Algarik's page

Sorry to bother this after a year, but what's the conclusion - stupid or not?

One year later.

Conclusion;

Arithmancy: Definetly stupid feats DC are inconsistent with spell level.

Sacred Geometry: Also stupid feat, it add unnecessary math to the game.

I agree with Mark to a certain extend. Skills were not created equals. Some of them are rolled very frequently: Perception, the 5-6 useful knowledge skill, etc. Others are so rare they might as well come of as often as trivial character caracteristics such as weight.

To mitigate this a little i use a few extra rules and tricks;

1. The background skill rule from unchained works great. Skills are divited into adventuring skills(useful) and background skill (less useful). Each character are given 2 extra skill rank per level to put into background skills. A character can decide to spent extra rank they would get for adventuring skill into extra background skill.

This is great because it allows skill starve classes, such as Paladin, Clerics and Fighters to have something else than their class defines them without gimping themselves. Your fighter could pick up craft(Armor) to be an armor. your cleric of Shelyn can pick up artistry(Painting) to show his dedication to bringing beauty in the world.

2. Verbal duels ruleset from Ultimate intrigue is great because it gives secondary skills, such as Knowledge(Nobility) or Knowledge(History) ways to shine within its system. It's also good for social duel because it's complex without being too complicated. I used it a few time and had a lot of fun with it. The only downside is that it's mostly focused for one on one debate, so i allow the party to help the primary debater with ''aid another'' so they can contribute.

3. I make sure that players concept align with their skills. A noble character typically need some ranks in knowledge(nobility), Ride, Perform(Any), etc.

4. I make sure that secondary skills can come in handy during investigation, information gathering, etc. For example, linguistics checks to notice forgery, knowledge(nobility) to know some dark facts about the local noble familly, etc.

5. I'm not overly generous on magical items and special material. If they want some, they can craft it.

Sure my trick wont make secondary skill any more powerful than the classic adventuring skills, but i find that it justify taking them at times. I've had some good success so far.

Luckily, feather fall has only a vocal component.

Oh good catch! I guess it makes arcane armor training a tiny bit better then.

Actually, according to the rules, Evil implies "hurting, oppressing, and killing others." Those are not singular things. You can't just reach in a say "Evil is hurting ... others'. That is taking the issue out of context and creating a logical inconsitency. Hurting can mean very different things, from a tiny amount of pain to outright torture. Hurting AND oppressing AND killing, used together, imply something fairly specific. It goes on to say that some do these things out of a lack of compassion (ie, are willing to do it if it is convenient to do so) or that they actively enjoy doing it.

Fair point. I might have been reading too much into it. And i know Pathfinder was not written to hold ''pure RAW'' scrutiny so taking everything within context is important.

By no means are Paladins forbidden from hurting or killing Evil creatures. Killing is a neutral action in a vacuum. Animals hurt and kill each other without alignment issues. A Paladin using violence to subdue and apprehend (or execute) an evil criminal is certainly justified. How that Paladin goes about it, why they are going about it, determine whether the action is Lawful or Chaotic. The action is neither Good nor Evil. It is merely an action.

I'm not sure i would call killing neutral within Pathfinder's morality, but i'm not totally unconvinced either. Animals being devoid of morality is generally justified because they don't have moral sentience, otherwise Cats would totally be ''Evil'' by what they do to birds.

I'd point you more towards alignment being a specific kind of universal force that people align themselves with. Things can get a bit more sticky in the Outer Planes where being can be made up of these forces. But that is outside the discussion of Paladins and their role.

Yeah that's actually what i meant. Alignement in pathfinder are real in the sense that they aren't merely conceptual.

Feel free to judge away! I won't take offense to what you say. This is just an free exchange of ideas and discussions of paradigms within a game system. It is not like its reflective of my real life worldview.

Cool! Just wanted to make sure, written communication is not ideal to convey intent and tone at times.

I think you convinced me that it is a working system if you apply some judgement.

When i look at the game moral framework though, i feels like it's a weird melting pot of consequentialism and deontological ethics mixed together without a clear definition of what it's core concept means.

Still thanks for explaining, i can at least understand your point of view now!

It was not my intention to come off as critiquing your position. My statement was a general one, meant to address an issue a lot of people have with alignment in games when it differs from reality. If it does not fit you, feel free to disregard it.

No worries! I was merely trying to access, it's hard to do over text.

I do, actually, adhere to the core definition of alignment in the game system. There are no contradictions in it unless you actually bring in real world moral frameworks (such as causing harm or killing to be inherently evil). Many people find it too simplistic or vacuous to adequately serve as a reliable form of moral structure, but after many such discussions over my very long stint of playing these games, I find it more often that the person simply does not like the implications such conclusion make when they view their own actions, behavior, desires or impulses in real life through the same lens. Real life is more morally grey and indistinct and the alignment system in D&D (and pathfinder) are more crystal clear and sharp.

Then i'm a bit at a loss here. I fear like there's something i'm missing to truly understand your position.

According to the core rulebook, killing and hurting are ''Evil'' act.
If we agree that the definition of Good and Evil, within Golarion, is defined by the description in the core rulebook, then there's no need to bring in real world ethics into it.

The Paladin code of honor is either self contradicting or way more restricting that it appears at first glance, because, still according to the alignement section, killing and hurting is an ''Evil'' act and yet Paladins are required to punish wrongdoers.

Are Paladins at your tables forbidden from killing or hurting ''Evil'' creature? (Not that there's anything wrong with that kind of play in itself.)

Or is alignement more of a cosmic force that inhabits each creature with alignement and thus removing them from the world/multiverse is in itself an act of the contrary alignement? For example, if killing an ''Evil'' creature is a ''Good'' act, is killing a ''Lawful'' creature a ''Chaotic'' act?

