Aberrant Templar's page

Constructs typically call for X gold worth of raw materials. In the case of precious metals the value is calculated per pound. So if all of the pounds of metal are there, all of tbe value is. Given sufficient scavenging effort/time, why would a party not be able to recover the full value?

Off the top of my head I can think of two reasons:

1.) The actual process of creating a construct is handwaved in the game. It's entirely possible that the raw materials that go into creating the construct, particularly a construct powered by magic, do not make it through the process in their original, unaltered, and equally valuable form.

For example, a Mithral golem's body requires 3,000 pounds of mithral and other precious metals worth a total of 50,000gp to manufacture. But that doesn't necessarily mean that the final product is just a 3,000 pound walking block of mithral and other precious metals. Presumably the crafter is taking those valuable materials and doing stuff to them to create the actual golem (soaking the metal in arcane unguents, carving magical glyphs into it, sacrificing some of it in rituals, etc.)

So by the time you destroy the mithral golem you may not be left with a 3,000lb pile of precious metal that still has the same value it did going into the final product.

2.) You'd probably need to account for the actual damage caused to the material in the process of destroying the construct. A Caryatid Column is a marble statue carved from a single 2,000 lb block of stone costing 2,000gp. But by the time you're done hacking, crushing, and zapping the resulting construct you're going to be left with < 2,000 lbs of stone that is now in really bad condition and probably not entirely salvageable.

The short of it is that treasure from encounters is as much a game mechanic as it is a simulation of actual value. A CR X encounter should be worth treasure in Y range, or that value should be added elsewhere.

There's no reason a DM couldn't incorporate salvaged material as part of the treasure drop. I know I've done it. Instead of finding 1,000gp in the hoard you take the time to cut 1.000gp worth of valuable stuff out of the corpse of the golem that was defending it.

But ultimately you have to divorce the material cost of making a construct from the treasure value of defeating it, or you need to find a way to account for the value elsewhere, or else you can easily give out way more treasure than a PC should have at their level.

Has one one thought about what spawn of Rovagug (other than the one mentioned in products) might look like? As sort of an intellectual exercise?

In my home game the entire orc species is collectively a Spawn of Rovagug.

...and with one published Pathfinder module (Doom comes to Dustpawn) even featuring an elven spaceship the players can visit and explore, explicitly meaning elves even had spaceships.

Well ... one single group of elves living in Lirgen, sponsored by the Saoc Brethren, built a magically-powered spaceship. The Lirgen's Glory was more "Lirgen spaceship crewed by elves" than "elven spaceship". It's not like there was a Sovyrian starfleet orbiting Castrovel.

As a side note, the Azlanti also had magical spaceship technology. One of their aetherships, King Xeros, appears in an early Pathfinder Society Scenario. That makes Azlant and Lirgen the only two nations on Golarion to have developed some form of space travel, both of which were powered by magic (bottles of air, bound demons, magical crystal) and both of which were developed in the final days of their respective civilizations.

Personally I rather like the Gap, because it gives an interesting twist to the Precursors and Lost Technology tropes that are so common in SciFi. I'm neutral on the Drift. It just sounds like a twist on hyperspace from Star Wars, which fits the Space Opera vibe. I guess you could accomplish a similar effect by having spaceships travel through astral space or whatever, but this is a little more technology-oriented.

I also don't really mind having the standard stock fantasy races take a back seat. It's not that I think there's anything specifically wrong with elves, dwarves, halflings, gnomes, etc. It's just that they end up being the standard races in pretty much every fantasy game ever. I kinda like it when designers freshen things up a bit. I appreciated Earthdawn, for example, because it gave me Obsidiman and T'skrang and the like. I really enjoyed Dark Sun. My favorite parts of Pathfinder are still Numeria, Alkenstar, the other planets in the solar system, and everything else running in a non-traditional fantasy direction (heck, in my home campaign I turned Nidel into a BDSM Film Noir land of private detectives pounding pavement for silver pieces, arcane femme fatale, and mafioso with spiked chains).

I guess at this point in my life I've grown a little blasé toward Tolkienesque pseudo-medieval stuff. I'm excited about Starfinder specifically because it seems like it will scratch a new itch.

Have any GM's made changes to "your" Golarion setting as a result of campaigns or just your own customization?

...How have you made Golarion "yours"?

1.) One of my short campaigns was set in Nidal, which I depict as being much more of a "film noir"-style place. All the same Hellraiser-inspired craziness is there, it's just more behind-the-scenes and subtle. People don't walk around in black leather studded with chains (they save that for private, special occasions). The windows in Nisroch sport "Opparan Blinds" (Oppara isn't exactly Venice, but it has canals and it's not like Venetian Blinds were actually from Venice). The alleys and side-streets of Nisroch are also lit up by "Nidalese Glass" signs, which are shaped tubes of (usually red) colored glass with a continual flame stuffed inside.

My previous write-up of Nidal from a different thread

2.) An Aldori dueling sword is a katana. Not in a "they're different weapons but I'm using the same stats" kind of way ... I mean they are literally the same weapon with a regional name. None of the people in remote, isolated Rostland had ever seen a katana before, so when Sirian First came back into town with a new name and a new sword everyone just referred to it as "Aldori's sword". The name stuck.

3.) Keeping with the above-mentioned theme, I use an in-house archetype of the samurai class to represent Aldori initiates. The archetype trades away heavier armor, order, banner, and mounted abilities for more focused dueling abilities and better defense in light or no armor.

4.) I also use an in-house archetype of the samurai class to represent Hellknight armigers. The archetype trades away the banner abilities, the mount, & the mounted archer ability for some armor training and expanded Order abilities themed to the different Hellknight orders.

5.) Although I look forward to the new Hellknight sourcebook, I'm not sure how much I'll end up using since I've already spilled some extensive ink on the Hellknights in my world.

6.) Orcs are a Spawn of Rovagug. Not individual orcs ... the entire orc race itself is, collectively, one of the Spawn of Rovagug. They "leaked out" of Rovagug's prison millennia before Earthfall but primarily stayed in the darklands and harassed the ancient dwarves until they were driven to the surface during the Quest For Sky.

thejeff wrote:

Del Rey put out a nice set of all the Howard Conan stories some years back.

The Coming of Conan the Cimmerian
The Conquering Sword of Conan
The Bloody Crown of Conan

Those look perfect - thanks!

Speaking as someone who owns all three of these books (and all the other non-Conan Del Rey collections), I second Marc's recommendation. I looked around for a while before buying and this set is arguably the best on the market.

One thing you have to be careful with when buying Robert Howard books is that a lot of the original Conan stories were re-written or questionably edited after their original publication. The Del Rey set collects the original texts, along with some of his personal notes and essays. So stories he didn't finish are published as-is ... abrupt ending and all. There are no extra paragraphs inserted, the occasional reference to his friend HP Lovecraft's Cthulhu mythos are intact, and they are presented in the order they were published without any attempt to cram them into some editor's preferred timeline.

If you like these, Del Rey also collected all the Kull, Bran Mac Morn, and Solomon Kane stories. So you can read the whole massive multi-generational story arc that is Kull->Conan->Bran Mac Morn.

Btw, the ISBN for the first book is 978-0345461513. If you punch it into the Amazon search bar it will give you the exact book we're talking about. That should make it easier for you to find them online or in the brick & mortar store of your choice.

They use spell slots, that's the difference.

without preparation = spontaneous casting

uses spell slots =/= spontaneous casting

Well, every spellcasting class uses spell slots. Sorcerers use spell slots to determine how many spells they can cast at each spell level.

The distinction is whether or not you "lock" specific spells into specific spell slots in advance.

Every other class is consistent in this area. Every other class that prepares their spells does so by choosing their spell selection in advance and locking specific spells into specific slots. Some of those classes (cleric, druid) can swap out some of those pre-selected individual spells under certain circumstances, but their ability to spontaneously change prepared spells is a special ability written up separately from their general spellcasting ability.

