Agénor's page

The outsider is probably the end boss or the one just before. Therefore, I suspect it has a bucketload of HD.

We do not have in the party an arcane spellcaster anymore, the player hasn't showed up to a game in a long while. We'd have to acquire the means of this spellcasting through NPCs.

If some of you have played with this spell, either as players or as G.M., what are the pitfalls you could please warn me about?

A thread recently raised from the depths made me think. The villain in one the campaigns I am playing is an outsider. Maybe then, it would be possible to prevent him from doing harm by locking him up using Planar Binding, especially since it seems to be turning into a race against him to prevent him to execute his evil plan.

However, this plans seems a little to straightforward to me. Yes, the spell itself can fail at several points but the odds of success are far from negligible, in which case, this evil outsider will be held, prevented from guiding his cronies while we wreck havock amongst them.
Am I missing something?

We aren't at the level where we can cast Greater Planar Binding, we'd have to find someone able to do so but we are at a level where powerful people that would be strongly negatively affected should the evil outsider accomplish his plan would listen to us.

Hence I turn to you, savvy people. Do you think Planar Binding is a doable way to suppress an outsider? If so, how would you go about it?
If not, how would you go about it?^^

[I am on purpose not giving too much details because I want to keep the discussion general given that I don't want to get spoilt, the campaign being rather known.]

In fact, the only time I have ever used Dirge of Doom for a bard, was the final boss fight of Crimson throne, where [SPOILERS!]

Please, edit your post if you can^^

Another thing to keep in mind is that most characters has resources that regenerate each day usually, those are spells, powers and the such, even H.P. indirectly.

Your group should be facing several challenging encounters by between two regenerations. If they don't feel they have to make choices when it comes to expending those resources, then they aren't challenged enough times over the course of a day.

Could the target then walk around keeping at the same distance from the object of aversion?

I don't think so, barring other circumstances, as it wouldn't fit making any reasonable effort to avoid the object of aversion.

This is a mind-affecting effect. The target isn't pushed back, the target wants back.

Can I ask why you choose to play Mythic or simply high level?

It seems from your description that you'd more enjoy the game at lower levels of power.

Also, it seems a lot of your game revolves around combat. My experience at high level is more politics & influence and less combat but when combat happens, it is an epic battle that will resound in history for centuries afterwards.

Not to go badwrongfun but options 1 and 3 are the kind of discussions to be had at session zero. In short, discuss with the player and come to a tentative solution as a group as this issue is meta-game rather than game hence the G.M. is in this only another player at the table.

For comparison: lowering your spell resistance takes a standard action and lasts until your next turn.

Do you then have characters at your table automatically hit by melee touch attacks if they have been the recipient of Cure spell since their last turn?

The inconsistency is that beneficial contact spells and effects require no melee touch attacks while this one, because of being ranged, requires to beat the A.C. of your ally.

You won't find anything in the rules as the problem here doesn't lie with the rules in general but with Heavenly Fire in particular when it qualifies its ray as a ranged touch attack when it is directed towards an ally. It shouldn't be an attack.
As such, my houserule would be on poorly written Heavenly Fire but not on the general rules of what a ranged touch attack is.

Diego Rossi is correct, you need to succeed at a ranged touch attack which means it is much easier to heal a friend in heavy armour than it is to heal a friend with a high Dexterity.

- Would I be the G.M., I'd houserule that a successful ranged attack against the square in which the friend is is enough, D.C. 5 -

In general, as a game master, I only kill characters if the player is fine with it and it is interesting narratively.
If the players aren't fine with it, the kind of things established at session zero, I try to find a system/ruleset that allows for a kind of gameplay that fits everyone.
If it isn't interesting narratively, I am shooting myself in the foot as I am removing from the story one of the characters that brings in the continuity in my storytelling so I make it that even though the party is threatened, I mostly won't kill unless death is only a setback.
As such, when I kill a character, it is less about rules than about context.
This goes differently for T.P.K., all of them dying in one encounter is always on the table^^

We've had a half-retcon once. A fight against multiple people, an adventuring party, on a house. The opposing spellcaster, I think it was Tondaleyo from Greyhawk, cast a save-or-die spell on our paladin who rolled a 1. Dead paladin. Combat continues, next character in initiative order goes.

