Abadar

allenw's page

32 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS


xavier c wrote:
allenw wrote:
xavier c wrote:

The book of job was about having faith in god even when everything is going bad.In the book of job god hope that job would love him and have faith in him no matter what.It was more of a lesion to the faithful that no matter what Satan does to you love and have faith in god because he will look for you in the end.

After all in the end god restored every thing job had plus more

Well, not really. His children were still dead. Yes, he had many new children afterwards, but does that make up for the dead ones?

Also, it kinda sucks for the dead children themselves.

Why would it suck for the dead children?

If your talking about Christianity they would have eternal life in an eternal paradise or something.

As others have mentioned, neither Job, nor the faithful that his story was a lesson for, were Christian. I'm not qualified to speculate on the afterlife-beliefs of any of those involved; but Job's children all or mostly seem to have been adults, and not nearly as devout as their father, so I'm dubious that readers of the time would assume they were all happily in heaven. If that was the case, it seems odd that no-one mentions the possibility in the story.


xavier c wrote:

The book of job was about having faith in god even when everything is going bad.In the book of job god hope that job would love him and have faith in him no matter what.It was more of a lesion to the faithful that no matter what Satan does to you love and have faith in god because he will look for you in the end.

After all in the end god restored every thing job had plus more

Well, not really. His children were still dead. Yes, he had many new children afterwards, but does that make up for the dead ones?

Also, it kinda sucks for the dead children themselves.


The Weaponwand spell is Bard 1, Cleric 1, Inquisitor 1, Magus 1. Why not Sor/Wiz? Seems odd for them not to have a wand-related spell; and Sorcerers, at least, have enough weapon options to make the spell more useful. I'm personally considering a Sorcerer who's pretending to be a Monk, and this spell might come in handy.


Cavalier. The Pom-Poms are your Banner.


Two points that I haven't seen come up before in this thread, or even in the infamous 250+-page "Homosexuality in Golarian" mega-thread:

1: By definition, adventurers are *not* statistically typical of their societies. Seems to me that you're going to find a lot more special cases and misfits among their ranks than you would in the general population*.

2: Same comment, but replace "adventurers" with "people who play tabletop RPGs". Particularly for an RPG that was created partially as a reaction against an attempt to make "The World's Most Popular RPG"<tm> more "mainstream".

So, both from an in-world verisimilitude and a real-world cater-to-players POV, whatever the "normal" LBGT percentages are in Golarian and in the real world, it makes sense that the iconics might exceed them.

*For example, the incidence of non-humans in PC adventuring parties seems to be much higher than traditional fantasy-world demographics would suggest.


Blackish Dragonoid wrote:
If you could somewhat gain "good" karma or "evil" karma you where a Paladin...and could only save one of the following: an old person, confirmed to be very good and a neutral baby, who has the posibility of being very evil... saving who would give you the most good-karma by your good god standards?

The paladin tries to save both of them, though the price be his own life.


Sean K Reynolds wrote:
I'm sure allenw means "if Erastil believes marriage is for children, if he is impotent or sterile, then he doesn't see the point in marrying."

Precisely. We're talking about Erastil's motivations, after all.


Marriage is for having children. Maybe he's impotent now, or at least sterile. "Old Deadeye," indeed.


The "six friends" text you bold from "Holding the Charge" only applies if the spell being cast is one that can affect more than one receipient. "Water Breathing" is the classic example; the recent line of "Communal" spells also qualifies. You can't just heal six of your friends with one casting of Cure Light wounds (without some special ability, such as Legion's Blessing).

The "sacrifice another prepared spell three levels higher, as when spontaneously..." bit is awkwardly phrased, but it seems clear to me that "as when" is just referring to the "sacrifice another prepared spell" part, not the "three levels higher" part.


Sir Ophiuchus wrote:
My elderly paladin who can raise dead for free (Ultimate Mercy feat) is becoming more and more viable...

My young paladin (inspired by Bertie Wooster), who's the local ruler in our Kingmaker campaign, really wanted Ultimate Mercy. He'd put up with always having a negative level, just to be able to bring a deserving subject back to life *every single day*. That's gotta be worth some Loyalty, right? Plus, it's a great party trick; especially if the party is a wake. ;)

Unfortunately, the DM disallowed the feat. :(


pendothrax wrote:
I have not bothered with the sky metals, but I and others have decided that adamantium=iridium and mithril=titanium if that is of interest.

I always figured Mithril = Aluminum. And Drow let theirs oxidize. ;)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Black_Lantern wrote:
I suggest that you hide the body in your backyard. You could also use a strong base to break his body down to hide the evidence.

Amateur stuff. I suggest purchasing GURPS Mysteries (available in PDF), which has a useful section on body-disposal.

The fact that it was written by my wife is purely coincidental. ;)


Well, an Overrun combat maneuver would also let them run through an occupied space, but there would be Attacks of Opportunity involved unless they had Improved Overrun (which generic Worgs do not have).


Make the entire party able to benefit from the Paladin's Litany of Righteousness.