The Arcanist mixes everything up. It is the only class that prepares spells in advance but doesn't lock those spells into specific slots.

The larger problem is that the distinction between "spontaneous' and "prepared" spellcasters is more implied than defined by the rules, but up until the Advanced Class Guide was published it didn't really matter because every class fell pretty clearly into one category or the other. So when older prestige classes like Dragon Disciple talk about "spontaenous" spellcasters it makes assumptions about a difference that used to be there 100% of the time, but now is only there 90% of the time. This one class falls into both categories.

There have been multiple threads and FAQ requests, but I don't believe there has ever been a definitive answer given.

I dont think Golarion is postapocalyptic, unless we count Earth as postapocalyptic too. Both Golarion and Earth apocalypses are too old, the world has healed. Golarion was apocalyptic right after the Star Stone destroyed half the world, during Times of Darkness. Not now, 10000 years after that

The timeline is a little weird on Golarion (mostly to account for longer-lived races) but Golarion is definitely postapocalyptic.

Earth didn't have established, globe-spanning civilizations wiped out virtually overnight by a massive world-wide catastrophe, with all modern civilizations built upon their ashes. At least I don't think dinosaurs had cities.

Post-apologetically doesn't necessary mean that the apocalypse *just* happened. It can, and there are plenty of examples of it, but there are also plenty of examples of post-apocalyptic sci-fi that take place centuries after the apocalypse. For example, Hiero's Journey by Sterling Lanier (one of the major influences on D&D, and the origin of AD&D's psionic system). Also, A Canticle of Leibowitz.

If you're looking for examples where magic is just disguised high technology then you could pick up anything from the Dying Earth sub-genre (specifically the trope-namer, The Dying Earth, by Jack Vance).

Fun fact, the idea that magic is just misunderstood technology has been a part of D&D for a very long time. Just look at the material components from the original spells. The components for "fireball", for example, are the major components for gunpowder. The components for "alarm" was wire and a bell. The components for the "friends" spell, which made you more charismatic, was basically makeup applied to your face.

Here, the monster entry for drow. They even refer to them as "Dark Elves," describing appearances as:

Quote:

Drow are shorter and a bit more slender than their surface-dwelling kin, but they are otherwise physically similar. Drow have dark skin, ranging from black to a hazy purple hue. Most drow have white or silver hair and white or red eyes, but other colors are not unheard of.

Sounds like an ethnicity to me.

You're quoting the monster entry from the Bestiary. Which, as I mentioned earlier, is a setting-neutral book.

On Golarion, specific to that campaign setting, there is a lot more to the distinction between drow and non-drow elves than just their physical appearance.

Is Ethnicity really so inappropriate here?

When talking about drow as opposed to other elves, I think "infection" or "cancerous tumor" is more appropriate.

You could call aquatic, desert, Mortant Spire, and Snowcaster elves ethnicity, but adding drow to the list wouldn't really work. If a Snowcaster elf and a desert elf were to team up and become *really* evil then they could both transform into drow.

At least in the campaign setting. Outside the campaign setting, using just general non-campaign-specific rules, then you could easily play it a different way.

This is a mistake you keep making. Just because an option is available does not mean it matches Golarion lore. If those are options found from a Campaign Sourcebook, Adventure Path or even a Player's Companion, then you have weight behind you in your claim.

But you are conflating "available option" with "Golarion Lore".

To take this a step further, material posted in the Core Rulebooks published under the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game line are designed to be setting neutral. The Pathfinder Campaign Setting line is Golarion-specific.

Which is why, for example, if you read the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Core Rulebook's entry on paladins it says that a paladin doesn't have to follow a specific god even though, on Golarion, paladins *do* need to worship a god. The specific campaign setting overrides the general setting-neutral material.

In Golarion, drow were the result of elves being tainted by Rovagug ... and apparently "drowism" is also some form of magical disease that has infected the elves since their return from Sovyria since it's possible for regular elves to spontaneously transform into drow if they are evil enough. So on Golarion, drow are quite literally inherently evil elves both by nature and design.

But none of what I just wrote is in the bestiary entry for drow because the Bestiary is a setting-neutral book.

So non-evil drow is an available option rules-wise, but it doesn't work with the lore of the Golarion campaign setting.

Obviously, elves would know the difference, but asking Orcs or Dwarves to distinguish between "evil" elves and "normal" elves seems iffy. Especially given their long standing grudges towards the elves as a whole.

There really isn't a long-standing grudge between elves and dwarves in Pathfinder. That's one of those artifacts from Tolkien that doesn't really have a parallel on Golarion. Dwarves and Elves in this campaign setting don't really have a super lengthy history together since Dwarves didn't come to the surface until after the Elves had left and the elves didn't return until about 2000 years ago. They also don't really compete for anything (resources, territory, etc) and don't have any history of conflict.

As for orcs, they'd probably just kill the elf on sight regardless of what color it was.

The Knights of Ozem were created by Jason Bulmahn. He felt that the name of the order of knights who stood against the Whispering Tyrant needed a suitably awesome name, as would befit an order that fought against the region's most powerful lich. And so that's where he got the name "Ozem." It sounds like "awesome." Whatever became of the word Ozem after that was thus not part of a complex master plan in other words.

I don't really know much more about the Knights of Ozem, really—they're pretty focused on Lastwall, and as such their role...

Huh. So was the reference to "Sacred Ozem" in Wrath of the Righteous simply a fluke that made it through and won't be expanded on? Or is this all just stuff I should be asking Jason?

I was just prepping the Wrath of the Righteous for my next campaign, and I came across a paragraph in the description of the Chalice of Ozem that I didn't really notice before:

"This chalice is perhaps the last surviving artifact from Sacred Ozem, now forever lost in a tragic battle that ultimately led to the foundation of the Knights of Ozem. Made of shimmering mithral and studded with dozens of rubies, the Chalice of Ozem was carried from the ruins and handed down through generations until it was finally given to Iomedae, who used it in her fight against Erum-Hel during the Battle of Three Sorrows."

So ... apparently the Knights of Ozem are named after the place where they were founded (which, I'm sure, was a really ... awesome ... place to live). I've skimmed through other sources but I haven't found any other information about "Sacred Ozem". All the other descriptions of the Knights of Ozem more or less begin with their role in the Shining Crusade.

My questions are:

1. Are there other published mentions of Ozem (pre-knightly order) that I'm missing, or is the mention of it in Wrath of the Righteous the first time it was teased?

2. Was Ozem a city? Or was it a country/kingdom?

3. Did the ruination of Ozem happen pre-Earthfall or post-Earthfall?

4. Are there plans to reveal more about the history of Ozem and its better-known knightly order in the reasonably near future, or is this something we'll have to wait on?

Jubal Breakbottle wrote:

I've a potential player who wants to play a Hellknight Armiger. The Player's Guide says that its the GM's discretion about which order is playable, or something to that effect. Skimming the first book, I guess that Rack is not playable and Torrent is playable. How about the other orders?

thanks

This AP works best if you play a Hellknight of the Torrent. It won't really work at all if you play a Hellknight of the Rack. If you want to assume that Hell's Vengeance is taking place in the background (which this AP does), then Hellkngiht of the Godclaw won't really be appropriate either.

In fact, now that I think of it... it'd be weird and awkward to play ANY non-Torrent Hellknight in this adventure. They're forces for law, and this AP is about breaking the law of the land.

Don't forget there are two minor, lesser known Hellknight orders that could possibly work (particularly since so little has been written about them to contradict anything).

