roguerouge's page

Reading the entire article on Hell Knights, I too was utterly unconvinced that they were LN order. I tend to look at the LN alignment listing as marketing in game: it's what they believe, it helps attract recruits, but it's not really true.

This is a really weird decision on Paizo's part. When you play an Andoren, don't you want to be able to know at least the names of the Founding Fathers of your country? One would think that would go into the Companion book.

"Ode to a Lump of Green Putty I Found in My Arm Pit One Mid-Summer Morning"

I like the classics. If you'd like more than the title, and I can't imagine why you would, try: http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=32140

I used to believe you should play whatever your heart desires. Then I got a look at what happens when you have 3 rogue/rangers, a warlock, a warmage, and a fighter. We couldn't stealth, because half the party would fail the checks. When we scouted, the scout either died (Age of Worms) or we got back information. Unfortunately, not a single one of us had access to a utility or buff spell, so having that information didn't change anything. We had no front line, characters died a lot and the DM had to make frantic adjustments to keep us alive and, failing that, funnel us cash to raise people.

Just work together on party design. It makes the game more fun and the DM's job easier. DnD is so customizable for player character design, there's really no point in being a purist about character concept.

This was a CR12 encounter for a party of 5.6 average level. Your DM does not understand encounter building rules. Alternatively, your party attacked a superior force with no preparation and no scouting and failed to retreat. I'd say you were both at fault.

Benign Transposition: two allies trade positions, sort of a 1st level teleportation spell

There's a second level spell that allows you to trade any two people, allowing a save.

Both lead to some pretty awesome tactical choices.

Dear lord, no. No. It doesn't.

Ah. I've set my campaign back in the timeline of Golarion a bit. It's just at the period where Andoran is breaking away from Cheliax. Which Andorans played a big role in that?

Who were they? I know that one revolutionary fighting to be free of Cheliax is listed in the book on the nation, but are there others? What's canon here?

Charm monster (1 day/level). Repeat.

More seriously, there are actually rules for this in one of the 3.5 supplements, Exalted Deeds. IIRC, conversion requires lots of time and some opposed rolls. I'd make it a skill challenge, myself, using Concentration, Intimidate, Diplomacy, Sense Motive, Will saves, Knowledge: religion...

Of course, you have to capture him first to do that.

General house rules always used:

RULE OF COOL: If a character proposes something cinematic, in character and cool, I'll bend the rules to allow him to make a roll to accomplish it, usually with a heavy cost for failure. Example: having slain the leader of the goblin horde, the monk spends his entire round staring intimidatingly at the assembled horde, hoping to break their morale. He gets an intimidate check to succeed. If he fails, the horde all try to kill him. (So, this bends the possibilities offered by the Intimidate skill.) Another time, a player jumped on a ballista bolt and shot at the pirate ship. Plenty of penalties were added, but the shooter cast true strike.

LOREBOOKS: I offer bards the choice of being hedge bards (classic version) or having gone to school, which means they use a lore book. If they have a lore book, I scrap the spells known system for them and they use the spell system of wizards (memorize specific spells daily, write spells down to acquire them, gain two new spells per level gained).

FIRING INTO COMBAT: I don't like how finicky the firing into combat rules are. If you fire into combat and roll a 1-5 on your attack roll, you hit your friend.

SPELLBOOKS ARE BOUND COMPILATIONS OF SCROLLS: I just don't buy the fluff on the differences between scrolls and spell books. I mean, I get it, but I think it's stupid.

CHARISMA IS LUCK: It's personal magnetism, social skills AND luck, I mean. Any time I can't decide who a monster would fight or what watch gets the wandering monster... have the table make a charisma check and the lowest roll gets the bad thing.

I agree that sustained actions should lead to alignment changes in all but the most plot-sensitive engagements. That said, you changed the wrong axis of the alignment. You should move him a step towards law.