But wait, it wasn't the spellcaster's turn, the G.M. got him to play too early in the initiative order. So the roll still stood but we played the intervening actions, doing our best not to meta-game what we players knew of what was still in the future for our characters, including the one playing the paladin, but still hoping we'd get to prevent the spellcaster from casting when his turn would inevitably arrive.

Everyone at the table was fine with the outcome.

I think falling isn't part of movement. It is only being subject to whatever laws of physics apply in the universe one plays in.

If one denies a 5ft step followed by a fall as a readied action then why not apply it to the movement of the planet you are on?
Or what if on your initiative, the ground on which you and your opponent are standing turns out to be a platform that starts moving upwards further than your movement? Are you then limited to a 5ft step?

The rules are about intented movement.

dot

- Flagged so this thread gets moved to the Rules forum -

I'm still here. 2E didn't kill my participation, work and life did.

As the swashbuckler said. Life always finds a gets in the way.

Just for the sake of discussion, Pathfinder would be the Second Age, not the Third as magic is more prevalent on Golarion at the time of the various campaigns than on Middle Earth during wanderings of our two Hobbits^^

How about an Adept, the N.P.C. class?

All I can think of is pulling off a trick and being stoked you landed it. I like that it mechanically compliments a low wisdom + high charisma score. That's exactly the type of stats I'd expect for someone like this.

In Arabic, saying of someone that s/he is seeing her/himself is an expression to mean that one thinks too highly of oneself. So I'd say your take on the character of the performer is quite appropriate^^

@Ryze Kuja, if you are going to do away with the grid with respect to grappling, why not do away with the grid with respect to Flame Strike as well? Place the characters on the map, overlapping in two dimensions if need be then check which creature is in the area of the spell, no?

- I am not saying that doing away with part of the rules when said part doesn't fit the situation well is a bad thing, I am saying it is a good thing that could be done a bit further for even better results -

Grappling in Pathfinder is more the two opponents keeping each other in check at the shoulder than a sweaty embrace on the dusty floor.
- whatever this means for succubi in a grapple^^ -

@Evilserran, I feel with you. I've had something like this a few years ago playing D&D 5e with a group assembled from Meetup. I was playing an Aarakocra (a bird-man), cleric of Osiris, as it made sense in the setting, even encouraged by the G.M. to take the Death domain, normally made for NPCs.

As the game progressed, he kept nerfing my character, race and class. About flight, a first saying I couldn't fly with a backpack on then saying I couldn't fly while encumbered in the slightest then saying I couldn't hover, I had to move while flying or fall. About the Death domain, he only informed me after the game has started that animating the dead was a big no-no to Osiris while Animate Dead is the staple spell of the Death domain and when I've asked to switch it with (Cause?) Fear, a spell of same level which was maintaining the theme, he flat out refused.

Meanwhile, the Wizard was pulling all the O.P. tricks, using the broken spells without any comment from the G.M. and the enemies were conveniently most of the time in Fireball formation.

One day, as I announced I pulled out of my backpack a mundane object that happened to trivially solve a problem in a way the G.M. didn't expect, he told me that I didn't have it because I hadn't provided him with the updated inventory. I pushed back knowing he wouldn't like it that I was still waiting for his rules about encumbrance, as my high-Wisdom character lived in his universe so would know how much would have him encumbered but that in the meanwhile, I was going with the standard rules. He didn't like it, told me I wasn't welcome any longer as he was hosing. This split the table. The Druid and the Ranger didn't stay either, leaving only the Wizard and the Paladin.

Today, years later, the table that reformed almost right after with the players of the Druid and the Ranger is still active, via the internet nowadays because of distance for some and prophylaxis anyhow but active indeed.

I agree with Quixote, this not mechanical, this is entirely narration.