One is the Order of the Scar, which is the smallest order and primarily hunts assassins. The former Lord Mayor, Jilia Bainulus, was vanished under fairly suspicious circumstances and was replaced by Barzillai Thrune. You could play a grim swashbuckler or slayer armiger of the Order of the Scar who is investigating the potential death of the previous Lord Mayor and the potentially unlawful assumption of power by the current Lord Mayor. This would also give you some interesting parallels to the original foundation of the Hellknights (Daidian Ruel and the other original Hellknights spent quite a bit of time technically working on the "wrong side of the law" early on).

Another is the Order of the Pike, which is my usual go-to for good Hellknight PCs. They're described simply as monster hunters. With Kintargo undergoing political upheaval and the regular authorities otherwise occupied, there's a good chance that urban monsters will take advantage of the chaos and prey on the local population. An Order of the Pike Hellknight may not care so much about the rebellion itself, but will be focused on protecting the population now that the government itself can't.

I'd take a code if you're still sending them.

...I get a strong impression that contrary to the pathfinderwiki.com article on Diabolism (which is mostly sourced from documents published by Paizo in 2008/2009, and which conflicts somewhat with its own sidebar, which lists "Promoting Hell" as the main goal of Diabolism)...

If you don't trust the description of Diabolism in Inner Sea World Guide (which was published in 2011), you can go by the description in the more recent Faiths & Philosophies (2013):

"Although diabolists point to Asmodeus and the archdevils as role models worthy of respect and emulation, many are unwilling to worship such wicked creatures directly, for obvious reasons. Indeed, due to it's status as a philosophy rather than a religion, diabolism is widely studied by scholars in many societies that would never permit outright devil worship." (pg. 27)

Diabolism can lead to devil worship (which is no doubt a feature, not a bug) but it isn't worship itself. It's a social philosophy. It just happens to be a social philosophy that, when put into action, furthers the overall long-term goals of Asmodeus and hell. Which is the sort of slow subtle seduction that fits really well with how Asmodeus likes to run things.

Like any social philosophy I'm sure there are variants and disagreements, but overall diabolists would be pretty similar in their beliefs even if they emphasize different aspects. After all, Hell is pretty consistent.

...what you describe sounds more like Hellknight ideology ... The two philosophies have a lot of overlap but apparently do not always see eye-to-eye..."

There is definitely overlap between Hellknight ideology and Diabolism, but I'd draw a definite line between them. Hellknights seem to have come first (or at least become popular first) since they predate Aroden's death by several years but diabolism didn't really become widespread until after House Thrune won the civil war. I say all this with the concession that diabolism in Cheliax has most definitely influenced some of the more prominent Hellknight orders there, and that it is entirely probable that many Hellknights are also diabolists (or become diabolists eventually).

The Hellknights were founded by a guy whose wife and son were killed by a demonic cult. Hell wasn't the goal so much as a yardstick by which he measured how bada** he and his fellow knights needed to be in order to fight any enemy that came along. They quite literally went through a training regiment from hell in order to become hollwood spartans in full-plate armor.

They basically turned into a franchise, since subsequent hellknight orders were simply orders of knights who agreed to train to the same level and hold to the same unyielding principles. They didn't even call themselves hellknights at first, that was a nickname non-hellknights called them that they eventually embraced for themselves. It was the in-game equivalent of calling a US Marine a "devil dog".

Over time (and after a 30 year civil war) several orders of hellknights gradually morphed into the more obviously hell-aligned organization that we all know and love. Which, again, fits with the "slow seduction of hell" trope.

But yes, there is a lot of room for conflict between the diabolists in the government and the hellknight orders.

One of Golarion's superpowers, Cheliax, is founded on the ideals of diabolism - a Lawful Evil practice of power. How would this look in practice? What would a typical village, town, and large city enter look like? Are there devilish idols everywhere Are the majority of citizens Neutral or Lawful Evil? Or is the makeup pretty much the same as anywhere else?

Diabolism isn't the worship of hell and Asmodeus. It's a political philosophy that uses hell as a model, because hell is arguably the most orderly and lawful place in the universe. The argument for it would be something along the lines of "hell is filled with some of the worst, most evil, and most selfish creatures imaginable and yet they have a system of government that maintains an orderly and rational society, and has endured for millennia. We have difficulty keeping farmers and nobles in line for more than a few generations. Maybe we can learn something from how the government and society of hell is structured?"

So diabolism is a form of political theory (like agrarianism or federalism). Based on its description in the Inner Sea World Guide and the old Campaign Setting book (and its write up in the wiki), diabolism emphasizes:

1. Hierarchical systems of power
2. Strong, authoritative leadership
3. Disindividuation (being a cog in the proverbial machine)
4. The value of slavery to society

It's also important to note that diabolism is really popular among the ruling class of Cheliax and Isger, but not so much with the rest of the population.

It's also important to note that diabolism isn't just an attractive philosophy because it gives justification to the people in power, but that it is also pretty darn close to the sort of government that ran the vast empire back when Aroden was alive. The switch from the lawful neutral Aroden to the lawful evil Asmodeus is rather subtle in some places. Aroden also seems to have support strong centralized hierarchies, strong authoritative leadership, working for the greater good of society often at the expense of the individual, and legalized slavery. So it wasn't so much that House Thrune put some radically new form of government in place after Aroden died and the country collapsed into civil war. They just gave the people back what they'd always had, only with different ideological underpinnings that really only would matter to an academic. Your average farmer would go back to living in a safe, controlled world pretty close to the one their grandparents remembered from childhood ... and the point of comparison would be "is this strong authority better than the 30 year civil war that we just had"?

So in practice Cheliax would look a lot like other world governments. It has a queen and a variety of noble houses who hold most of the power, it has something that resembles a small-ish middle class (merchants and the like) and a large number of peasants. There is also a robust slave trade that probably predominately supports agriculture. Honestly, it would look a lot like Taldor only it would probably seem more efficient.

There probably wouldn't be devilish idols everywhere because it would look tacky. Also, because idols imply some form of worship. You'd probably see devils and hellish imagery being worked into popular art though, since artists tend to reflect society. Devil worship would be more common among the ruling class, but House Thrune views itself more as a business partner with hell, not a servant. So dealing with devils is acceptable, but being a minion to one would be less acceptable. The closer you get to the capital, Egorian, the more open and obvious the influence of hell would become.

The majority of citizens would probably lean more toward lawful, since Cheliax has been a super lawful society long before Aroden died.

The people on the lower rungs of society would probably live about the same as they would anywhere else. There may even be a greater level of upward mobility available to them, since a system influenced by hell would probably have a system of rewards for people willing to participate in their own subjugation.

The nobles on the upper rungs of society would also probably live about the same as anywhere else, only things would be somewhat ... darker. Something like the films Dangerous Liaisons/Cruel Intentions, the Devil Wears Prada, Heathers, or any number of movies/books where a bunch of rich and powerful people do horrible things to each other in order to maneuver into a position of slightly greater power. It would be a lot like Taldor, only with less boredom and more malice.

The middle class would probably feel the squeeze the most, since the people above them would view them as potential threats and because they'd have enough money and mobility to stand out from the rest of society.

If so how did it work out? I've been invited to run one and we're all used to the Pathfinder system.

I think a few of the hybrid classes and core classes would work quite well. Brawler, Oracle, Witch, Shaman and Investigator seem to fit the theme pretty well.

But has anyone else thought about doing this? (I'd be shocked if no one has.)

The closest I've come is converting Call of Cthulhu adventures into Pathfinder. I'm currently running a group through The Complete Masks of Nyarlathotep, which I converted and set in Golarion.

"An old Pathfinder friend, recently returned to Absalom from an overseas trip, is murdered in his inn room by cultists from the Mwangi Expanse...."

Scouting ahead with a rogue is another complaint on the boards. In my groups the party does not often split so I don't know how it would go in my games though.

The short version is the inability of the rogue to escape or fight their way out is a weakness, if they are noticed.

Oh, there are certainly risks with sending out a lone scout (or a pair of scouts). I didn't mean to imply that players/DMs don't like that sort of thing for bad reasons.