I'm really just trying to grasp how you view it, not judging.

All this Good vs Evil vs Law vs Chaos is the exact baggage I try avoid. I understand that, at its very core, the Paladin is the embodiment of this very struggle... and it is why I do not play Paladins. Lol.

I personally think it's fun. You just need to be clear on what alignement represent around your table so people can make choices with clear intent.

I do madly respect them as an adversary, though. And, as such, I never toy with their duty when we inevitably meet...

Paladins are cool adversary for Evil games, but i think my favorite type of villains are Lawful Evil. There's just something about a complete Jerk that clings to a code of honor that appeals to me. Like, you can respect their dedication even though you disagree with their ideals.

Ah, well, that is easily answered...

*glances at Mark Hoover 330's post*

Yep, that about sums it up. If you need to understand what I see as Good vs Evil, you simply need to go to the source book on it, the Core Rulebook. My description of Good vs Evil in the real world differs from the game setting but I am extremely capable of disassociating what I believe from something else, putting it aside and temporarily adopting that new belief system. I do not inject my own moral relativism into the game world.

Am i mistaken if i read your last sentence as a critique of my position?Injecting seems to imply, forcing as vision and i somehow interpret that as a ''bad thing'' to do. English is my second language and i'm not sure if i'm missing something or reading too much into it.

I would defend myself by adding that, i do not infact inject moral relativism in pathfinder, as i'm not a moral relativist myself. However a definition of Good is needed to understand if an act is Good or Evil. The core rulebook is not very helpful unfortunately. It list some examples of aligned actions, but never define what good is.

Also, just as a side not utilitarianism is not relative in the sense of what Good and Evil is, it's pain and pleasure. Sure pain and pleasure is relative to each moral agent, but according to the theory, actions are mesurable by the amount of pleasure or pain they bring into the world.

I apologize if this comes out as rude it couldn't be furthest from my intention. I'm sure you're an intelligent person, but I also doubt you stricly adhere to the core definition of alignement as it's unplayable and contradicting with a lot of other sources. I'm fairly sure you apply reason and context to judge how an action align.

Simply because Paladins would be walking contradions.

Here's what the corerulebook mentions.

If killing and hurting are evil acts, then Paladins would fall as soon as they kill their first ennemy by virtue of commiting and Evil act. Yet their code requires to '' punish those who harm or threaten innocents'', which is a pretty hard thing to do without killing. I guess they could go Superman still and avoid all killing at all time. It's a cool concept, but i'm also sure it's not how paladins were originaly envisioned.

Again, i do not meant this in a condescending way and i do not imply you follow pure RAW without judgement as your previous comment about the soul sacrifice indicates that you do in fact apply judgement.

I also apologize if my previous comment about framing your argument as utilitarian was offensive, never was my intention either.

Finally, i just want rehiterate that this is just my view on it and i'm not asking you to change your point of view or anything, i'm merely sharing.

Paladins will ALWAYS choose Good over Law, because they fall if they commit the Evil act. It is written into their code. A Paladin SHOULD feel more like a Neutral Good character, instead of a Lawful Neutral character when it comes to the subject of Good vs Evil. The key difference is that Paladin are intrinsically Lawful and should experience a kind of dissonance when they are unable to choose a Lawful option, even if that is not roleplayed out.

I mean, its not hard to imagine what that feels like. We all have a sense of what is 'fair' or not that we experience in real life. When a Paladin has to choose between a Lawful or Chaotic act, I assume it feels very similar to that. Not Evil, but not quite 'right' either.

I think i agree, because that's how i play most paladins. However the difficulty is not when having to choose between Neutral Good and Lawful Evil, but rather when choosing between Neutral Good and Lawful Neutral.

Lawful Good wrote:

Lawful good combines honor with compassion.

THAT, for ME personally, encapsulates the soul of how I would play a paladin. Honor with compassion. And its that second word that never ceases to confound EVERY player, anecdotally, in my games with the exception of ONE player I've had in the past 15 years.

There is however within the Lawful Good alignement the following passage:

A lawful good character hates to see the guilty go unpunished.

This is most certainly not a nice trait. I'd argue it's where the Loyal bleeds in and corrupt the Goodness of Lawful Good. There's something vindictive within it. As if the punishiment is more important that the reparation for an injustice.

However i still agreed with you and Deathless that those two value should define Paladin. Paladins are awesome.

Dang it all these talks about Paladin makes me wanna roll a Healadin! :(

THAT, for ME personally, encapsulates the soul of how I would play a paladin. Honor with compassion. And its that second word that never ceases to confound EVERY player, anecdotally, in my games with the exception of ONE player I've had in the past 15 years.

I have the reverse problem. Myself and my fellow players generally have trouble with the Lawful part of the Paladin.

Almost any time there's a conflict between Law and Good, my players and I tend to gravitated toward Good instead of Lawful, which makes them feels very much like Neutral Good character.

I think that's because i personally view Paladin as champions of good first and champions of Law second. After all, they smite evil, not chaos.

I don't really think there is any correct or incorrect views or opinions on what Paladins are, or are not. To each their own.

Oh of course.

Clerics deal with concepts. They woo crowds with their words. They preach sermons to the ignorant masses. They fill their churches the same way a greed fills a wallet. Like most organized religion, it is all BS posturing. It's just a numbers game to Clerics and clergy. They don't actually care. If someone chooses to join their church, good. If someone doesn't, it's whatever. Even if someone in the church sins or does something Evil, the Clerics are under no obligation to do literally anything about it.

I think here you are mistaken. I think you're conflating priests and clerics.