Mathwei ap Niall wrote:


Wands wrote:
Activation: Wands use the spell trigger activation method, so casting a spell from a wand is usually a standard action that doesn't provoke attacks of opportunity. (If the spell being cast has a longer casting time than 1 action, however, it takes that long to cast the spell from a wand.) To activate a wand, a character must hold it in hand (or whatever passes for a hand, for non-humanoid creatures) and point it in the general direction of the target or area. A wand may be used while grappling or while swallowed whole.

Casting the spell can only be done on yourself, wands allow you to pick a target. (unless I've missed an errata somewhere which I have before)

edit: @allenw, you are mostly right there, they put a specific rule in for potions so you couldn't do that. I do not see that same rule anywhere in the wand chapter.

Matthew,

They didn't need a special rule for wands, since wands work the same as a cast spell. If you try to cast a spell on an invalid target, it fails. Same with wands. "Point it in the general direction of the target or area" doesn't mean that you get to ignore restrictions on what "the target" can be in the first place, any more than it means that you could use a wand to cast a "target" spell on an "area" (or vice-versa).

edited to add: Similarly, "Point it in the general direction of the target or area" doesn't mean that a wand lets you cast Touch spells at range.


Mathwei ap Niall wrote:
It's a wand, it allows you to target something other then yourself with the spell effect in it.

\

Sorry, but you're incorrect. A wand lets you cast the spell, but it doesn't change the valid targets for the spell. If the spell's only valid Target is "You", then only the person (or familiar) using the wand can be the target of the spell, barring some special exception (like a familiar-owner casting on their familiar, but not the other way around).

Similarly, you can't make potions of spells with a range of Personal
(http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic-items#TOC-Magic-Item-Creation), even though Paizo has occasionally forgotten this rule in some of their examples.


Sethizar wrote:


Say you're a Sorcerer in the same campaign, with the same predilection for Fire magic. Now you're borked. You can still use more spells per day than ol'booky Mcbookworm Wizard, but they do didly squat and you're a passenger now instead of a damage dealer. Just pray you also have battlefield control spells that are useful.

Thus, having a feat or magic item that lets you cast a Fire (for example) spell as some other sort of energy is more important for Sorcerors than for Wizards. Unfortunately, Wizards get more bonus feats than Sorcerors do.

Another difference: Skills. They both start out with 2 ranks a level, but Wizards tend to have more skill ranks because they have more Intelligence. They also get all the Knowledge skills as class skills, and are good at them (from the Int). Sorcerors dont get so many skill ranks, and aren't so good at the Knowledge skills, but do get the often-useful Bluff, Intimidate, and Use Magic Device (which are Charisma-based) as class skills.


If they actually cast their spells, it takes no more in-game time to prepare new ones than it does to re-prepare the old ones. If they're only casting half their spells, they could save half an hour by not chaging the ones that didn't get cast; but that should usually be insignificant.

No, a Wizard/Sorceror doesn't get to cast his Wizard spells as Sorceror spells. Having them in your spell book =/= having them in your soul.
The other way around doesn't technically work either, although you could write a scroll of a Sorceror spell and then copy it into your Wizard spell book.


Quote:

Yes if you throw both the paladin and halfling under the bus the rest of the party can safely retreat.

Halfling has low-light vision and bonuses to hide, it's *dusk in a forest*, he has shot at getting away and/or hiding.

Paladin... not so much. Paladin's best shot is to do the Paladinly thing and sacrifice himself covering the others' escape. Probably he dies; good death for a Paladin, if it helps his friends get away. He's got a good CHA, though; if the DM is feeling kind, insane axe lady may have him captured for later recreational torture, giving his friends a chance to come up with a rescue plan.


Quote:
If you choose to withdraw to not eat the AoO you are only 40 ft away, which is within charging distance of the bandits. Those without charging lanes can double move and cut you off.

Assuming PCs choose to retreat while the bandits are using longbows:

To charge and attack, the bandits will have to drop their longbows and draw melee weapons. If they have at least +1 BAB (seems likely), they can probably do so while charging, but then they don't have longbows any more, making running away safer (assuming you survived the charge). And this all assumes that the bandits are within 60' of the PCs, *after* the PCs withdraw (or better yet, Run; no AoO's with bows, and after the PCs are in the darkening woods it should be quite difficult to shoot them).

Assuming PCs choose to retreat while engaged in melee:
Run. You'll eat an AoO from the bandit, but he'll have to take time to switch weapons on his round if he wants to then shoot you. And since you're running into a thick forest, *at dusk*, between cover and darkness he should have difficulty shooting you. And if he runs after you, I as DM would make it somewhat difficult and dangerous to Run through a thick forest at dusk if you don't have low-light vision (which, yes, sucks for the Human Paladin).

All that being said: Yes, 5 PCS vs. 8 higher-level, better-equipped NPCs is bad, and may be hard to get away from without some casualties, especially for inexperienced players. My group (also 5 PCs) was 2nd level before we got there. I think that was the designer's expectation, but since it's Kingmaker, there are fewer constraints than usual to keep things "level-appropriate." Seems like the DM actually made it harder than it was supposed to be, though.