But it's never been an issue in my personal experience. The players who enjoy playing scout-type characters are generally accepting of the risks, and the times where a scout ended up captured or on the wrong end of a trap have generally lead to interesting plot developments. I've been amazed at what some players come up with when their backs are against the wall. The non-scouting players have generally been accepting of a little wait while the rogue scouts, because of how effective it is as setting up ambushes, bypassing fights, and otherwise extending play.

As for rogues, I think scouting is the reason why my group is generally positive toward sneak attack. Most of the issues with sneak attack are alleviated by a situation where it is super easy to get sneak attack damage. I've watched a knife-master rogue almost single-highhandedly clear a big chunk of camping barbarian highwaymen.

And again, the Fighters and Rogues are goign to suffer far more from 6 encounter days than the casters are. When their buffing and healing run dry, they're out of the game. It doesn't matter if Power Attack lasts all day long, you still have to get close enough to use it and survive.

Hit points are generally the easiest and cheapest thing to recover. Wands are very cheap per charge, and Use Magic Device is open to anyone willing to stick a rank in it (which is more likely to be the rogue than the fighter).

Scrolls do definitely extend the effectiveness of a wizard. But they're still rather expensive, especially once you start scribing higher level spells.

I find this an unlikely statement unless "the rest of us" happened to include a cleric or druid who actually knew what they were doing and still had spells and abilities in reserve, or you're referring to a 1st level adventure... Probably still with a caster of some kind who hadn't used up his resources.

The party I was thinking of consisted of a fighter, a paladin, a cleric who was about 1/2 through his spells, a rogue, and a wizard who was down to a single dismissal spell and some cantrips.

We were fighting giants and I believe Azer. Or maybe they were just dwarves from the plane of fire. Either way, we easily made it through another two or three encounters before a party of Azer ambushed us in close quarters. That took care of the rest of the cleric's healing. From there we had one more fight and a couple traps before we made it to a safe place to set up camp.

It happened quite a bit in AD&D, but 3.0 and PF rely quite a bit more on action economy (outnumbered = bad) than the older system did.

There was a time when you'd actually send the Thief ahead to scout... Of course, usually he'd return at top speed clutching some kind of jeweled idol eye and pursued by enraged natives, resulting in everybody having to fight the forces of evil in their PJs - but to be fair, at least he returned!

You can still send the rogue out to scout ahead if they are reasonably skilled in stealth (and the player is the cautious type). It's just that a lot of players/DMs don't like that sort of thing for various reasons.

Sending scouts ahead is a fairly standard procedure in the groups I've played with, and the DMs have generally played ball with it. Which is probably why my experience with rogues has been more positive than the norm.

Good for you... I haven't seen any fighter/rogue go on on his own in a game past level 8~9 and not regret it moments later.

You're always welcome at our table. We have ~20+ years of stories, some of which do end horribly (the roper incident).

Also, I didn't say the fighter/rogue went on alone. ANY character who goes off alone is pretty much asking for an early grave. The party continued on with an almost spell-less wizard (she still had a single dismissal spell and her cantrips left) and the fighters/rogues took the lead. The wizard still contributed with crossbow bolts and the occasional rays of frost.

Remember all those times when all casters ran out of spells, then the Fighter/Rogue said "Screw it! I'm going on my own!" and did not die horribly a few moments later?

Yes. I remember plenty of times in my gaming history where the party wizard said "Guys, I'm out of spells" and the rest of us just shrugged and called it a learning experience in resource management while we pushed on through another handful of encounters before resting for the day.

Except Wizard get the ability to retreat to regain spells with greater and greater easy they level up. By 5th, they are sleeping in an extended Rope Trick and by 9th they are teleporting back to their base of operations. Come higher levels instead of a base of operations, the Wizard planeshifts back to their private demiplane, which is of course fast time so he gets 2 days worth of spells for every day. Also, spells aren't really limited after 5th level and certainly not after 9th. If you can blow through 20+ spells on 6 encounters you are doing something wrong.

True, but you also start facing enemies who can counter or adapt to those abilities with greater and greater ease.

Rope Trick leaves behind a clear indicator (the rope). Even if enemies aren't willing to climb up into the pocket dimension they can easily set up an ambush outside the spot and attack the party the moment they reappear. Assuming they don't have their own wizard capable of casting Dispel Magic on the Rope Trick.

A 9th level wizard would need to keep two teleports memorized since they'd need to teleport back into the dungeon (or to a landing spot outside the dungeon) after resting (assuming they want to keep a second teleport on hand so they can retreat again). That means the wizard is having to tie up a significant amount of their daily resources each delve.

And once you start getting into levels where daily planeshifts are an option, you're also in levels where sending extraplanar monsters to stalk the party is an option.

The 20+ spells aren't all going to be encounter appropriate, they're not all going to be equally effective, and you can easily throw more than six encounters at the party (especially once you start adding in random encounters).

Except that the examples of games where "the rogue and fighter are contributing fine!" are poor samples of class strength vs other classes. In many of the examples given, you could just as well run around as a Gnome Commoner with high str and still do decently... In the "RP focused" games (which is a term I hate), the challage level is right where the rogue is ok...

The strength of fighters and rogues in relation to the rest of the party can change quite dramatically depending on how many encounters there are in a day, and how much advanced notice the characters have.

It is most noticeable with spell casting characters. A wizard with the right spell can quickly and efficiently end an encounter ... assuming that wizard has the right spell prepared ... at the cost of using up a limited per day resource.

A DM can easily give "underpowered" classes like the fighter or rogue a chance to shine by simply changing the pacing of encounters, adding random encounters, and not having the monsters kindly wait until the party has finished resting to attack.

... and the direction some of our authors took Taldor doesn't appeal to me and kinda went in the wrong way for Golarion, and that's something I've been massaging back into place for a few years now.

Would you elaborate more on this?

If the mechanics of class A and class B both fit your concept, and A is obviously better mechanically than B, why would you pick B?

Variety. I'll play A, sure. But if I decide to play a similar concept again in the future I'll probably come at it from a different angle and try out B for a change.

As long as the character is interesting and is good enough to do the job, I don't particularly care if they're the best possible combination of plusses available.

Pretty much as title says.

Every now and then we see someone showing how class X is rubbish (rogues for example)and how other classes outpace them later on. But does this stop you guys from playing these classes which are considered to be under-powered?

Nope. I've played pretty much every class at one point or another, with a variety of different groups, and never had a problem with any of them.

The only problems I've had were with the occasional DM who had a personal dislike of a specific class (usually the Paladin) and actively hampered me for playing it. But that's not a problem with the class, that's a people problem.

I'd like to hear how/if other people have thought about it.

My general assumption in my home campaign is that non-human races based off real world animals reproduce in a manner similar to their real world counterparts.

So, to use your examples, Tengu and Lizardpeople would reproduce by laying eggs while Dwarves, hafling, and other fantasy variations of humans would reproduce like humans (although their average gestation period may be longer or shorter).

The only oddballs in my home games are gnomes and elves.

In my campaign, gnomes are androgynous and intersex by nature. They originally came from the First World after all, where their species was immortal and didn't need to procreate. When the first "fae that would someday become gnomes" came to Golarion they "adjusted" themselves in order to live as mortals. They all agreed that eating, sleeping, and other bodily functions were fun ideas but they couldn't come to an agreement on reproduction. Sexual reproduction certainly sounded like the best way to go, but that whole sex and gender thing seemed awfully constraining. As a result, gnomes effectively pick their sex and gender whenever and however they want, and their bodies adapt accordingly over a period of time. When two gnomes create offspring, they basically pick between them which one will carry the fetus depending on their personal desires and needs. It also means that there are no "accidental" births since gnomes actively decide when they're ready to procreate (and explains why the number of gnomes in the world is low). Gnomes who live among humans tend to mirror the local culture, but some gnomes live their entire lives as one sex/gender while others switch frequently. Married gnomes have even been known to swap back and forth within the relationship every couple years just to keep things interesting. There are persistent rumors (and jokes) that gnomes can also lay eggs if they want, but that's never been confirmed.