Clerics are more than mere priests, though; these emissaries of the divine work the will of their deities through strength of arms and the magic of their gods.

Clerics are as much divine champion as Paladins are, they just differ in how they express their gift. Paladin are divine champion to the cause of Law and Good while clerics are divine champions of the dieties, which themselves are alignement with the cosmic axis of Evil, Chaos, Good and Law.

Can cleric be corrupted? Sure they can workship evil good, and are allowed more leniancy than Paladins are, however i very much disagree to the proposition that they are mere bureaucrats and preachers.

I can't really express how fundamentally I disagree with this. I suppose it has to do with the use of the phrases pleasure/happiness. I am focused on Good vs Evil. Pleasure/happiness can be derived from the suffering of others, and as such, is merely a subjective term that needs an impartial, omniscient arbiter in order to measure and way properly. I do not pretend to be such and simply do not use such metrics in my assessment.

Ah i see where the disagreement stems from then. In that case for me to understand your argument i would need to understand what you mean by ''Good'' and ''Evil''.

Also, just because pleasure and pain are subjective to each individual moral agent, it does not mean the concept as a whole is subjective. Within utilitarian ethics, what is ''good'' is what brings the maximum amount of happiness to the maximum number of moral agents(which are things that can feel pain and pleasure).

Sure utilitarian ethics has a few bugs and i'm not saying either that it's perfect. It just originally understood your argument as somewhat utilitarian, my mistake.

The ''general amount of happiness in the world'' has no real bearing to my argument. Happiness in the 'mortal realm' (as we know Golarion and other places in the Material Plane), is a transitory thing and quite subjective. You can be having a really bad day and yet increasing the overall influence of Good in the world. A Paladin's soul is NEVER worth sacrificing to bring about 'happiness'. That is my honest, blunt opinion on it. Then again, it is my opinion on just about ANY soul in question.

Oh i never meant happiness restrained to the material world, i meant world as in universe, multiverse, call it however you want, i meant world as in ''the sums of things that exists''. I also meant happiness in the sense of utilitarian ethics, which means happiness = Good. If a soul can feel pain or pleasure, then it counts as a moral agent within utilitarian ethics. If your argument is not utilitarian it's at least consequentialist as you mentioned the ''worth'' of the paladin's soul as the argument for their sacrifice not being justified. Which is why i said ''we could immagine a scenario in which the sacrifice of a paladin's soul could be considered a worthy deal''.

According to me, the deal is a good decision for the Paladin only and only if it raise the sums of pleasure/happiness in all world combined. Even if the paladin's soul is used to nefarious ends eventually, as long as the sums stays positive, then its still a worthy deal.

If we go by a more deontological approach, ala Kant lets say, and we suggest that actions are good and bad in themselves, and we define that dealing with Evil is always an Evil act, then sure that type of deal can never be a good act.

However, it seems like the Paladin code, in Pathfinder, is a mix of deontological and consequentalist approach. Paladins seems to follow ''Rule utilitarianism'' which is basically following a set of rules that are trying to raise the amount of Good in the world until the point where breaking those rule is required to save a great amount of Evil. For example, allying yourself with evil is is prohibited, unless you fight a greater evil.

According to my view, being a good decision does not matter on the Paladin's moral character as what count is good intent. The action is aligned with Good if the Paladin intent was perform a ''good'' act.

Now should the Paladin fall if they ally themselves with Evil entities and fail to prevent greater Evil? Eh, i don't know, probably it's a classic case of playing with fire, but then it also depends on the scenario. If the Paladin got betrayed or failed due to means outside his own control, then probably not.

Finally, i don't wanna imply that your views are wrong or anything, i was merely sharing my point of view on the matter as i always enjoy debating on ethics.

The whole good=/=nice needs to die. Technically true but primarily used as a way of saying Good=A&!%*$~!, which is not at all the point of the alignment.

I totally agree with you, even though that's not how Paladins were originally thought of according to Gygax. I don't have the link, but according to him, killing unarmed, merciless Chaotic Evil prisoner is a Lawful Good act. Which seems to validate my views that alignement in D&D were more or less meant as factions with different flavors.

As I said though the flip side is I either have to give up two feats (armor proficiency and arcane armor training), a swift action each round and still possibly deal with it if the failure chance is high enough.

Not only that but you'll also have to deal with arcane spell failure if you cast in immediate action spell, making it worse than it already appeared. Rolling Arcane Spell failure on Feather fall gotta be real fun when you need it.

I'm not saying you're wrong DeathlessOne, but when i say ''We could imagine a scenario'' i mean that in the broadest sense, as ''it could be possible''.

For example: What if those soul were stolen by Abyssal force to use in a foul ritual and Asmodeus as a way of interviening if the Paladin agree to a deal?

A Paladin would have to be extremely cautious and incredibly courageous to volonteer for such a sacrifice.

Another example: What if containing a greater evil could be prevented by sacrificing one's soul?

If we're going by utilitarian ethics, which is ultimately what your argument looks to be leaning on, then there are some rare possibles scenarios in which a paladin can sacrifice their soul by working with devils to increase the ''general amount of happiness in the world''.

We could imagine a scenario where Asmodeus could offer a Paladin a choice of sacrificing his soul in exhange for saving a greater number of soul. In which case the sacrifice would be noble.

However, the Paladin could simply refuse and still be ''good'' as if Asmodeus is offering a deal, there's most certainly a catch.

I have redone the monetary system. A coin with 9 grams of gold (or even 5 if it is an alloy) is very valuable and not convenient to use for everyday expenses. It is like using 500 € banknotes to buy groceries. So, in my campaign, the standard coins are silver but is possible to get gold pieces to bring down the weight. Gold money is used for most magic items transactions.