It was apparently dusk, in a mostly-thickly-wooded area. 4 out of 5 PCs had low-light vision; the bandits did not. This *should* have made it harder for the bandits to shoot the PCs, and might have made it easier for the PCs (except the Human) to run away and hide.
Since the AP is designed for 4 PCs, I could see a DM deciding to *either* increase the encounter difficulties for 5 PCs, *or* reduce the PCs starting wealth (and hit points? I gather they didn't get full HO at first level?). Doing both seems excessive.


MattW wrote:

Uhhh Paladin must be LG and Bards cannot be Lawful, so this combination is illegal by game rules.

Pathfinder Bards can be lawful. And PF Barbarians can read! Kids these days, no respect for Tradition... ;)


Fortunately, Ghostbane Dirge (which among other things lets nonmagical weapons do 1/2 damage to incorporeals) is a 1st-level spell for Paladins.
Unfortunately, that still means you need to be at least 4th level to cast it (though a clerical buddy could do so at 3rd level).


Kydeem de'Morcaine wrote:


Yeah I had a build planning on murderous command, suggestions, etc... until I realized I wouldn't be able to do any of them very often.

I've got a Paladin who's looking into taking an Oracle level. Losing Litanies would hurt.


Selgard wrote:

The tongues/comp languages thing for example. You can easily circumvent it.

1) choose a language.
2) have everyone else also choose that same language.
3) profit.

That's occurred to me, even though that imposes a cost on others. Even more so if you're leading troops into battle.

However, only being able to speak (say) Celestial and Infernal in combat means that you're very rarely going to be able to use language-dependent spells and combat abilities (such as Command, almost all of the Litanies, probably Antagonize(Diplomacy), etc.).


Jiggy wrote:
An oracle's curse does not cause other game rules to stop functioning unless it says so.

But does it say so? Depends on what "cannot be removed or dispelled" means.


Comprehend Languages is only 1st level, though, and (unlike 3.x) no longer requires you to touch a creature to understand them. Of course, you still have to take it as a known spell (which means you didn't take some other spell), and you have to spend the round to cast it, and you still can't *speak* any non-Curse language, so it's not like the Curse isn't still a pain.


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.

"The oracle’s curse cannot be removed or dispelled without the aid of a deity."
Oracle curses are somewhat self-mitigating at higher levels. But can their effects be mitigated by magic (or non-Oracle class abilities) at lower levels?
Examples:

The "Lame" Oracle has their "base land speed" reduced. Can their land movement rate be increased by Boots of Striding and Springing? What about Haste? The "Fleet" feat? Barbarian or Monk levels? Oracle Revelations (Cinder Dance (Fire) now excludes Lame oracles, but Dance of the Blades (Metal) doesn't yet do so)?

The "Speaking in Tongues" Oracle can only speak and understand a specific language in combat. If they cast "Comprehend Languages" in combat, can they then understand other languages? What about Tongues (the cast spell, not the curse-mitigation they get at 10th level)?

RAW and RAI, I'm not sure. Flavor-wise, it seems to me that Boots of Striding and Springing (etc.) should work for a Lame Oracle, since you're just summing up reductions and additions to movement. Speaking in Tongues, though, overrides the languages you would normally know, so perhaps it overrides/supresses ones you know magically as well.

Thoughts?


3.5 Loyalist wrote:

A moment good people, the party I was dming for prevented the redemption of a young evil leader just last night. They didn't kill him either.

{description omitted}

I assume that your inspiration was Theon Greyjoy from A Game of Thrones (etc.)? In which case, that's why they didn't help him. Theon's a pathetic tool. ;)


Jiggy wrote:
allenw wrote:
However, since "double damage" often just means "roll the base dice twice" (as in Vital Strike),
When you say "often", do you really mean "just Vital Strike"? Because I'm not aware of any other mechanic in the game where it only refers to the dice, without saying so explicitly.

You may be correct. I've been reading a lot of threads about Vital Strike recently, and it may have colored my perceptions.


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.

I play a "two-handed smiter" (Paladin-8 with a Greatsword), so I'm often in the thick of combat, without much AC (Except when Smite Evil happens to apply).
I've often thought about taking Shield of Swings, but never did so because I've always assumed that "reduce the damage by 1/2" means "(total damage after all bonuses)/2", and I get a *lot* of bonuses. However, since "double damage" often just means "roll the base dice twice" (as in Vital Strike), might "1/2 damage" really mean "cut the base dice damage in half, then add the usual bonuses"?
Thanks.


This and many other questions are answered at the "Bestiary" link in Happler's post above. Short answer:

"Incorporeal creatures cannot fall or take falling damage."

Lochmonster wrote:

Thanks for the answers. Clears a lot up!

2) What happens if you pass through a floor and the ceiling you wind up on is 80 feet above the surface? Do you fall? Make a fly check? Would you just keep falling if the floor 80 feet below could be passed through?