In my campaign I also emphasize the fluff that elves physically change in response to their environment (elves who live in cold regions gradually transform into snow elves. Snow elves who move to the desert gradually transform into desert elves, etc). Elves are capable of breeding with any humanoid, but the resulting child will always be born an elf (so an elf and a dwarf would have an elf baby). The exception is that when elves breed with humans they produce half-elves ... which is something that terrifies a lot of elves. I took a page from Dragon Age and said that living near humans actually shortens elvish lifespans. So that and the existence of half-elves is a major driving force behind elvish isolationism (particularly among Mordant Spire elves, who treat contact with humans almost as if it were a disease that needed to be quarantined).

Hi James,

I was putting together a short campaign for my players using some Pathfinder Society scenarios (which are every bit as useful as the old Dungeon side-quest adventures were for plugging holes in a campaign) and I had a few questions about the history of some of the Venture Captains who operate out of the Grand Lodge.

1.) Roughly how old is Ambrus Balsin, and how long has he been the Chamberlain of the Grand Lodge?

2.) Same question for Master of Swords, Marcos Farabellus

3.) Same question for Master of Spells, Aram Zey

4.) Same question for Master of Scrolls, Kreighton Shaine

5.)

2) Caliphas is the best choice for a London stand-in.

Caliphas! I never even considered that one. I love it. Plus, this solves the "English Countryside" problem.

5) Sarusan is the obvious choice for an Australia stand-in... but frankly, I think having that section send the PCs to Azlant is a MUCH better choice, since Sarusan is so far out of the way compared to the other locations.

Yeah ... I was thinking about Sarusan but there isn't really anything published about it yet. I'm not adverse to making something up, but I probably have enough on my plate adapting such a large adventure that I'd rather just milk the books I already own for material. Which makes Absalom, Caliphas, Sargava, and Goka perfect.

Azlant is something I never even considered. Probably because I forgot that it wasn't entirely underwater.

But ... now that you mention it ... I think the Celestial Lens at the Sun Temple Colony, re-purposed by a magical device crafted by Sir Aubrey Penhew, may just be a good replacement for the rocket (and it comes with handy cultists!) I'm also getting some horrible ideas for the poor, poor gnomes of Irrere....

I think you've sold me on the Azlant idea. See, this is why I asked.

And this is SUPER interesting, by the way. Makes me kinda wanna try it myself!

Thanks! I may start up a thread in the Conversions forum to keep track of my ideas/solicit suggestions as I go along.

One last question:

My general plan is to wait and start MoN after the PCs have gained a few levels. Maybe start it in the 3rd-5th level range. That will give me a chance to foreshadow some of the plot through rumors/background events and, more importantly, give the PCs a chance to make friends with Jackson Elias before his untimely demise.

Do you have any favorite creepy adventures (Call of Cthulhu or otherwise) you could recommend?

Hi James!

I recently came into possession of a printed copy of Masks of Nyarlathotep and I've decided to adapt it (loosely, because rockets) into the core of my next Pathfinder campaign.

Some swaps are fairly easy. The Carlyle Expedition becomes a lost party of adventurers. Cairo, Egypt becomes Sothis, Osirion. Ill-fated globe-trotting writer Jackson Elias becomes an ill-fated globe trotting Pathfinder.

However, there are some substitutions that are a little harder so I thought I'd ask you for some suggestions since you A.) know more about Golarion than I do and B.) I believe you are familiar with the campaign in question:

1.) Absalom was my initial thought as a substitution for New York City. Can you think of anything better?

2.) Which city would you substitute for London? I was thinking Nisroch because it's dark, foggy, and has a severe wealthy/poor divide. But some of the chapter involves the English countryside and I'm not sure the rest of Nidal would work as well.

3.)The Mwangi Expanse is a reasonable stand-in for Africa. Is there any part of that region (or a different part of Garund) that would be a good stand-in for Nairobi, Kenya?

4.) Where on Tian Xia would you place a city like Shanghai?

5.) Australia. This one has me drawing a total blank. Any suggestions?

I assume you meant Warcraft? Warhammer orcs are WAAAAGGGHHHH!

Quite right. I was typing on my phone and I put down the wrong word.

Speaking of which, Warhammer orcs are another good example of how you can have diversity between campaign settings in how various things are depicted.

Warhammer 40K orcs are living fungus that reproduce by spores when they die and exist solely to WAAAAAAGGGGGHHHH!!!

That's a cool, different thing in that campaign setting and I like it. I like seeing different twists on common elements of fantasy.

So, how do you justify a race being completely and utterly evil all the time everywhere it goes regardless of anything else? If you don't how do you handle the diversity?

For me it depends entirely on the campaign setting, with different fantasy races being depicted in different ways depending on the specific setting and/or the needs for the story.

Take orcs, for example. Just off the top of my head I can think of three settings where I'm totally cool with orcs being good.

1. Elder Scrolls, where orcs are quite literally just humans who look different because a Daedric Prince ate their god and altered their bodies.
2. Warcraft, where orcs had their native culture dominated by evil beings from another world.
3. Eberron, where orcs are nature loving native people who live in swamps and were the original druids.

I can also think of a few campaign settings where it doesn't make much, if any internal sense for orcs to be good:

1. Middle Earth, where orcs were (depending on how Tolkein was feeling that day) artificially created by Melkor, who corrupted and twisted elves into evil mockeries ... or possibly souless beasts given sentience by Melkor. The running theme being that evil cannot create, it can only corrupt but whatever it corrupts will never quite be "right".

2. Forgotten Realms, where orcs were extraplanar invaders whose entire purpose is to conquer.

So I'll justify a race being "always evil" or "not always evil" depending on the setting of the world in question.

For my own part, I actually do prefer having "always evil" races when I create homebrew campaign settings because I find it is the best way to avoiding unfortunate implications.

I find that when you start treating the various non-fantasy race as "people and cultures that are just different" it becomes very, very easy to drift into real world analogies. For example, trolls speaking with Jamaican accents. Or Semitic dwarves. Or South American lizard people.

I'm not saying that using non-human fantasy races to tell stories inspired by real world conflicts between people, or using real world cultures as inspiration for a fantasy world, are necessarily bad in and of themselves. It's certainly possible to tell good stories of the "not so different after all" variety. Fantastic Racism is a pretty common trope for good reason.

But personally, I would rather have my humans be diverse and my non-humans be aliens with different concepts of morality. If I want to tell a culture clash story, I'll use different human cultures/nations.

Plus, it's a game and sometimes you just gotta have a good monster to slay.

Make them gods. Set up a 'test of the Starstone', then have them be bound by the non interference rules. They can be who their next characters worship.

This is a cool idea. You could also look at the history of Aroden before he became a god and use that for ideas.

I mean, now that these Mythic heroes have closed the Worldwound ... what do THEY want to do now? Are they going to continue adventuring together now that the threat of the Worldwound is finished? Adventuring parties are kind of like bands. You have a bunch of really talented people, who tend to have strong personalities, all working together. How often do bands break up and/or drift apart? What about bands that have already hit the pinnacle of their careers and have nowhere else to go? It's not like they can earn more XP or tiers after they hit 20/10. Maybe some of those Mythic heroes will want to break off and focus on a solo project for a while.

As powerful as the heroes are at 20/10, they can't be everywhere at once. Every time the put out one fire another dozen can spring up elsewhere.

And overthrowing the nation of Cheliax isn't as simple as just walking in and killing the members of House Thrune. Pinning down and overthrowing House Thrune and its supporters would take a while under even the best circumstances ... and what happens to the nation when you create a sudden power vacuum?