In advanced realms (Taldor, Quadira, Chelaxia, etc.) there are letters of change emitted by banks and Abadar churches. After all the Inner Seas region is as developed as Renaissance Europe, so it is reasonable to think that the advanced nations have a complex monetary system.

I've done something similar in my homebrewed world, but less complex. Basically divided the vavlue of everyhting by 10 and added a new small currency called dime which are worth 1/10 of a copper coin. Everything in game manual that has a listed price is considered to have its price listed in silver instead. Gold is thus pretty valuable has it's worth 10 time it's price in pathfinder. Platine are basically gems tha are just there for deals of extreme value, kind like the old 1000$ bills.

?

Arcane Spell Failure is based on the encumbrance of the armor, not the weight you are carrying.

It would make Arcane spellcaster less inclined to completly dumb str however... *sadistically makes notes*

As for encumbrance, i think it sucks micromanaging it because the inventory sheet is just bad. When i ran my 5e i made a basic custom sheet that was bigger, larger, had entry for the value, the weight and also location.

Oh and i found that most of the time the culprit for extra unaccounted weight is just the sheer amount of coin the party is carrying. 1lbs for each 50 gp is not bad at first level, but it starts to pile up really quickly if you don't find means to convert or store it.

Without pounce, it's not that much more of a threat. Without flight or ranged attacks, it's still very weak to the typical method of nullifying the encounter.

While that's true, martials are still gonna bite it, its still very dangerous to melee. The basic Tyrannosaurus is strong, but not too dangerous to go up against in melee because it's limited to one attack. If we typically acknowledge the fact that adventurers tend to fight creature 3 cr above them, dishing out 110 damage average damage in a turn is a significant bump. Most adventurer of 8 to 9 will get destroyed if it gets a round. Of course, it's CR can be totally nullified by flying high enough and shooting it down with a bown. That's asumming it's possible, as it could be met in a closed temple, or somewhere where such tactic is hard to pull off.

I think VoodistMonk version is nice, although very scary. With +5 initiative, pounce and fast swallow, it's like a dire tiger on steroid. With 3 attacks at +22 on a charge, 130 average damage in a round, it's a destroyer of adventurer. CR 12 seems appropriate though as it can't do much more else. The plus side is that this thing has -11 in stealth so it should be obvious from afar.

*) Except Bard, which seems to be really unpopular among 3.x veterans in stuck in nostalgia mode, for some reason.

As a 3.5 veteran i love pathfinder's Bard, but i get where they are coming from, bard design was so frustrating in 3.5...

I don't disagree with Mark, but considering that the Tyrex bite deals an average of 35.5 dmg per hit, discounting any critical, i feel like adding two extra bite is worth +2 CR.

According to the monster creation table, the Tyrex as a bonus to hit of roughly a CR 11 creature, but the damage of a CR 8. If we had two extra bite, this bumps the damage to CR 18-19, which is pretty significant.

His defensive capabilities aren't also too terrible. The Tyrex has hp equal to a creature of CR 11-12 and the AC of a CR 8. It's saving throws are around CR 11-12 as well.

However, the tyrex being dump as a brick should be factored into it's CR, and probably already is, any party that has access to mobility magic can totally ignore or destroy the poor dinosaur.

I don't know how much of a ''cerberus'' creature you wanna make it, but maybe it could breath fire like a hellhound? That way it would give it a bit of ways to deal with flying creature, which at CR 10-11 would be vital.

I think there's another thing to that might explain the lack of ASF. Back in 3.5, there was no easy option to ignore it, if you wanted to play a Gish you were either going unarmored or you had some way to reduce ASF throught prestige class, which didn't come before at least 6th level.

Now that Magus exist to fill the gish archetype, there's absolutely no reason to ever to even consider having to deal with ACF.

The only time i remember playing a characther with Arcane Spell failure was when in DDO i tried playing a Warforged wizard with Adamentine Body. Needless to say i ended up abandonning that character pretty quickly when i realised that wiffing one third of your spell is just not fun.

As Derklord put it, mage armor is good enough if you want the equivalent of Light Armor AC and if you need more you just can't afford the high percentage.

As for ways to deal with it i always found that Arcane armor training and arcane armor mastery were kind of bad. You need two feats and mithral armor to make it relevant and it still eats your swift action everyturn.

First it wanna say it's an awesome idea, i love it!

So, here's a question: What happens if someone writes her name in a journal? Does the writing become blurry and fade away over time? Or does the name remain in the journal, but nobody remembers who the name...

Depending on how you wanna go about the curse, it could also be impossible for her to write her name correctly. If no one can truly remember her, all any attempt to write her name could result in gibberish. That could be justified by the idea Mightypion had to tie it to her true name.

And if you want to add a bit of personal horror, what if she can't be certain of who she really was? What if some of her memories turn out to be fake? Don't quote me on that, but i've read somewhere that our brains are pretty good at filling blanks in our memory with false one.

As a GM instead of making a paladin fall, i'm a fan of letting them keep their power through a trickery diety intervention. They get to keep their power for a while, thinking their God is fine with their actions until they realise that they have been working for a nefarious god for a while.

After the reveal, they have the choice to realise their mistake and fall, to then seek the path of atonement, or pursue the path of power because they are gone too far already.

Hoarding habits might be a reason for the ''pheonix down problem'' but as both player and DM i found that usually most consummable items aren't very great to begin with.

- Potions provoke attack of opportunity and generally don't last long enough.
- Scrolls are fine for niche spell caster never want to prepare, but are generally pretty meh in combat thanks to their spell DCs. Beside, it require specialisation one might not be able to afford to use them reliably.
- Wands are fine on certain spell, but suffer from the same problem as Scrolls, their spell DC is bad.