Just as for any other part of the story, find inspiration in other works. Which characters do you find boring? I find Paul Atreides to often be boring, I find Force-users in Star Wars, besides Obi-Wan Kenobi, to always be boring. Characters that are too smooth are boring, River Song in Doctor Who is a good example.

I see monetary resources of such a magnitude as more than ingots of gold. The finances of a character represent the will of others to work for said character, constantly being maintained and renewed.

A bit like a character levelling up can be narrated as having trained for a long time to acquire the techniques but it is only at level up that it is reflected upon mechanically, I see removing said amount from the inventory of a character as having been spent on a longer period of time, for research, goods, discussion, experimentation, by the character or by others. The moment when the gold is removed from the character sheet is only when the sum of all this is gathered, compiled and used in a way to produce the object.

There is a lot of meta-game in it.

The characters are doing much more than what the players have them do. Only most of it doesn't reflect in the mechanics. It is when a lead materialises that the cost is paid. A character doesn't get to react quicker from one day to the next in the story, she gets better at it time after time and when she has reached sufficient results, the players gets to write «Improved Initiative» on the sheet.

Such a powerful item should be an artefact. As such, price is irrelevant.

Maybe, but Sam is making a soft argument to begin with. He's just saying he likes publish modules better than homespun adventurers, and he's saying that the OP's GM's problems are a direct result of not using a published module. He might have a point.

I didn't read it the way you did. I didn't understand the following

Most GM's don't know enough about the game to create well written, balanced, level appropriate encounters.

to be a soft point at all. This statement isn't presented as an informed opinion, this is a hasty generalisation.

Agénor wrote:

...nothing to do with reality.

Ever done science before?^^

I was just saying that he invited you attack him personally, but that doesn't mean you should be rude. That kinda sounds like you're accusing him of having no objective grasp on reality.

It wasn't my intent to be rude, I do present my apologies if my form was so.

At any rate, I am not even attacking his point that most G.M. don't know what they are doing. I am attacking the weak foundations on which this statement is set, «My personal anecdotal experience is such and such and therefore I can infer unambivalent robust affirmations about realty from it.»
Whether the affirmations end up being correct or not isn't what doesn't sit well with me.

And judiciary truth often has nothing to do with reality.

Ever done science before?^^

When you don't have data/evidence you can use to prove a point, you then rely on people who have experienced the situations in question.

When one doesn't have reliable data, one doesn't make strong affirmative statements as if they were self-evident truths.

Literally, you don't know enough hence you don't know. You didn't state an opinion or a personal experience, you've stated a fact. You didn't leave open the possibility of someone answering «Well, I've had a different experience.» but left open the possible answer of «No, TxSam88, you are wrong.»

When you don't have evidence to prove a point, you can't prove it.

As Quixote said, if this were to happen at my table, I'd allow the player to make the change about his/character. This is a meta-game issue about player satisfaction, it has nothing to do with the rules. I don't see it any different than letting a player know the party won't be facing say a lot of undead if I hear a player wanting to gear her character towards being efficient at fighting undead.

The dead feat will achieve nothing good but make the player sour. With such an attitude, what prevents the player from creating a new character, identical in all points but with this feat altered?

This isn't rules, this is gameplay, quality of life, this is about each player enjoying playing the game.

I really don't see it different than never providing a character with a worthwhile weapon of the kind the character specialises in. Letting the character hang with a dead fear for a while as this is one of the possible drawbacks of teamwork, the lack of team-mate, is fine, just like throwing rust monsters is. Leaving the characters gear-less ever after isn't.

For reference.

About summoned creatures, there is an archetype of Cleric, the Herald Caller, summoning specialist, that has as part of her toolbox a modified channelling such as her summons are always considered within range of her channelling. Not only do the summons get healed but they also get affected by any relevant Variant Channelling.

You don't need an official party leader, but someone should be driving the plot forward. This is particularly important in play-by-post games, which are very prone to running out of steam.