Only do this with the explicit consent of both the male and female gamers at your table. Also, think about whether YOU want to consistently role play someone sexist, as you may not be comfortable with it. When you spend hours prepping a society, it can start to infect your daily life. "Be careful what you pretend to be because you are what you pretend to be." (Kurt Vonnegut)

Thanks for the advice, people! I'm going to go with an Indiana Jones theme, complete with globe-trotting, artifacts that belong in a museum and a final showdown in the Starstone itself.

Maybe in a few years or so we'll get around to doing a big mass combat book... but that won't happen in 2010 or 2011. Probably not even 2012.

ARRRRGGGGGGHHHHH!

Consider that a vote for green-lighting that project.

If the party monk has a deathly peanut allergy, will Detect Poison let him detect the peanut the emperor has stealthily hidden in his chow mein?

It depends on whether I'm using absolute alignments or subjective alignments. If humanoids are objectively evil based on their acts and intentions in a campaign, then the peanuts are not poison. If one is evil based on the subjective perception of the perceiver, then the peanuts are a kind of poison.

I applaud you: peanuts are an excellent alignment analogy.

How would you explain to players the upkeep their PC costs as a fine-sized army? A 13th level PC is a CR5 Army, with a consumption score of 2, making it the equivalent of 1000 GP/week. The system looks doable, but I'm just curious how you'd explain this feature to a player.

I vote for it to be like Mules.

This is why I plan on running this as a Discovery of the New Continent scenario. Because if you don't protect the farmers, you starve.

2. Don't cast your spells in front of the people you're trying to fool. Or at the very least try to make sure that the person you cast isn't as clever or as grounded asyou are. The last person a stage magician would try to fool is another stage magician.

A classic gambit is nerfed by the way some people are interpreting the spellcraft skill. Consider a 10th level sorcerer with the Still Spell, Silent Spell, and Eschew Materials feats who knows both Monster Summoning III and Major Image.

Round 1: Stilled/Silent/Eschewed Monster summoning III
Round 2: Stilled/Silent/Eschewed Major Image of the same type of creatures just summoned

And that's not even being all that clever. But it is a way to use #4 on your list.

We agree: how long it takes to cast a silent/stilled/eschewed spell is irrelevant to this debate, as is the spell level of the spells cast as is whether Heighten Spell or any other metamagic feat has been used. But...

Likewise the DC to identify a dimension door is no harder that identifying a greater invisibility spell, despite the former being essentially a stilled spell (it has no S component) and both not needing any material components. Furthermore an immediate/swift action spell is just as easy to identify as a full round casting spell as a multi-minute casting spell.

Greater invisibility has a somatic component, while dimension door does not. The two spells presumably have different verbal components as well. Knowing that is what goes into the spellcraft skill ranks. If you roll well on your Spellcraft skill check, you remember the different characteristics of each spell.

More importantly, both spells have observable qualities: VS for greater invisibility, V for dimension door. A silent, stilled, eschewed materials Greater Invisibility, however, is identical to a stilled Dimension Door. There is no basis for you to determine whether the caster is still here or not, absent a spell like See Invisibility or later physical evidence, such as someone invisible leaving footprints in the dusty room.

Bottom line it's simple: Spellcraft is not perma-detect magic. You do not see spell auras and if a spell doesn't have verbal, somatic or material components, there's nothing for you to base your spellcraft judgment off of.

And if you can't see spell auras but can still use spellcraft against silent/stilled/eschewed spells, please explain how someone would identify the difference between silent/stilled/eschewed Greater Invisibility and silent/stilled/eschewed Invisibility by RAW of Pathfinder.