Wondrous items are too diverse to quantify, but outside of the ring of wishes, most items with charges had pretty mild spell DC, again making them unreliable at best.

This leaves staves and rods which already see plenty of use, but they are rechargeable and are very powerful.

Paladins are an amazing mix of DPR, tankyness and support, which only ranger get close to, but i feel like most people over here already made a serious case for paladin, so i won't argue further.

I want however to go over the code of conduct.

If your main villain puts a helpless NPC in jeopardy, you HAVE to save the NPC, even if this guarantees the villain escapes. Otherwise, mechanically, you lose all your powers.

I personally think that a DM that makes a paladin fall for choosing to pursue the villain instead of saving an innocent NPC is being way too harsh. Here's what the code of conduct mentions;

A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class features except proficiencies if she ever willingly commits an evil act.

Additionally, a paladin’s code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.

The code does encompass helping those in need, but it also encompass punishing those who harm or threaten innocents. If the Paladin acts with the greater good in mind, i would never make them fall.

Otherwise would the paladin also fail because they failed to catch the villain who then murdered bunch of other innocent helpless people?

Are paladins even that restricted by their code to begin with?
- They have to respect legitimate authority. This one could be problematic, but each time i've seen it matter, the paladin had an excuse to consider the authority unlegitimate. (The leader is evil, or is not considered legitimate by the Paladin's god)
- They can't lie. This one is kind of restrictive, but has a social character with very few skill points, this just saves paladins skill ranks they don't have to put in bluff. Beside, even if they can't lie, they can decide to keep their mouth shut.
-They can't cheat. So what? I've never seen cheating as a mandatory anywhere. Beside, what constitute cheating is not totally clear.
- Not using poison. Poisons are incredibly niche, so just don't build a poison based paladin.
- Help those in need. Isn't what all good character do anyway?
- Punish those who harm or threaten innocent. Again, this is just basic good adventurer stuff.

Paladin in 1e can even associate with evil character to fight off greater evil, so it's not even as restricted as it was in 3.5.

Their code of honor besically boils down to : Be good and honorable.

Honestly, the Antipaladin has a harsher code to follow and they are Chaotic, go figure.

My only grip with paladin is that their isn't a paladin of every alignement like in 3.5. Unless i missed some archetype i'm not aware of.

I personally optimise my villains very much, beyond what i already know, because i think it get tedious to do. I'd rather spend my time and energy on crafting an interesting adventure. Not that it's impossible to do both, but alas i don't have unlimited time to prepare each week sessions.

I will optimize their basic numbers if needs be, like grabbing power attack for an ennemy that needs to hit hard, or Spell Focus for casters if i need them to be a treat, but i won't look out for every possible combos i can make with various feats.

I will make my villain stronger by virtue of using effecient tactics or being well surrounded.

Giant Archer: Cool, no one is in melee range, so I get a full attack on the elf. Oh look, a critical.

Weapons with x3 critical are so deadly. I had a Drow chain-fighter finesse/AC tank back in 3.5 die at full health thanks to a minotaur's great Axe, got taken straight from 47 HP to -10 in one hit. I felt cheated lol

My sessions generally last for 5 to 6 hours. As for how many combat there is, it really depend on what part of the adventure my players are at. If they are in in dungeon we'll be looking at 4 to 6 encounter within one session. If they are taking part in an investigation or a political part of the adventure, there might be 1 or two combat encounter, but it's also entirely possible that there is none.

I have a few solution to solving the 5 minutes adventuring days:
1. I make time an issue. Most of my quest will have a time limit. If my players rest after each battle because they go nova in each battle, they will reach a point where the baddies just succeeded at doing what they we're trying to achieve, which might not be game over but it will definetly be bad news.
2. I homebrewed that spellcasters don't fully regenerate their magical energy between rest. I personally play with spell points, but basically my system would give back an equivalent of Caster level+ Spellcasting Stat mod spell slot back per long rest. Sponteanous spellcaster regeneration is increased by 50% while 4th level spellcasters regeneration is decreased by 50%. It might not be a perfect rule, but it still discourage casters from spending all their spells in one battle.

Senko wrote:

Diego Rossi wrote:

Yes, the goal is exactly to prevent a wizard from casting dominate on the king during a state function without anyone noticing.

Spells that "enhance your diplomacy" increasing your skill bonus generally have a duration and can be cast some time in advance. Spells that "enhance your diplomacy" charming or dominating the other person or manipulating his mind generally require to target the other person and are an assault. Making them undetectable isn't what the developers want.

Which is why I hate it because that's a wonderful plot hook and gives a reason for non-magical kings to have magical protection or a royal wizard watching the event.

So, you want a magocracy in every state of the world, as sooner or later the royal wizard will be the guy that will dominate the kind.

In Golarion ruler are generally fairly high level, because a weak ruler would just succumb to the first threat. So even with stealthier enchantement or illusion spells they would likely be able to resist.

Enchantement isn't the only problem a ruler could face, any 5th level wizard can cast, Flight, invisibility and snipe the royal court with a fireball from 600ft. Sure an average of 17.5 dmg is not too great, but that's not even optimized and that's at 5th level only.

Most fantasy world seems to include magic as an afterthought. Magic is like there, but it isn't really taken into consideration beside some plot device or battle abilities, while it should be as prevalent as science technology is to us today. I'm not an expert on Eberron, but it looks like it's handling the effect of magic in the way it shapes society pretty well.

My online name manage to have even less of an interesting story than my real life name. ''Algarik'' is just something i though sounded fantasy enough and used as a summoner name for league of legends. It's now been my defacto online moniker.