I think the O.P. was specifically asking about those cases where all the characters are not on equal footing, where one is hierarchically superior to the others in whatever hierarchy the players believe in.

He is talking about a character leading other characters, not particularly a player leading the other players.

In one of the games I've played, our characters have been granted nobility and estates to go with it. In-universe, it made sense for only one of the characters to become the official head of the estate thus being granted the highest noble title.
We've made sure to separate when it was relevant the decision-making by the players than the one by the characters. This or that political inclination would suit the character of the leader but the player of another character wouldn't enjoy the campaign going into this direction so we the players made sure to be aware of it. In short, the decisions by the leader as leader were taken collegially by the players by meta-game discussion among ourselves.

However, it was mostly to prevent things unwanted by some players from happening. For the rest of what constitutes leading, the player playing the leader had agency on what decisions his character made.

tl;dr - By having a meta-game veto over the in-game decisions of the leader by the other players.

I think I have read somewhere that a character level n with only mundane gear, rather than magic gear of value approximately WBL, is of a power comparable to a character level n-1.
From there, adjusting the encounters is easy enough.

However, it seems the Game Master has only little grasp over Pathfinder combat between the party and monsters. A few +1 or +2 here and there that ABP would bring wouldn't solve much. The issue lies with the G.M. making the effort of undertaking reading Pathfinder then coming back to his table and being open about what he modifies. Him justifying the way he runs things with «low gold/few magic items» is inconsistent with what O.P. describes as «embarrassing, either TPK or cake walk».
One should understand before one modifies so that the modifications make sense with the bulk of the corpus.

Pathfinder is rules-heavy, it is more of a fantasy-combat simulator than a role-playing game. The fine-grain scaling of levels, class/monster abilities, H.P., hit chance, damage, saves.... All those mechanics are heavy of meaning, Pathfinder is close to a video-game in that they respect.
As such, Pathfinder isn't among the most appropriate games for what your G.M. is doing. There are other Sword and Sorcery games that would suit him much better, WFRP or Symbaroum are good examples, games without such a strong straightjacket as character class altogether but with X.P. to be spent by the player in the area where mechanical character growth is most wanted.

I've played since 1983, even done some work for WOTC, played at multiple conventions as well as in multiple countries, while there are some great GMs out there, most players and GM's have barely cracked open a rulebook, much less taken the time to read one cover to cover. While I've seen some great homebrew adventures that are very well written, balanced and written thorough enough to account for most issues, those are most certainly the exception to the rule.

What is this? Flexing role-playing muscles?

The vast majority of GMs out there are just doing things ad hoc and have very little clue how to make things balanced, enjoyable and level appropriate.

At any rate, it still is anecdotal evidence to support your statement that most G.M. don't know how to create good encounters. Since «That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.», you are wrong or as Wikipedia would put it, [citation needed].

Taking a look at how much hirelings cost, the most expensive of them is the Sage at 15g/day as a starting price and the Fence takes a 10% commission on the goods. I think those are good references. I'd go with either, depending on whether it is a one-off hire for just a few items crafted, in which case I'd rule it like a commission, same principle as the Fence, or a permanent hire, at least a month, in which case I'd rule it like the Sage.

10% is probably too high, I'd go with 5% of the cost, which makes it 25gp per day of work.

- my initial answer, addressing the O.P. at length got lost in the warp and I don't have time to rewrite it all for now -
In short, talk to your G.M. Your problem doesn't lie with the gear in the least bit but in the combat encounters. Also, how do encounters outside of combat go?

Most GM's don't know enough about the game to create well written, balanced, level appropriate encounters.

Your inference from anecdotal evidence is weak, your statement is too broad. Most G.M. I've played with have a good idea of what they are doing, with the diegesis as well as with the system.

- This talk should be in the Advice section -

I agree with Quixote, 22k is horrendously expensive to have one changeable language slot, 22k is more than what a Ring of Invisibility is priced at.
I also agree with the assessment of 2k.
- And I think the Ring of Culturemeld is also horribly over-priced, I wouldn't pay this even for a non-slotted Wondrous Item with this effect -

The class ability «Judgement» of the Inquisitor is extremely poor named, it should have been called something along the lines of «Impetus».