Will needs to cast ghost sound to confuse Greg. Fortunately, he happens to have memorized it Silent/Still this morning. Now he makes a bluff check to fool Greg. Will has a bluff of 4, but gets the usual +15 for his bluff for having a silent/still/eschewed spell. Greg has a perception of 10 (he's a city guard after all). Will rolls a 16, maybe it is his lucky day, so he has a 35. Greg rolls a 20 (it is his lucky day), but even a 30 isn't enough to overcome the 35 Will has. So, Greg hears the ghost sound behind him. If he had spellcraft, he could even make a roll to identify it as a spell, and the type, but he would not believe Will had cast it since he failed his perception check. Greg now makes a will save (no pun intended), if he succeeds, he doesn't turn to look for the sound. If he fails, he turns to look for the sound, negating his held action and Will can run again.

So far as I can determine, this is a house rule. There's nothing in the feat or Bluff skill descriptions requiring Will to make a bluff check to use his feats. And he would have to use Knowledge Arcana to identify the ghost sound, as spellcraft only allows you to ID a spell AS it is being cast. Identifying an ongoing spell effect after it's been cast is Knowledge: Arcana. (Why they didn't combine these two skills, I'll never know.)

Carpy DM wrote:

What's the alternative? Why would Spellcraft be unable to recognize an illusion casting only?

Even this isn't an alternative.

Wizard sees an enemy cast a spell with VSM components, rolls a 40 spellcraft.

This is irrelevant for this thread: the spells being discussed have no VSM components.

Identifying the casting is interaction in my book.

Since spellcraft to identify a spell being cast is a free action, at a gaming table ruling in that manner means that illusion spells will often grant a saving throw where they ought not to get one. Skills do not give you another chance to save where previously you didn't get one unless it is so described in the spell itself or the magic chapter in general.

The first shot at a save is the skill check, which is a free action. The second shot at a save is a later interaction with the illusion. Without your ruling, the only chance to save is when you spend an action to interact with the illusion.

If the casting wizard can be seen, and if the caster makes a spellcraft check, then they get their standard save, under interaction, right off the bat.

If the spell is stilled, you can't 'clearly see it' being cast.

IMC, yes if you silent/still cast a spell, it can't be identified

So we agree: there's nothing to see in this particular case. Therefor, you get no spellcraft check.

If you cast an Illusion where someone can see you cast it and identify the spell they get a save. ...

Basically, given the context of this thread, I had assumed that you were a part of the crew arguing that if you can see the caster, you can use spellcraft to identify the spell. I drew that inference based on the assumption that you were skipping the part of the still/silent/eschew as there's no point in talking about whether you can ID spells with VSM components in this context. If I was mistaken in that, I apologize.

As for psionics, the same rules apply and "Almost every power has a display" according to the SRD. I'll want to see a citation on Spell-like abilities and readied actions, before I accept that as RAW. I don't see it explicitly under the SRD for either ready an action or SLA.

I hope that clarifies my point.

And Illusion is not 'Mechanically Inferior' it's situationally limited. Just like using Necromancy against Undead, or Evocation against SR, or Charms in combat. Can it work? Yes. Is it hampered? Yes.

Those examples are all written into the spell descriptions themselves, not inferred based on a single line of a skill.

I'm a big believer that one of the biggest components, if not the biggest, must revolve around the PC's Alignment and potential Divine Portfolio.

Got any published encounters that would work for testing those aspects?

What's the alternative? Why would Spellcraft be unable to recognize an illusion casting only?

If a Silent, Stilled, Eschewed Materials Spell is cast, you are not able to recognize it sufficiently to label it using spellcraft. Doesn't matter what the spell is, nor what school it was. You cannot tell whether it is a Conjuration school (monster summoning I) or an illusion spell masquerading as a conjuration spell. You can't tell if it was a Fireball or a Shadow Evocation. It could be a Wall of Fire, or it could be an evoker's special ability. You can see that it's wall-shaped and firey, though.

[

Pathfinder RPG, pg 211 wrote:

"Creatures encountering an illusion usually do not receive saving throws to recognize it as illusory until they study it carefully or interact with it in some fashion."

Identifying the casting is interaction in my book. It's not 'proof' since he still could blow the spellcheck roll, and it shouldn't generate a +4 bonus, since it has yet to be successfully disbelieved.