I could have used my real name, Joric, which sounds fantasy as well, but i don't know, it felt weird so i didn't.

I'm from Quebec, Canada. Although but both names have nothing to do with our general naming conventions.

I agree that it's unclear, but i disagree on the intend behind the rule.

I interpret ''strong'' and ''firm'' to at least mean something louder than whisper. Otherwise, why not just say whispering is fine?

Given that James Jacobs wrote:

We often illustrate spellcasting with associated glowing magic runes in the air. Smell and sound is absolutely associated with spellcasting as well. It's not something you can do subtly . You need special class abilities or feats or other things to cast spells without showing yourself off. Spellcasting gives away your invisible location as much as shrieking while invisible does.

I think that whispering might be fine, but the intention was that Magic was not something you can easily conceal. Which is somewhat of a shame for illusion and Enchantement spell as it makes them obvious as heck.

Another idea could be that the ''high level version'' are presented at first as distant ancestor from a very far future. Every so often you could run a battle or a scene from their ancestors as dream. They slowly uncover what cosmic threat their ancestors had to deal with. The battle should be chronoligacally in reverse. Meaning you start with the big final confrontation with the Big Bad, in which they fail. and you slowly unpack their ancestors journey, maybe even deleveling them if needed.

Keep revealing bits of informations until they reach a point in which the dream they experience is the same battle they will have on the following day. Then they stop experiencing the dream and realise that they weren't receiving vision of the past, but vision of the future. And now they have to find a way to win knowing that they already failing to stop the cosmic villain in the future.

Cool weapon ability Chad. I'm pretty sure they didn't know about it since this thread was active 5 years before that book came out.

In regards to verbal spells and percieving them:

SPELL COMPONENTS wrote:

Verbal (V): A verbal component is a spoken incantation. To provide a verbal component, you must be able to speak in a strong voice. A silence spell or a gag spoils the incantation (and thus the spell). A spellcaster who has been deafened has a 20% chance of spoiling any spell with a verbal component that he tries to cast.

So the general rule is that you must be able to "speak in a strong voice". Being hit by a QUIETING WEAPON gives you specific permission to get around this requirement while under the effects of this spell, but doesn't change the general rule.

Great, now we're gonna have a bunch of mad wizards stabbing themselves in the thigh with magic daggers so they can whisper their spells!

Yeah, Language barriers become moot as soon as you get your first Wand of Comprehend Languages /shrug.

Ugh, Don't remind me lol, that's a big pet peeve of mine. Ancient forgotten language of past era that would involve a quest around figuring a way to translate it? Nope, we can't have those. Any 1st level adept can literally translate anything.

Sure there's way around it, but still. Anyway /rant.

Another thing is that Paizo doesn' really do "half-learned" languages. You either speak/read them fluently or not at all. This is just because the system isn't great at handling these subtleties. Wizards, Magi etc arr probably learning Draconoc/Infernal/Sylvan/etc in order to read ancient magic tomes, not to speak it at the pub. It'd be more like how academics learn latin or ancient greek ... except as I stated the game doesn't handle that very well.

I liked how Shadowrun handled it. Basically language were some kind of skills with skill ranks and character's had their social skill rank capped by their language skills when dealing in a language they weren't condired native speaker. IIRC it was possible to get to a character to a high level of fluency enough that they were treated has native speaker.

I'm not sure how i'd do that in pathfinder. I'm also not sure if it would be worth the hassle.

Oracle of Battle might be a good fit... still though, I wouldn't mind a Reach Cleric or Bard. I don't find these classes to be a lot of bookkeeping, and choosing spells each day isn't hard. Cleric/Oracle and Bard both have a short list of decent go-to spells for daily usage and easily navigable action economy, so this is the "minimal thought" that I'm looking for (combat is easy-- Move Action Standard Action No Swift-- and my options for Standard are: attack, cast a spell, or channel/performance). When I say classes with a lot of thought/upkeep, I'm thinking of classes with a heavy reliance on summons or item creation, like Druids, Summoners, Alchemists, and Wizards, where there is a decent amount of time spent out-of-sesh to do it right and you have 1000 options in combat, or classes that have a metric butt-ton of class abilities and a literal swamp of thought towards action economy, like Warpriest.

Fair enough, if you think you can handle the other option, then the reach cleric build with Dazing channel sounds kinda cool too.

I just find that with prepared spell caster it takes a bit more time to play out their turn because they tend to have a lot of option and it's easy to get lost when you're already playing ennemies which might have prepared spell caster as well.

In my current campaign my group is accompagnied by an Archivist (basically a cleric with a spellbook) and i find that i use too much time and brainpower on her turn. I've had to ask a player to run initiative because i was getting lost at moment when fatigue kicked in. It's not too bad, but i think i would have been a better idea to make her an oracle instead.

I'm sure you're an experienced DM and probably can handle it well, but i like to think of myself as an experienced DM as well (been doing that over 12 years) and sometimes going simpler, even though we can handle it, let us focus energy else were.

Oh if you're deadset on Reach Cleric, you could also go Reach Life Oracle with channel, you'd basically accomplish the same thing as a cleric, but again, simpler.

From your suggestion Oracle of Battle seems like the best choice. It fills the spot your group is not already covering and it will require less bookkeeping than the rest of your ideas. Bard has a few perfomance to keep track off, cleric must prepare spell each days. Battle Oracle just has like 2 spells + cure wounds and that's it, you can pick Skills at arm at 1st level and weapon mastery at second level and you're set until level 7.

For race, it really depends on the tone you want to give to your game and at that level of optimisation i don't think it really matter. Rather think of a way to make the NPC compelling without making it look too much like a snowflake. Unless your group is into that which is fine, i just personally find it a tad annoying.