Are all the characters going to want to take the time and effort to overthrow a government? If they do, will they all want to take the time and effort to deal with the fallout? If they do, how many years will they have to tie themselves down dealing with it?

Or will the party of Mythic heroes go their separate ways. Maybe some stay to help undo the damage of the Worldwound. Others head out to explore the outer planes or solar system. Maybe one or two go destabilize a country of their choosing. Found organizations, become the patrons of nations, whatever.

So they all get to have a major impact on the world, but unless they selected the Longevity path ability they will eventually die of old age. If not, they'll probably have to be "promoted" to godhood sooner or later.

The next campaign gets to deal with the fallout. Everybody wins.

Did the Chelish Armada of 47 ships constitute most of the Chelish fleet?

I doubt it. Remember, Admiral Thrune is basically attacking the Shackles on her own initiative, with the financial support of her great uncle. I highly doubt that she could sail off with the majority of the Imperial Navy without someone noticing or countermanding her orders.

Was most of the Chelish Navy destroyed at the Battle of Abendego in From Hell's Heart?

Again, I seriously doubt that her fleet represented much of the Imperial Navy. Only nine of the ships in the armada are war ships. More than half the fleet (28 ships) are sailing ships.

My impression from the text was that Admiral Thrune sailed off with the ships under her personal command, and used her great uncle's wealth to hire a bunch of non-affiliated ships to sail with them. She put her officers in charge of the other ships, but their captains and crew are mercenary not military.

Has the size of the Chelish Navy ever been established?

I don't believe so, no. It's as big as you want it to be I guess. You can't really go too much by real world examples since there are so many different assumptions in the fantasy world.

Prove it.

You can't prove a grey area in the rules one way or another. But I can lay out reasoning and support it by citing the rulebook.

You're saying "A charge is a move, duh". Prove it.

I'm not saying "A charge is a move".

I'm saying "a charge is not necessarily an attack. A charge is a special full-round action that may or may not involve an attack."

Here's the test. If a charge is not an attack, what is it?

"Charging is a special full-round action that allows you to move up to twice your speed and attack during the action."

Where does it say that?

In the Combat section of the Core Rulebook, under the rules for Charging. The very first paragraph, quoted above, explains what a charge is.

How do I command my mount to charge?

You don't. At least not in any mechanical way that requires you to make a specific skill check or take a specific action.

The player says "I make a mounted charge" or something to that effect. The horse and rider each take a full round action. Mount moves and doesn't attack. The rider moves and attacks. Both parties suffer the penalties to AC from charging. Both parties get the bonus to hit, although that doesn't matter from the mount's perspective.

Where does it say that?

The same place it says that you have to take a specific action or make a specific check in order for your mount to charge. Nowhere.

The Handle Animal skill says that you have to make a check (and take a move action) to command an animal to attack, but the attack trick just says:

"The animal attacks apparent enemies. You may point to a particular creature that you wish the animal to attack, and it will comply if able."

Attack is a specific type of action you'll find listed under Standard Actions. There are also several actions that require "Attack Rolls" that you could reasonably extend this to ... but charging doesn't necessarily require an attack roll. Attack rolls are defined as "represent(ing) your attempt to strike your opponent on your turn in a round." Charging doesn't necessarily involve an attempt to strike an opponent. It could just mean that you're moving toward them in a very specific manner.

So if you're charging and not attacking, then all you're doing is moving in a restricted manner. There are no Handle Animal tricks or Ride tasks that cover "special full round actions" like charging.

TL;DR there are absolutely no rules that say you need to make a check or take an action in order for your mount to charge.

If you want to say that charging is an attack, there are no rules that specifically prove you wrong or right.

If you want to say that charging is not an attack, there are no rules that specifically prove you wrong or right.

But, for the record, of the two positions the second option is better supported by the rules.

Aberrant Templar wrote:

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Even then, your horse probably has the defend trick (or can be pushed into defending you) and if it sees you going near something with a sharp pointy object, is going to put a hoof to its head if it has the chance.

True, but it would have to wait until the next round since the charging eats up its full round action.

Hmmm? Little confused

If you're doing this with a sword, the horse attacks too. A charge is a move and an attack for both you and the horse. I don't see why the horse would have to wait.

One way to read the new FAQ is that both the horse and rider have to take a charge action in order to charge. Which is a full-round action for both parties.

In that case, if the horse wanted to attack at the end of the charge the rider would need to make a Handle Animal check to "handle" the horse and make him perform the "attack" trick. Which is a move action ... which would prevent the rider from also taking a full round action to charge.

So the horse would have to charge (a full round action) and not attack at the end. The rider would also charge (a full round action) and attack at the end. Both parties would get the penalty to AC as a result of the charge. Technically they'd both get the bonus to attack as well, but only one party would be in a position to take advantage of it.

The other way of reading the FAQ is that if one party charges both parties receive the benefits/penalties. Which would free up a move action for the rider but otherwise wouldn't change anything. The mount would have already taken a full-round action, so it wouldn't have any actions left to spend even if the rider made a move check to handle it into attacking. And if you attack as part of a charge you can only take one attack, so the rider wouldn't be able to full-attack even if they had the option of attacking as a full-round action.

Of course, after you ride up and lance the monster you'll be standing right next to it with your horse, and both of you can now attack to your heart's content.

The lance has reach, the horse doesn't. So the rider has to stop 10 feet out to lance, and the horse just stops.

Aah, yes. This is me falling into the trap of not realizing that rules have been changed. I was under the impression that as a medium sized creature riding a large creature you could pick what square of the mount's space you were attacking from. If you attacked from the "back" space then your 10' reach weapon would leave your mount adjacent to the enemy.

Well, in this case the mount would have to move and attack on the second round. Each would get one attack (since the rider is spending a move action to handle the mount's attack). On the THIRD round of combat you could conceivably end up in a position where the mount could full-attack and the rider could single attack. If the animal had the defend trick than the rider could full attack starting on the second round, and both could full-attack on the third.

It's specifically listed under "Special Attacks". Did you miss that?

Congrats, you've found yet another spot where the Pathfinder RPG rulebook was copy/pasted from earlier editions and could use a little clarification and rewording.

Yes, the topic of "charging" is organized under the heading "special attacks". Probably because it used less ink than "a mixture of actions that may or may not use attack rolls and have special rules that we need to discuss".

If simply being organized under a "special attacks" heading made charging an attack, then "casting spells while mounted" and the ride check you make if your mount falls in battle would also be attacks.

Also, no need to be hostile.

Nothing in the rules allows for that interpretation. Ride checks cover things the rider does, Handle Animal checks cover things the mount/AC does. I welcome you to go reread the appropriate skills.

Charging is an attack, regardless of whether you swing a hoof, or a sword, or nothing at all at the end of it, it is still an attack. Again, go check the Combat section of the CRB and you'll see that it is specifically listed as such. The only way to command an animal to perform an attack is with the Handle Animal skill, which takes a move action if it is not an animal companion.

I did read the rules. I even quoted them in my previous post.

Charging is not an attack. Charging is an action. It's a full round action. It's listed under the rules for "special actions". It is not "an attack". It's a special full round action that lets you move and (if you so choose) attack.

Here, let me quote some more rules:

Typical riding actions don't require checks. You can saddle, mount, ride, and dismount from a mount without a problem

That's one of the first sentences of the Ride skill. "Riding" a horse doesn't require a check. If the horse is combat trained then you can ride it into a fight without making any checks. At most you'd need to make a "guide with knees" Ride check to fight with a lance and shield. At most.

You would need to make a Handle Animal check to make your mount attack an enemy, but charge is not synonymous with attack. The only time you'd need to make a Handle Animal check to charge is if you wanted the horse to also attack at the end of the charge.

Even then, your horse probably has the defend trick (or can be pushed into defending you) and if it sees you going near something with a sharp pointy object, is going to put a hoof to its head if it has the chance.