So, in short, not only does a skill check give you a defacto extra save, it also automatically grants you a save against illusions? That's another example of my point about a huge nerf to illusionists.

And, for the record, I don't buy the analysis of the RAW that they can identify the casting of a spell despite having no indications of the spell being cast. You're turning spellcraft into an always-on detect magic by having them be able to detect magical auras with a skill check. Detect magic allows you to detect magical auras, not spellcraft. Spellcraft allows you to deduce the spell based on the visual cues of the casting. If three feats remove all the visual cues of the casting, you do not get to make a Spellcraft check.

My thinking was:

1. Divinities, in game terms, have a wide array of awesome stats. Basic tests of awesomeness should be a part of it.
2. A Test of the Starstone could include a variety of tests to determine not only THAT you are a divinity, but also WHAT KIND of god you will be, what portfolios you will have. How you conquer tests of abilities helps indicate your character. A goddess of luck, for example, might kick a pebble at a boulder, setting off a chain reaction that leads to the boulder being moved without much effort on her part, while a god of brawn might pick up the boulder and move it, etc..

c873788 wrote:

Are goblin babies and goblin children evil? If they aren't evil when they're born, when do they become evil?

So, should I make all/some/or none of the goblin children evil? And how would you GM this encounter?

Simple answer, and this is strictly from a psychological, motivational point of view, all children are evil. They don't have any moral compass and exist only to sate their needs and wants. Eventually, they will even lie, cheat, and steal to accomplish their very selfish and simplistic goals.

The real question shouldnt be when goblin babies become evil but when the proper influence could make goblin children good.

6 Shockingly Evil Things Babies Are Capable Of

You know what he's cast but currently don't see through it.

This issue has nothing to do with still and silent metamagic feats, but simply with spellcrafting casting.

So, in short, you'd tell your player that due to your ruling he's invested in a school of magic you've made mechanically inferior to other schools of magic. Identifying an evocation spell doesn't change its mechanics: you still take damage from the wall of fire spell and it still does battlefield control. Identifying an illusion, however, changes the mechanics of it profoundly.

I don't find that to be a fair ruling at a table, nor do I find the idea that suddenly this one skill gives a defacto second save for illusions to be a compelling interpretation of RAW, and I think the 3e precedent is relevant to understanding RAI.

I agree with the OP. This requires an editor's ruling.

The higher level you go, the more value iterative attacks have and the more crucial the primary weapon is. Forcing someone to lose attacks for a round can be crucial, as can having them fight with their dagger while you fight with their +5 Sawblade.

In my own case, I've got a one PC campaign, so I don't have to worry about it, but yes, a combo-godling for a party would fit.

I was thinking of Test of Strength from Kingmaker 4, scaled to level, as being one encounter type that I'd use. Anyone got any others from other Dungeon, AP or module sources?

The rant is strong in this one: It's a comedy!

Edit: and so popular someone beat me to it!

Consider the PCs to be +1 CR with straight conversions.

I'd have them be born annoying and jittery and conniving, but not evil. EXCEPT, I'd have one be born a Bad Seed.

I'd draw from the Superstar competition of two years ago. There were GREAT villains with complete stat blocks there, including one GULGA CENCH. They'll never suspect an otyugh.

Drawing exclusively from previously published adventures in modules or magazines, what encounters would you import to a Test of the Starstone?

Carpy DM wrote:

If they have Spellcraft, according to RAW, they can. They can't necessarily tell who cast it, but they can see the spell itself and recognize it as a spell effect.

Spellcraft states, "you must be able to clearly see the spell as it is being cast", not "you must be able to clearly see the spell caster as the spell is being cast".

This raises the question, can a spell which has nothing to see (is stilled), nothing to hear (is silent), and no spell components (eschewed) be seen.

Not in my campaigns, no. If a character invests three feats into making a school viable, I'm not going to nerf it. Otherwise, why'd he take those feats? And if spellcraft gives you a chance to recognize an illusion, it's like getting a second save against the illusion. You tell me what happens when you fail the save but make the skill check against Major image.