I suspect the design of this ability started with the Inquisitor passing judgement against a target, each type of judgement giving the Inquisitor a different bonus against said target, much like Smite Evil which probably served as an initial reference. Then, design got changed but the name stayed though now not matching at all the mechanical effect.

From there, the Warding armour helps no more against an Inquisitor than the same armour would if it hadn't been Warding.

The author of the armour probably misunderstood the mechanics of the Judgement ability of the Inquisitor.

Also, «in combat» is also poor design as it is a vague condition, especially when the ability affects the Inquisitor rather than its enemies. I've seen a lot of table variation as of what qualifies as in combat.

There are little moments that have just been pure awesome, though. The humble salt-of-the-earth fighter defying the thousand year-old lich, rolling great on his Intimidate and convincing the undead mage that maybe--just maybe--everything hasn't gone according to plan. Could he have spent the last three hundred years of plotting only to end up dust at the hands of this simple, honest man?

Or the bard who reaches out to the vampire lord and, just for a second, stirs in him memories of his knighthood, of his honor and his code.

Well then....

Yes, Positive and Negative Energy do affect Outsiders, like it regularly affects other living beings.
Outsiders have specific rules when it comes to resurrection though.

No, they do not.
Improved Familiar allows one to replace one's Familiar by choosing from a wider list. What Familiar the Wizard had before taking this feat has no bearing on the perks provided by the new Familiar to the Wizard.

@VoodistMonk,the CRB also clearly places itself in a scenario where only one creature has to resist the spell. It explains how to handle one creature affected multiple times by the same spell whereas the scenario we are discussing is about multiple creatures affected all at once by the same spell. I am not sure we can extrapolate from the case in the CRB to the one at hand.

I'd turn to other places in the rules. How is a round-house kick while surrounded by enemies handled? I believe only one attack roll is performed and checked against the AC of each opponent but I do not have the rules in front of me.

MrCharisma sees it well, Chaotic Evil if the character is willing to harm others for personal gain, Chaotic Neutral otherwise.

Being attacked doesn't trigger a Touch Spell, it only triggers if you instigate the touch.

A Trip/Disarm/Grapple doesn't trigger your spell, though escaping a Grapple is going to be difficult without discharging it.

The idea of "unintentionally" triggering a touch spell is basialy if the character and/or player forgets that their hand is charged.

Could you please provide an explanation/justification/quote about those three statements as those are answers to the questions I wanted to ask but I do not know how you reach those answers.

If Anja holds a charge, empty handed and Barnaby tries to slap her, they spar for a few instants then Barnaby finds a way inside Anja's blocks and lands his palm on her face, does it discharge the spell?
- What I've described above is in rules terms two persons, both competent with unarmed strikes, Barnaby performing an attack on Anja while Anja is holding a charge -

If the charge goes off, does it go off during one the blocks - since Anja would then deliberately be looking for contact in order to block? Does it go off when the palm makes contact with Anja's face?
If it doesn't go off, what makes it different than if it was Anja, holding the charge, facing a few blocks from Barnaby before being able to slap him in the face?

- Again, my answers to these questions are «I don't know because the rules are contradictory», I am not taking either side, I can see valid arguments both ways and I only look to be thoroughly convinced -

I think this is turning into semantics, «to touch» meaning both «being in contact with something» and «the actions which have as a consequence contact with something being made».

Is there a dimension of intentionality here? If Anja lies on a table almost naked while holding a charge and Barnaby gives her a massage with his bare hands, does the charge go off?

What of a parry like with the Swashbuckler's? Isn't a parry deliberately seeking contact?

- In case this needs to be said, the profound and wise thoughts I have read here make me like this community even more. Keep up fighting the good fight! -

@MrCharisma, what about unarmed strikes such as with the Esoteric archetype of the Magus?