True, but it would have to wait until the next round since the charging eats up its full round action. Of course, after you ride up and lance the monster you'll be standing right next to it with your horse, and both of you can now attack to your heart's content.

Charging is an attack. It's specifically listed as such.

This statement is incorrect.

[QUOTE-"PRD Combat Section"]Charging is a special full-round action that allows you to move up to twice your speed and attack during the action.

Charging is not an attack. It is an action with special rules that lets you both move and attack. The attack part is optional.

Attacking on a Charge: After moving, you may make a single melee attack.

Emphasis mine. You MAY make an attack. You don't have to. Now, there isn't much of a reason for you to charge someone without attacking normally. Without the attack, a charge is just a heavily restricted full round of movement. Two move actions would cover the same distance with more flexibility.

But the horse carrying the rider into combat can charge without attacking (which would require a Handle Animal check) just fine.

IF that wasn't enough...

NPCS cannot do mounted charges, if you can't do mounted charges you cannot do spirited charges or ride-by attacks or anything. which leads to the question of why would a country want a cavalry?

No seriously, why would you want to spend the money to board a horse, train a soldier to ride it for a grand total of... +1 attack.

So if anyone reads this, preferably the people remaking the mounted combat rules. Please keep these points i've made in mind. There is a reason that cavalries changed warfare and made history the way it is now.

If the rules change prevents an NPC knight from performing a mounted charge, then someone's going to have to break it down for me because I don't see it.

Charging atop a mount and attacking something with a lance/sword doesn't require you to make a Handle Animal check. That would be covered (at most) by a Ride check.

You only need to make Handle Animal checks to make an animal perform a trick/task, and there is a fairly specific list of actions that fall into that category. Making your horse move, or spurring it to charge isn't a trick. That's just movement.

The only way you'd need to make a Handle Animal check is if the horse also attacks at the end of the charge. Which it doesn't have to do, since the attack part of charging is optional.

So a knight charging atop a horse with a lance can happen just fine. A particularly skilled knight (with PC classes) can charge with a lance AND have their mount attack too. Everyone else can just charge with a lance.

Historical cavalry works just fine.

You already mentioned Charlemagne...it's his 12 Paladins (I think that's the number) which actually gives the class it's name I believe.

The legends of Charlemagne popularized the term "paladin" and gave it a solidly Christian bent, but the term is much older and has its roots in Rome.

Charlemagne had a lot of grand ambitions for his "empire", and he looked at the glorious old Roman empire as a model. The term "paladin" was one of the many, many Romanesque things he adopted.

Palatine Hill is one of the Seven Hills of Rome and it has all sorts of mythical and linguistic importance. It was the spot of the legendary cave where Romulus and Remus lived with their adopted wolf mother. It's the spot where Romulus killed Remus. Most importantly it was the spot where the Imperial Palace was built.

So Charlemange called his 12 best and most loyal knights "paladins" because they were high level officials and trusted servants who lived in his palace. Palatins (with a "t" instead of a "d") were the officers in charge of the ooooooold King of Rome's household (from back in the pre-empire/pre-republic days). The term was also connected to the Emperor's personal guard, and a bunch of other important places. There are dozens of examples of the "palatine"-theme in modern political and religious (mostly Catholic) offices.

Calling someone a paladin is saying that they're absolutely the best of the best. It also implies that they have tons of power, since those sort of titles were generally only given to the King/Emperor/Pope's "trusted right hand man" who can do pretty much whatever since the highest authority trusts them to do the right thing.

But for examples of Pathfinder paladins in fiction, I totally agree that Optimus Prime is a fantastic example. Ditto for the Knights of the Cross in the Dresden Files. Keldorn & Mazzy from Baldur's Gate II are great examples. A paragon Commander Shepard in Mass Effect. Also, O-Chul from Order of the Stick.

Eficient quiver with 5-6 arrows of each type and enjoy your abundant ammunition ^^

"Once the owner has filled it, the quiver can quickly produce any item she wishes that is within the quiver, as if from a regular quiver or scabbard."

An efficient quiver just holds a ton of arrows. It doesn't duplicate them. The text you quoted just means that you don't have to fumble around in the quiver to find that one specific arrow. You can draw whichever one you want as quickly as you could from a normal quiver.

I'm not seeing a single thing in the rules that suggests that a Paladin can't worship Cayden Cailean. As long as his own alignment is LG, he can absolutely worship a CG god, perhaps worshipping the GOOD aspect of the god while ignoring the inherent chaos that he represents. There's also no reason that you can't be a paladin of Gozreh, worshipping the inherent beauty and balance of nature, while still being LG.

It depends on if you are going by the basic, generic Pathfinder rules or by the specific rules for the Pathfinder Campaign Setting (i.e. Golarion)

The assumption in the core rulebook is that a paladin's alignment and the god they worship are two different, independent things. Going by the write-up, there is no reason why a LG paladin couldn't worship a CG god (although that paladin would occasionally be out of step with the god's other worshipers).

However, on Golarion paladins have the same deity restrictions (i.e. within one step on either alignment axis) as clerics. So if you were playing a Pathfinder Society game, or using the campaign setting as written, then the answer is no.

Personally I prefer to keep the two separate. Otherwise I feel like it blurs the line between "paladin" and "priest" a bit too much.

Answer?

I still like the idea of three basic 'tiers' of weapons: weapons basically anyone can use (simple), slightly better weapons that people who actually know how to fight will use (martial), and mechanically superior weapons that require specific training (exotic). I'm not going to try to change do that. But I think some housecleaning is in order.

1) Reshuffle misplaced weapons. Monk weapons go to martial/simple as appropriate. Most projectile weapons go up a level.

2) Just delete some redundant weapons. What was the last character you saw that used a shortbow? And darts are a relic of when Small characters couldn't use javelins properly. And the game doesn't really need a state where Rapid Reload and Special Weapon Proficency (Repeating crossbow) give the same effective benefit.

3) Relabel 'Exotic' weapons as 'Specialist' weapons, to get rid of the 'faraway land' connotation and to imply they're a cut above the more general weapons.

4) No more blanket proficiency. Martial weapons should be attached to Weapon Groups: the Martial Weapon Proficiency feat gets a whole group. Classes that currently get all martial weapons get a handful of weapon groups. Barbarians, cavaliers, paladins, etc. get three. Rangers get two, plus a special one determined by their combat style. For instance, for archers, they would get Special Weapon Proficiency (Longbow), see below. Fighters get four, because they're the weapon-masters. Perhaps they have some ability to trade one or two of these for a Special weapon, maybe they just reply on their supply of bonus feats.
Characters that get access to a deity's favored weapon get its weapon group if it is Martial and that weapon specifically if it is Special.

5) Special Weapon Proficiency generally still gets only a single weapon: since it represents specialized training to learn the intricacies of that particular weapon. Some exceptions may exist, like Double Weapons can probably be a single feat. When appropriate, you must have martial proficiency with the relevant weapon group before getting a special version. No leapfrogging to tripping people with a khopesh without learning how longswords and short swords work. (Obviously, an exception is made when no martial weapons exist in a group, like bows.)

6) Weapon-specialized feats and class features apply to proficiency groups. That is, you take Weapon Focus (Swords) instead of Weapon Focus (Longsword)

I've actually playtested some of this in my home games. We switched around weapon proficiencies a while back and it's worked swimmingly.

Only instead of renaming "Exotic" weapons as "Specialist" we renamed them as "Advanced". Specialist was one of the options floated, but we felt it may be a little confusing with the existence of a Weapon Specialization feat. So you have simple weapons, which are intuitive and require little training. Martial weapons, which require a reasonable level of training. And Advanced weapons which require substantial training.

We reshuffled the monk weapons and used weapon groups. Actually a lot of our ideas came from the 2nd Edition Fighters Handbook.