The PCs could also ascend just by being so damn good at defeating divine minions that locals start hero-worshipping them, giving them enough spiritual juice to ascend.

And then they become the very thing they swore to destroy, genius, i love it!

I don't think the group is interested in another system 2A (weakening the gods) is how i plan to start the campaign off.

oh and theres minor rumblings amongst the group aabout possible do a kind of kingmaker: rahadoum

If you're comfortable with high level pathfinder, then Mythic play might be what you're looking for to handle those high CR threats.

Deities and Demigods is a good suggestion as well, but it's probably even more broken than Mythic play. You might wanna look at epic level rules from 3.5(or was it 3.0?) too if you want to make diety and demigods compatible with pathfinder.

If i were you i'd ask your players how they would prefer to play the game. Have they ever played high level campaign?

The highest i've played in pathfinder was 15 and i felt like everything was just inflated numbers and broken spells. I also ran a Dnd 5e game up to lvl 19 and my players hated the higher level as it consisted mostly of rocket tag, banishment spam etc. High level play is not for everyone. Some can make it work, but it just breaks my soul.

Being "diva" does not mean that you are the star, it means that you are in the role that determines you to create and in which you develop, if no other person does the same It's not my fault anymore if you're not motivated to role-play

I feel like this is not what people mean when they refer to a ''diva'' character. The DMG refers to a diva as the type of player who is''[...]the center of attention, the focus of all roleplaying interaction that occurs in the campaign world. Every interactions, introduction, and event is another opportunity for her to shine, while the rest of the group struggles to get a word in edgewise.''(GameMastery Guide p.72, emphasis mine.)

What you're describing is someone who takes Roleplaying seriously, which is something good. The Diva has that quality but also the bad habits of trampling other's moment to shine as well. If the rest of the group ''struggles to get a word in'' it means that it's a bit more than just roleplaying. The Diva player is probably cutting others who talk, don't let a second for other players who might also have some ideas, etc.

I've been guilty of it in the past, because i love being the party's face. I realized how bad it was when i got paired with another Diva player as we'd often cut each others out. This is a lack of respect and consideration for your fellow player. It goes further than optimization, which is another player archetype; the Power Gamer.

Now now, before i fall into the stormwind fallacy, i'm not saying you can't be both, which i used to be as well, but power gaming is another matter. Power gaming can be good or bad depending on the campaign's goal.

I have no remorse for being a "diva" simply because I have a character that remembers NPC names and interacts with the NPC's, and has side-gigs outside the party, and has a ranged weapon for fighting at range, and alchemical items for every situation, and I make Profession Soldier checks to stand guard on the wall when we visit settlements and then drink with my new guard friends at the pub afterwards, and I took traits for skills and make skill checks... I'm having fun playing the game, doing what the game offers possible to everyone.

There's nothing inherently diva with what you describe as well. It just mean you invest time and energy into your characters, which is great. It becomes a Diva trait if your side gigs includes no other players and takes more than 15 minutes of gametime while others are forced to twiddles their thumbs.

It can be great if your side mission stories and weaves into the GM's campaign, but it becomes annoying when it's so outside the group interest that it steals gametime from others. If you want to engage in such things solo side games or pre-game discussion with the GM are better ways to handle this, imo.

I've had a bit of this syndrome in the past and i don't think there's any magic trick to surpassing it, you just gotta be aware of the problem. Make sure you don't talk over your friend, wait a bit before jumping in social encounters, lets the other time to shine. It boils down to being respectful, simple stuff really.

Mark Hoover's trick are also pretty good. Playing support characters are also good idea as it makes you shine by helping other succeed, thus placing them in the spotlight.

No, both AoO's are provoked the exact instant you begin to cast the spell. The Ranged Touch Attack is made as a part of casting that spell. It's considered two separate provoking events for the same singular action.

And yet if you fail your concentration check the spell ''fizzle with no effect''(As per Concentration under the combat section), meaning that you don't even get to make a ranged attack as spell such as Schorching rays list the rays as being the effect. If there's no rays being fired, there's no attack being made, so you get AoO for something you didn't even do.

Again i see your logic, but i can't agree with it. This is fine though, it's such a corner case scenario that i legit never saw happened in more than 15 years of play.

You still provoke AoO's for casting Spells that have Ranged Touch Attacks, even if you cast them defensively. That's in the Ranged Touch Spell rules.

Ranged Touch Spells in Combat wrote:

Ranged Touch Spells in Combat: Some spells allow you to make a ranged touch attack as part of the casting of the spell. These attacks are made as part of the spell and do not require a separate action. Ranged touch attacks provoke an attack of opportunity, even if the spell that causes the attacks was cast defensively. Unless otherwise noted, ranged touch attacks cannot be held until a later turn.

That is correct, but this does not mean that the casting of the spell and the attack happens at the same time, it just means that they happen as part of the same action. The FAQ you linked earlier even mentionned the casting and the attack being two seperate event.

At this point though, i'm not sure either party will be able to convince the other. I can see the logic you're arguing for, but then again i don't see our interpretation as wrong either. It just happens that your interpretation seems to cause more problems than it solves.

For CR system being useless i feel like this is a case of expectation. As other as mentionned, the CR system is there for PCs with 15 points buy that aren't well optimized.

Instead of bucking my head against trying to find a way to make the CR system work for uber-pcs, i decided to go the other way around.

I might come off as a controlling GM, but my player's character are all 15 point buy, loot is rather scarces and there's a limit to optimization i'm willing to allow in my campaign until i ask the player to dial it down.

Since i've changed my approach i find the CR system to be a lot more sane and players are still having fun.

