Back Stabbath's page

Wizards, played smartly, are already the most versatile and useful class in the game, tied with Clerics and Druids.

And what the hell is with this nonsense that less balance = more fun?

The best ones I can think of are Marid Genies or Glabrazu Demons. Other options?

Thanks.

bump

Actually it did. You have to read into it.

The swordpact could be seen as a close group of people who share the same ideals and passions. If there is an oath, it would be something along the lines of upholding honor, never cheating, staying true to your passions, and teaching their skills to only those that show similar qualities.

That seems like an assumption. I am asking for specifics about what exactly you agree to when you take the swordpact.

As for the king, he isn't a swordlord. Swordlords don't really believe in kings. They were taken over by tyrant, whose family disappeared recently. This created a movement in power from one family to another and now the swordlords are ruled over by a man they despise.

I'm not sure if that's true either, because according to the lore the Aldori ruled over the land for generations. Also, there's more than one ruler within Kingmaker.

Thanks, but that didn't answer either of my questions.

First, what is the swordpact, exactly?

Are all the kings in the area sword lords? What about the counts, barons, dukes, etc?

tyvm

Are they the same thing? Are they different? What are examples of each?

I ask because of the craft rules:

Core p. 549
Note that all items have prerequisites in their descriptions.
These prerequisites must be met for the item to be created.
Most of the time, they take the form of spells that must be
known by the item’s creator (although access through another
magic item or spellcaster is allowed). The DC to create a magic
item increases by +5 for each prerequisite the caster does not
meet. The only exception to this is the requisite item creation
feat, which is mandatory. In addition, you cannot create spelltrigger
and spell-completion magic items without meeting
their spell prerequisites.

Thanks

ty

For example, can you craft rods without the "Craft Rod" feat and take the additional 5 to the spellcraft DC? I always thought that the feat was always needed, but I've heard this is not always the case.

What's the morality of binding outsiders, exactly? Is binging a good-aligned creature with their Name considered evil? Is binding and working with an evil-aligned creature considered evil? Is the binding of ANY outsider considered slavery? Am I thinking too hard about this and should just consider a true-named outsider to be a faceless summoned creature?

Back Stabbath wrote:

blackbloodtroll wrote:

Please note the "morale" in Demoralize.

Yeah, but the word "frightened" also appears in the skill description.

I ask because unless I see rules (or an official ruling in this topic) that supports my side my barbarian will sadly be unable to ever scare paladins.

Actually, there is no "morale" in demoralise, only "moral". Maybe it's a moral effect ;)

In any case, Back Stabbath, I think you're screwed unless someone from Paizo clarifies in your favour.

PS I began reading this thread thinking you were being treated harshly, but given the (admittedly circumstantial) evidence, I'm firmly in the "No" camp now.

What's done has been done, mostly I ask now because it looks like a rule that really should be clarified if it hasn't been already, not because I'm trying to eek out a small gain in a past event.

And, really, how often does a (generally) good-aligned party fight paladins?

Please note the "morale" in Demoralize.

Yeah, but the word "frightened" also appears in the skill description.

I ask because unless I see rules (or an official ruling in this topic) that supports my side my barbarian will sadly be unable to ever scare paladins.

I was going to ask BBT the same thing.

There's another piece of circumstantial evidence pointing towards intimidate being a fear effect:

The sentence "Using demoralize on the same creature only extends the duration; it does not create a stronger fear condition." wasn't originally a part of the skill. It was errata'd in, specifically to avoid people using intimidate multiple times to achieve the frightened condition.

That wouldn't have been possible unless intimidate used the rules for fear effects, so the errata was necessary to prevent it.

A lot of abilities can give an opponent the flat-footed effect, but that doesn't mean every ability that does so is a feint maneuver.

Demoralize is a Morale effect.

Immunity to Morale effects is what protects you from Demoralize.

Could you direct me to rules that say this please?

PRD wrote:

Using demoralize on the same creature only extends the duration; it does not create a stronger fear condition.

I take the above to mean that using intimidate to demoralize actually is a fear effect. Of course, it could certainly have been written more clearly.

There is also circumstantial evidence pointing in the opposite direction, since the 3.5 version of intimidate specifically stated it didn't work on characters who were immune to fear, while the Pathfinder rules removed that sentence:

3.5 SRD wrote:

A character immune to fear can’t be intimidated, nor can nonintelligent creatures.

Of course, the same sentence can also be taken as circumstantial evidence suggesting what the intent of intimidate is.

Yes, that's what made me question the wording. I used to play 3.5 and noticed that rule was conspicuously absent from Pathfinder's rules. I don't see any reason they would omit that part of the intimidate check unless it meant they wanted that limitation gone.

Quote:

At 3rd level, a paladin is immune to fear (magical or otherwise).

Quote:

Fear

Spells, magic items, and certain monsters can affect characters with fear. In most cases, the character makes a Will saving throw to resist this effect, and a failed roll means that the character is shaken, frightened, or panicked.

Shaken: Characters who are shaken take a –2 penalty on attack rolls, saving throws, skill checks, and ability checks.

Frightened: ...

Panicked:...

...

you don;t get a roll to save vs a demoralize check. That leads me to believe a morale effect is different than a fear effect. Also, an intimidate check cannot be used to frighten enemies.

This debate came up in my group yesterday when my intimidate-happy barbarian decided to fight a paladin of Imoedae. Apparently this particular paladin was immune to any and all fear effects, and therefore he could not be affected by any status effect that suggests he was afraid. My argument was that although the demoralize effect creates the shaken condition, nowhere in the description of the skill does it say "this is a fear effect" like fear spells would. Furthermore, the demoralize ability has no magical component to it, so saying it's a "mind-affecting ability" would be misrepresenting the ability. A magical or divine defense against magics that instil fear would doubtfully also work against someone trying to scare you manually.

That's my take on the effect, anyway. Is there a clear answer to this?

Ok. Seemed OP the way I read it.

The wording of the feat is:

"Your ranged attacks ignore the AC bonus granted to targets by anything less than total cover, and the miss chance granted to targets by anything less than total concealment. Total cover and total concealment provide their normal benefits against your ranged attacks."

Bolded is where I'm confused. It says your ranged attacks ignore the AC bonus granted to targets by ANYTHING less than total cover, so does that include, like, the AC bonus granted by armor?

I am patiently awaiting lord Treantmonk to update this guide to include APG/UM/UC.....