I posted a possible solution on the OT thread:

Link

I saw Jim's post in the conspiracy thread, and I posted this there. I may have a solution.

At first I thought that "Page:Line:Word" was right, but according to Amazon the Inner Sea Gods book is only 300 pages long. One of the references is "339". It's certainly possible the page count is wrong on Amazon. If the book is 339 pages or longer, than "page:line:word" is probably the correct cypher.

If not, maybe this will work:

This appears to be a book code.

All the titles mean something. Each are some sort of holy book, text, or device through which holy scripture is delivered.

The numbers are important. Forum poster Zylphryx had a good observation. He suggested a book code that follows the format: page, line and word.. But I have been unable to get it to work right.

It does look like a book cypher, since all the books are in-game holy books for the various gods and the Inner Sea Gods hardcover is coming out soon. With a book cypher you have to assume everyone has the same book (holy books are great for this, since they are commonly found and reproducing them exactly tends to be a matter of faith for people. Just about guaranteed the same word will appear in the same place in multiple copies). Obviously the "meta" book is the Inner Sea Gods book, since I doubt Paizo will print a reproduction of Abadar's holy book and it's good marketing to encourage us all to run out and buy a copy. Not that we weren't going to already....

Skull of Mashaag 247:1:1
The Bone Lands in a Spiral 43: 13: 7
The Order of Numbers 9: 22: 8
Our Master's Book 192:4:4
The Bone Lands in a Spiral 63: 8: 10
The Book of Joy 19: 19: 4
The Birth of Light and Truth 139:18:3
Skull of Mashaag 247:1:1
The Skull of Mashaag 224: 39: 1
The Order of Numbers 8: 31: 9
The Order of Numbers 15:2:4
The Eight Scrolls 117: 34: 1
The Skull of Mashaag 339: 12: 10
The Skull of Mashaag 238:35: 7
The Birth of Light and Truth 162: 36: 3
The Skull of Mashaag 224: 39: 1

The first part is a holy book for one of the gods. So this refers to the chapter in Inner Sea Gods. I've added zeroes to even out the rest of the numbers.

LAM 247: 01: 01
PHA 043: 13: 07
ABA 009: 22: 08
??? 192: 04: 04
PHA 063: 08: 10
CAL 019: 19: 04
SAR 139: 18: 03
LAM 247: 01: 01
LAM 224: 39: 01
ABA 008: 31: 09
ABA 015: 02: 04
DES 117: 34: 01
LAM 339: 12: 10
LAM 238: 35: 07
SAR 162: 36: 03
LAM 224: 39: 01

The first number ranges from 8 - 339. A very wide range.
The second ranges from 1-39.
The third ranges from 1-10.

The first number, being the largest, is probably the starting word. So "Skull of Mashaag 247" means "Go to the 247th word of the Lamashtu chapter."

The second and third numbers are a bit trickier, since we don't know how the chapters in Inner Sea Gods are set up. Thirty-nine is a reasonable ballpark paragraph length, and 10 or less seems like a good ballpark for word length.

My guess (and this is a total shot in the dark) is that each of those words will be the first word in a paragraph. That would make the second number the specific word within that paragraph, and the third number a reference to the specific letter in that word.

That would make "The Order of Numbers 9: 22: 8" a code meaning "The eight letter of the twenty-second word of the paragraph starting at the ninth word of the Abadar chapter".

Which would make the solution a single word, or sequence of words (omit spaces & punctuation), that is sixteen characters long.

Normally I would assume that this is just gibberish by an overachieving troll. BUT Jim Groves mentioned that James Jacobs posted a riddle poem that foreshadowed Reign of Winter (I haven't seen it, anyone have a link?) so I figured it was at least worth a crack.

There's basically no way to solve it until Inner Sea Gods comes out, though. At that point it should be easy to crack. That's the problem with book cyphers. If you don't know the book, it's basically impossible. But once you have the book cracking becomes super easy.

EDIT: I forgot to mention. The "our master's book" is probably a clue too. It doesn't tell you the chapter, but if this is giving us letters than it may be possible to back-track the god from guessing the letter (once you have the rest it should be easy).

I'd say Asmodeus, Zon-Kuthon, Urgathoa, and Norgorber are top contenders ... but I also wouldn't count out Nethys.

In fact, Nethys is my current favorite. The "master" who "left" could be Nex. The holy book for Nethys is "The Book of Magic" and different churches of Nethys use different versions of that book.

So "Our Master's Book" would be the specific variation of The Book of Magic preferred by Nex.

I mean, it's about time for a Nex/Geb AP. Right?

This appears to be a book code.

All the titles mean something. Each are some sort of holy book, text, or device through which holy scripture is delivered.

The numbers are important. Forum poster Zylphryx had a good observation. He suggested a book code that follows the format: page, line and word.. But I have been unable to get it to work right.

It does look like a book cypher, since all the books are in-game holy books for the various gods and the Inner Sea Gods hardcover is coming out soon. With a book cypher you have to assume everyone has the same book (holy books are great for this, since they are commonly found and reproducing them exactly tends to be a matter of faith for people. Just about guaranteed the same word will appear in the same place in multiple copies). Obviously the "meta" book is the Inner Sea Gods book, since I doubt Paizo will print a reproduction of Abadar's holy book.

Skull of Mashaag 247:1:1
The Bone Lands in a Spiral 43: 13: 7
The Order of Numbers 9: 22: 8
Our Master's Book 192:4:4
The Bone Lands in a Spiral 63: 8: 10
The Book of Joy 19: 19: 4
The Birth of Light and Truth 139:18:3
Skull of Mashaag 247:1:1
The Skull of Mashaag 224: 39: 1
The Order of Numbers 8: 31: 9
The Order of Numbers 15:2:4
The Eight Scrolls 117: 34: 1
The Skull of Mashaag 339: 12: 10
The Skull of Mashaag 238:35: 7
The Birth of Light and Truth 162: 36: 3
The Skull of Mashaag 224: 39: 1

The first part is a holy book for one of the gods. So this refers to the chapter in Inner Sea Gods. I've added zeroes to even out the rest of the numbers.

LAM 247: 01: 01
PHA 043: 13: 07
ABA 009: 22: 08
??? 192: 04: 04
PHA 063: 08: 10
CAL 019: 19: 04
SAR 139: 18: 03
LAM 247: 01: 01
LAM 224: 39: 01
ABA 008: 31: 09
ABA 015: 02: 04
DES 117: 34: 01
LAM 339: 12: 10
LAM 238: 35: 07
SAR 162: 36: 03
LAM 224: 39: 01

The first number ranges from 8 - 339. A very wide range.
The second ranges from 1-39.
The third ranges from 1-10.

The first number, being the largest, is probably the starting word. So "Skull of Mashaag 247" means "Go to the 247th word of the Lamashtu chapter."

The second and third numbers are a bit trickier, since we don't know how the chapters in Inner Sea Gods are set up. Thirty-nine is a reasonable ballpark paragraph length, and 10 or less seems like a good ballpark for word length.

My guess (and this is a total shot in the dark) is that each of those words will be the first word in a paragraph. That would make the second number the specific word within that paragraph, and the third number a reference to the specific letter in that word.

That would make "The Order of Numbers 9: 22: 8" a code meaning "The eight letter of the twenty-second word of the paragraph starting at the ninth word of the Abadar chapter".

Which would make the solution a single word, or sequence of words (omit spaces & punctuation), that is sixteen characters long.

Normally I would assume that this is just gibberish by an overachieving troll. BUT Jim Groves mentioned that James Jacobs posted a riddle poem that foreshadowed Reign of Winter (I haven't seen it, anyone have a link?) so I figured it was at least worth a crack.

There's basically no way to solve it until Inner Sea Gods comes out, though. At that point it should be easy to crack. That's the problem with book cyphers. If you don't know the book, it's basically impossible. But once you have the book cracking becomes super easy.