That is a little different though. For a single move action you will not provoke more than once from any given creature. But if you move past 5 creatures you generate an AoO for each of them. The full attacking archer though does generate multiple AoOs from each creature.

Oh, i guess you're right, i've been playing combat reflexes wrong all this time, oh well.

Although, your Archer example is a good one. It would be weird for an Archer to get all their AoO at the begening of their full attack action, potentially dropping them before they can even make enough attack to account for the number of attack of opportunity they took.

There’s also precedent for a single action provoking multiple attack of opportunity. A creature can provoke attack of opportunity multiple time within a move action if they move out of multiple threatened square. Those attack do not resolve at the same time, otherwise it would mean a creature that would fall unconcious because of one of those attack would still get attacked for move they didn’t do.

It’s the same for ranged touched spell. It’s the same action, but it has multiple components that provoke, you need to resolve it in order.

What Necromancy needs is a PR agent.

Does the job comes with inssurance against the pyre and an amulet of undetectable alignement?

For the mechanical aspect, i think there's 3 ways of dealing with it.

1. Mythic Campaign. Build Gods as CR30 creatures. You can take a look at Cthulhu and Hastur to get a grasp of what a CR30 creature looks like.

2. Scale the Gods down. There's two way of doing this;
2A. Gods are afflicted with a curse/magic device or whatever fits your fancy. Build them as High level character. You could even run an E6 campaign in which Gods are 10-12th level character.
2B. Depower everything else. Player character stay the same level, but you reskin everything else. For example, a CR 4 Brown bear wouldn't just be a brown bear. It would be a cosmic bear or something. Gods would be high CR creatures or high level NPCs.

3. Keep the fluff but play in another system. Something like Mutant&Mastermind is better suited to handling super epic feat.

IMO, second or third option would probably be the best. I've never tried mythic, but in my opinion, pathfinder feels terrible at higher level.

8 Players is madness. I've done it once back in my youth when everyone wanted to played World of Warcraft d20 cause it was novelty and, frankly, it convinced me i would never attempt such folly again.

As for ridiculous? I don't know, i don't know much about mesmerist, but they don't sound like the thoughest bunch, if the group made their save and had ways of dealing with her shennanigans, then sure. Although half of the group succeeding multiple Will saving throws on what was probably a DC 19/20 is pretty unlikely yeah.

As for the rest:
- Rust monsters are pretty weak and being only two mean they probably got obliterated in the first round. Did they even manage to do something?
- Shadow Mastif&Elemental looks like a medium challenge for 8 characters, but if i'm getting this right the wizard pretty much nullified the encounters.

Obviously the real villain is Abjuration specialists, who are setting up Conjuration as the fall guy in revenge for stealing Mage Armor.

Oh yeah, Abjuration Specialist just hate fun, screw those guys and their dispel magic!

I know you stated no interest in the mechanical aspect, but I feel like its important because the setting should have had its society shaped by being able to determine that things are Good and Evil. However, as with most things, people don't like alignment because they don't want to accept labels like evil.

I personally like alignement as personality short cut, or flawed political affiliation. If someone is labelled as ''Chaotic Neutral'' i can safely assume that they value freedom.

Objective alignements are wonky because in the way they are used, they clash with our understanding of moral. According to Gygax, it is Lawful Good to execute unarmed Chaotic Evil prisonners that surrendered. This should raise eyebrows. Alignement in the way they are represented within the game feels more like factions than moral guidelines.

I'm also reminded of the ''Lawful Good'' alignement of the Kingmaker videogame in which most dialogue option for Lawful Good when dealing with ''evil'' creatures is to charge screaming bloody justice.

I throw people who claim the art of Necromancy as a neutral act in with the same people who think that you can torture people for good reasons. They want their cake and to eat it too. "I want to do evil and engage in edgelord chicanery but I don't want to actually be evil." No. Take responsibility for your choices and wear your alignment.

There is some legitimately ''harmless'' spells within the Necromancy school. Here's a list of spells, from the wizard list, that can actually be used for good:

Sure the list isn't that great, but i'd also argue that all those fatigue, paralyze and sickness spell present in the wizard list are morally superior ways of dealing with foes than stabbing them in the gut with a spear. That is if we assume that killing is an evil act.

Also without getting too much into the morality of torture, as it's a touchy subject, there's been multitude of research pointing out that it just doesn't work. So the bad it causes could even be justified.

An evocation specialist is like looking at someone who bought a copy of 'The anarchists cookbook' off the internet. There's only so much you can do with evocation and most of it involves killing people in a horrible fashion with elements. Why aren't these arsonists in training locked up? Because they feed the Adventurer Industrial Complex man! That's the real conspiracy.

Loooooook, while this might not completely false, Evocation is about creating energies, there's bunch of useful force spell*, there's light spell, darkness spell, wind spell which are useful for navigation, and of course explosions.

* Which reminds me that mage armor being conjuration is a sham.

Guys lets focus on the real baddies: the conjurers they stole half of evoker's specialties and they even consort with demons and devils half of the time and if undead are evil with and ''e'' demons and devils are ''E' Evil!

As an enchantment practitioner I SUGGEST that you guys should carry on debating what an evil twisted bunch those necromancy practitioners are and just leave us far less dubious and far more ethical students of the arcane arts to practice being so low key that we're happy here behind the scenes, not harming (or controlling) anyone, not in the slightest, no sirs...

A morally upstanding wizard should refrain from having anything to do with enchantment and necromancy alike! There's a reasons wizards has to abandon two school of magic and that's so they can avoid ever touching enchantment and necromancy!

If you truly wish to be an innocent wizard who can never do wrong, you must join us in the ranks of the illusionists.

Pfff Illusionist, why cast spells when you can fake it am i right?

Evocation is the purest form of magic!