My advice to DMs: Just roll with it, dude.

Two words: Disguise Self.

I'd not get my hopes up. They don't tend to have NPCs with more than 2 classes and a prestige class and most just have one class. Why? The stat blocks get insanely complicated and lengthy.

Hell, Erastil might just tell him "you cocked up, now go back and fix what you broke." He's the kind of god who'd lay it out pretty simply.

This. This is what you should do.

What's Warpath? Link?

A Dwarf, an Elf, and a Human walk into a tavern. The Dwarf orders a drink and starts chatting up the locals. The Elf hits on the waitress and works his way over to the entertainment to relax. The Human searches for a bulletin board, and failing that grills the bartender for rumors of dangerous creatures with bounties on their heads.

Well, sure, if your idea of role-playing is restricted to the stereotyping of imaginary races, the only way to role play is by playing a nonhuman character. Of course, your premise that there's no variety in humans is false in the real world and false in Golarion, with its 50+ countries.

Why not make your stance more absurd and argue that the finest role playing of all can be found only in those who play blink dogs or Otyughs like GULGA CENCH?

Make a snooty post, expect a snotty reply.

Okay, I'm being a little dramatic. It's not really "eternal life". However, given the new rules that let PCs recharge staves, it looks like the cost is out of balance.

In my limited experience with these as a player, it's not been a problem. If you're in an adventure with a time limit, as most are, then you've got a real problem recharging those staves fast enough. The two negative levels start to hurt as well. 2,000 GP cost per party death still hurts and still adds up... and that's IF you happen to have it in diamond dust specifically. And wandering around with 2 negative levels starts to become a death sentence.

If you want death to hurt a little more, just make sure that players can't spontaneously transfer GP to diamond dust and that they can't use the diamond dust as currency. (They would be able to sell it, but there's not a huge market of buyers for it.)

The Arms and Equipment Guide has rules on dragons as mounts/property. Eggs start at 10,000g, minimum, and training is 5,000g, minimum. Unless they're trained from the moment they hatch, dragons are too smart and too willful to be trained as ordinary mounts regardless of your Handle Animal skill; you're into negotiations with another intelligent creature, and in general you're expected to provide your dragon with a horde of at least 1,000g/HD, minimum (even if they're trained from birth, depending on reading). And the DC to train the buggers is crazy-high, to boot; 25+HD, so you're talking an absolute minimum of... like... 28.

OOH! Good stats. Does the Paizo Dragons Revisited have similar stats for this?

Hm. Those figures seem about right. We have a range of 1,500 to 5,000 GP for wyrmlings here, with wild cards being for morality reducing # of buyers, rarity, expense of upbringing, escalating long-term risk and other factors.

Also, I'm not sure how rare white dragon wyrmlings are, as I remember from one source that parents simply leave wyrmlings after birth in the wild to fend for themselves. And it's canonical that Frost Giants use them as pets, rides and guard beasts.

OT: As for campaign-specific factors, it's a single PC game with a precedent of arresting those humanoids she can and reforming a few as well. The PC is 14th level, with the skills necessary to seek out interested buyers. And it's an out for the PC rather than having to laboriously raise/reform a dragon in the campaign's end game or slaughter a baby (dragon).

We're talking 900 GP each if it's by the wyrmlings' CR, and she's already gotten a huge amount of treasure from the parent. But, if it's by the parent, that would be another 5,800 gp, or 1,450 GP/wyrmling.

It's generally not done...mainly because mortal lifetimes are not long enough to raise dragons... raising one is a project on the order of centuries.

Elves and Dwarves have lives that span 2-3 centuries.

Answer as much as the PC's can get for it.

As the DM, it's my job to set the cap for how much they can get for that.

The morality stuff is important, but I've already got the difficult moral questions side of this equation worked out for my campaign. I just need the base value of the dragon.