Benboz's page

I'm concerned I'll get challenged on using the Savage Technologist language substituting strength bonuses with dexterity bonuses for barbarian abilities. I like that it just says barbarian abilities, rather than rage powers, for example. But if that includes the basic rage bonuses, wouldn't it become +8 dexterity, +0 strength? And if so, why is it specified as +4 DEX +4 STR at all? (Honestly, I'd love to take a +8 DEX bonus and drop the STR bonus, but again, I'm concerned I'll get challenged on this.)

Agreed. I don't believe that was the intent of the writers, but it is specified against pretty clearly. That's a drag.

Regarding the Savage Technologist barbarian, can the Skald's Inspired Rage song fuel the barbarian rage, and still provide the bonus to dexterity?

If I choose the "thrown" group for fighter weapon training, does the bonus apply to daggers, when used in melee?

Related question: Can the trapper archetype use magic items normally with respect to the spell list of a different class in which they have levels?

Follow up post: I went with Halcamora, godess of wine. And, it's been great. The character is very fun to play, and I've had no problems justifying his party hard leanings because of his hard drinking deity. I bought the Chronicle of the Righteous PDF, which was cheap, from Paizo. While the source book really doesn't have much else which is useful for me, it did allow me to print the page about Halcamora (watermarked with my Pathfinder number) and attach it to the character sheet, which is very convenient. I play Pathfinder Society, so this was pretty much a requirement, and as I've said, it worked out very well. Thanks to all for your advice.

Lush Beauty will be this character's middle name(s). I'm sold on Halcamora. Thanks Kalindlara.

Captain Yesterday, I love the obedience for Halcamora. That's just what I'm looking for. I've gotta get that book.

Dragonhunterq, you're totally speaking my language. Arshea sounds awesome! Appears to be from Chronicles of the Riteous, so I should probably just buy the book and check it out, as Captain Yesterday suggested.

Thanks for the advice!

Captain Yesterday, I'm intrigued, but don't have access to a copy without buying it. Could you give me any more info about what's in there which would work?

Just a Mort, thanks for the suggestion! Shelyn seems perfect, but I've heard there are restrictions on killing, since even evil creatures have the potential to become beautiful. If that's the case, I'm concerned it could be problematic gameplay-wise.

Just to elaborate on my original question, I want to play this character as a paragon of generosity, compassion, honesty, and all that good stuff. So the intent is definitely not to get around those aspects of the Paladin code.

I'd like to play a Paladin who loves to party and indulge in intoxicants. Is there a deity who would encourage this kind of behavior, who's also within one step of lawful good? And if so, in which source book?

OK, it's starting to congeal now...

An example of confusion around sneaking: Sneak Attack. The book seems to say Stealth can't be used for attacking. But on the message boards it sounds more like you can, but only the first attack gets Sneak Attack bonus damage.

An example of confusion about hiding: Hide in Plain Sight. The book seems to say it can't be used for hiding at all, rather for sneaking to an area of concealment or cover when someone is watching. But on the message boards it sounds like you can use this to remain concealed after your turn without cover or concealment.

I feel like treating sneaking and hiding separately in the skill description might help with clarity.

I wish I could be more specific, but my brain is melted from trying to decipher the core rulebook and several exhaustive rules question threads on this topic.

I've been researching the mechanics of the stealth skill, and I have a fair amount of uncertainty about how the rules work. I do society play, so this is frustrating, because it's hard to have confidence that a build will function consistently with different GM's. So I suggest the following:

In the skill description, the Stealth functions of "Sneaking" (meaning avoiding detection while taking actions) and "Hiding" (meaning avoiding detection by obscuring location) could be divided into distinct sections.

It's challenging to understand how factors like cover vs total cover, invisibility, scent, light level, ambient noise, etc. affect these two separate functions when they're lumped together.

On the other hand, I definitely like getting them both by training up a single skill, so I'm not suggesting separate skills. But it would be great if Stealth could be more like Acrobatics, and the way leaping and tumbling are separated there.

And I forgot to mention that smite evil should be called boss killer.

I've just started playing a Paladin with a one level Bard dip. And it's nice.

If your concern about regular paladin/bard dip's lawful good alignment is purely a role play issue, it seems like most people are pretty tolerant about creative interpretation of the code of honor. Plus the Magical Knack trait adds two to your Caster level with Bard spells. The scroll use and saves are nice.

They seem to be under my stove, in abundance.

Ooh, ooh! I got an idea. You could have a numerical beauty score, and character sheets/stat blocks would have a list of turn on's/turn off's to modify any beauty checks made to influence them. You know, like "beefy barbarians", "hairy dwarves", "slinky invertebrates", "sultry bardic performances", "long walks in the moonlight", etc. There could be a new skill called "Knowledge (Attraction) (INT)". A successful check would clue you in on one or more turn/turn offs (TO's). And another one called "Seduction (CHA)". Seduction would be a new type of move action, a Smooth Move Action" (SMA), that provokes SMA's of opportunity (unless you have the Improved Smooth Move feat). This new feature practically writes itself!

Gotcha. Thanks!

I'm unclear how Caster Level is calculated for multiclass in two spellcasting classes. Is my CL the total character levels I have in all spellcasting classes? Or, is it my total character level in the class I'm using to cast the spell?

OK, this discussion definitely makes me feel more comfortable that I understand the way the trait works. Thanks again for the input!

I like the point about blindness. Plus, what if you're just not what they're into aesthetically/anatomically?

Great thanks for clarifying. That's a relief! However, I don't understand why it's a waste to use the trait on my dip, instead of the primary class. The reason I'm planning it that way is low level Bard spells are very versatile, and low level scrolls are cheap. So the CL increase would make the dip more useful. Does this idea hold water?

Uh oh, I'm confused. I'm with you about the trait doing nothing for me at character level 2, but now I'm worried I'm misunderstanding what it will do at character level 3. I'll explain what I was planning. Right now I have a level in Bard and a level in Paladin. My chosen class for Magical Knack is Bard. The idea was to continue leveling in Paladin and stay level 1 in Bard. Then I could cast level 0 and level 1 Bard spells at CL 3. Also, I could use spell level 2 Bard scrolls with an easier level check. Does this work?

I selected the Magical Knack trait, and my character is currently level 2. The way the trait is worded, it sounds to me like it doesn't provide any benefit until I reach character level 3. On the other hand, it could be interpreted as providing +1 in the CL for my chosen class, until I reach character level 3 (at which point it will be +2, and stay that way throughout the life of the character). Which one should I assume is correct?

Oh yeah, I forgot to make my point. It's not feasible to numerically quantify the ability to influence others with beauty, because the check would need modifiers for the previous experience of each target.

This is a GREAT thread!

I think the rules work well as written. (So it's worth mentioning that the following is just my opinion.) Charisma is less subjective than appearance, in regard to attraction. The characteristics that a person finds beautiful are mostly determined by their experiences, beginning in early childhood and continuing throughout adult life. (For example, after having a particularly pleasurable experience with someone, others who have similar attributes start to look really good.) The reason we see a lot of people finding the same person beautiful is that in any given social group there's a considerable amount of experience people have in common. (This works out well for fashion models and pole dancers.) Characteristics that are socially agreed on as beautiful vary between distinct social groups. (There probably is general agreement among lizardfolk that something is beautiful, but it's hard to imagine what it would be.)