- Genuine question trying to abstract from the example, I am not taking either side -

The rules speak very loudly:

CRB wrote:

Alternatively, you may make a normal unarmed attack (or an attack with a natural weapon) while holding a charge. In this case, you aren’t considered armed and you provoke attacks of opportunity as normal for the attack. If your unarmed attack or natural weapon attack normally doesn’t provoke attacks of opportunity, neither does this attack. If the attack hits, you deal normal damage for your unarmed attack or natural weapon and the spell discharges. If the attack misses, you are still holding the charge.

You are making a normal attack and if it misses you are still holding the charge. Very clear. If they meant if you miss but hit...

I understand what you are saying, I do not think it is clear. Another passage of this very same rule is in contradiction with the one you have high-lighted,

If you touch anything or anyone while holding a charge, even unintentionally, the spell discharges.

which when combined with the existence of the principle of touch AC makes it reasonable by the rules to have the spell go off if the attack makes contact.

These two points cannot be reconciled, one of them has to give. Which will is in the hands of the G.M.

- How I would decide on the ruling is a matter of precedence in the rules, seeing which is the one of higher order, trumping the one of lower order because I think consistency in how these rulings are made is what matters for a game quality -

The rules are not describing every corner case and they aren't a physics model of how a universe runs.

A spell charge doesn't go off when the holder touches the air, assuming that air is a suitable environment for said holder.

The rules can't state all the common sense cases. There are times where the Pathfinder rules are poorly written, this is the case with a spell charge and a weapon attack when the weapon attack fails to hit total AC but does hit touch AC. Here, the rules are silent when they shouldn't be as it isn't clear cut. The rules try to represent the sword of the attacker clanging on the shield of the defender, this is legitimate ground to wonder whether a charge goes off. Narration is to be aided by the rules, not the other way around. The shield does block block the sword, this point isn't debatable. How the rules model this block is what is debated.

Discussing whether the medium around the caster discharges the spell is a fallacy, namely reductio ad absurdum.
- Also, we have no idea whether matter in-universe is made of the same stuff that matter in our universe is made of. Talk of molecules, atoms, particles is therefore irrelevant -

The rules are grey at best so it is the purview of the G.M. to make a ruling. Either way, it isn't homebrew at all.

While I do agree the rules for aiming and shooting the bead of a Fireball could have been better written, since as they are, the crunch does not match the fluff, how about we take this discussion to the homebrew section?

About the arrowslit, I wonder if it is the bead has an unsteady flight, wobbling as a ball with no spin rather than purely an issue of aim. Going through an arrowslit two meters away from the caster to go explode twenty meters further isn't the same as going through the same slit twenty meters away from the caster to go explode two meters further.

Those above me are most correct and their explanations are clearer than I could have mustered^^

Or:

(1) Make a full attack.
(2) Use the shirt to move.

Or:
(1) Use your move action to move.
(2) Use your standard action as a move action and move again.
(3) Use the shirt to move.

- and one of my favourites: -

Or:
(1) Run, as a full-round action.
(2) Use the shirt to move.

Anyone know an overzealous paladin?

Isn't this a pleonasm?

That's what I think as well, but I'm afraid there will be discussion about it...

You are the Game Master, Good and Evil and what constitutes them as meta-physical concepts, in a universe where meta-physics has a strong tendency to become physics^^, is your purview as the creator of said universe. It is actually the first privilege of the Game Master, in terms of story-telling rather than adjudication of rules, to decide on the fundamental powers and views of the universe. Whether you play in a published universe such as Golarion or one created by you for the purpose of the game doesn't change a thing, you are running it, it moves through you and you decide how it moves and why it moves.

I am not saying you shouldn't explain to your players if their characters are savvy about cosmogony - and otherwise, the core of things will remain a mystery to them. I even advocate co-operative story-telling, having the players sometimes decide elements outside of their characters. But on something as fundamental as what is Good and what is Evil, once the game has been going for a while and especially when there is power at stakes for the characters, I think it is a mistake to make it a discussion. Explain but there is no negotiation to be had, your thoughts are the universe.