 (-2 rage, -2 reckless abandon)
HP 56 (max each level, without FCB) +8 temp rage
Saves: Fort +6 (+8 rage) Ref +3 Will +2 (+4 rage)

Special: one other rage power

DPR (12.25-19.95) still can't beat the THF//Metamorph, and again we're looking at a hit to AC and saves.

So it looks like, at least for a level 4 goblin, the penalties imposed by wielding oversized weapons outweigh the extra damage from weapon dice and the opportunity cost of abilities like Mutagen or Overhand Chop. The Titan Mauler//Metamorph comes close, thanks to being able to obtain a Str up to 29 with rage, mutagen, and shapechanging - and it might be worth making a less optimal pregen for the entertainment value. I will see how it stacks up to the other pregens and make a decision.

Shadow Lodge

I don't think there's a rules answer.

I'd let you try, but you'd need to make some kind of check - probably Sleight of Hand - to place the item in such a way that the shifting of the elemental material as the familiar moves doesn't reveal the item. Might also apply some penalty to the familiar since having a large foreign object inside you has to be distracting at best. Shaken or sickened sounds about right.

1 to 50 of 5,333 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002-2017 Paizo Inc.® | Privacy Policy | Contact Us
Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours, Monday through Friday, 10:00 AM to 5:00 PM Pacific time.

Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, Starfinder, the Starfinder logo, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc. The Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Legends, Pathfinder Online, Starfinder Adventure Path, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.