Two things. First, saying the name "wild talent" is unusable because it's already been used with a different meaning in a previous addition of D&D strikes me as a little odd. I think it's important to remember this is not 3.5, and though backwards compatibility was a stated goal for early development, it should not be a straitjacket for future design. Secondly, if the name does still bother you, I would suggest something in the way of the rogue or bard. Their abilities were named after the class, such as "rogue talent" or "bardic performance." I think Kineticist talent is reasonable, though I'd still prefer "wild talent" as it sounds better in my opinion.
Starting an Orphanage, and then use Hypnotism on the little tykes while they're still below 4HD. Use it a lot, implanting all sorts of triggers.
Creating Lesser Simulacra who have enough Spellcraft ranks to realise exactly what they are, and what's going to happen to them.
I'm pretty sure this is more evil than the shadow eidolon idea. If this isn't the direction you want to go, maybe you can give more information about what you're going for. Specifically, how evil do you want to be and what level of evil is your group comfortable with?
So I'm making a campaign that feature the biggest, baddest creatures in the world. I'm talking mountain size. I was thinking about putting the boss into the map, like tentacles coming off the side of the map and stuff, or the bosses head on the map and the players are ontop a tower or a bridge. I wanted to know if this has been done before, and how you would go about doing it.
Maybe look at the Kaiju from Bestiary 4. They seem to be the kind of creatures you're looking for, though they may have CRs that are too high for most campaigns. Maybe you could use them as inspiration, at least.
Weird. I would say the answer is no, but that's because I would treat it like a summoned creature with it's own turn in initiative. Seeing as that hasn't come up in the argument, though, I think I'm making an assumption no one else is...
If that were the case, it would simply refocus its initiative to match and take its free actions concurrently with your turn. That might slow you down by 1 whole round, but that's pretty negligible.
Sorry, guess I wasn't clear enough. My problem with this is that I wouldn't allow the unseen servant to take free actions on the caster's turn. I do realize, however, that I seem to be alone in this thought. I was just hoping someone could tell me if there was a rule I missed, or at least tell me I'm reading too much into the rules. That's definitely an option as well.
Weird. I would say the answer is no, but that's because I would treat it like a summoned creature with it's own turn in initiative. Seeing as that hasn't come up in the argument, though, I think I'm making an assumption no one else is...
It sounds like the entire debate comes down to whether or not you think that mentally locking away someone's evil is more evil than physically doing so. In less biased terms, is there something inherently sacred about the mind and free will that makes these types of punishments worse than physical imprisonment. That's a disagreement of axioms, so it may not be possible to come to an agreement. Just know where your GM stands on the issue, and if you are the GM... good luck, and hopefully some of the arguments on this thread are at least enlightening.
I would say a Paladin's code of conduct forbids it, not because of the ethical issues (just avoiding that completely) but because it's not a permanent change. Wish and Miracle reverse the treatment and release a villain on the world that you could have stopped but instead let roam free. Unless you're dumping them in a prison in addition to the mindwiping (okay, maybe paladins shouldn't do this because it sounds super evil) then you have a free person one spell away from returning to villainy.
One NINTH level spell away from returning to villainy. That's much better than a prison (one divination followed by a teleport or possibly dimension door) or even killing them (raise dead at best or true resurrection at worst, which is just as easy as a wish spell). I don't particularly think this is a strong argument.
Ok, an added restriction is I also want there to be a want to convert the crit ranges over to the new system and still have %'s that are close enough to the old values. I want 1's and 20's to happen, but I don't want someone to feel like they were cheated when save or dies occur and they have a 5% of just losing their character or auto-winning a BBEG fight. However, I don't want crit threats to be removed from the game either. I went through the math about crit threat chances in my previous comment if you want clarification about what I mean about crit threats.
Sorry! I didn't see your second post for some reason. It looks like the 2d8+1d6-2 works out for you after all. As long as you're doing it online, it shouldn't be too much of a hassle. Getting a one with this method is 1 in 384, so considerably less likely than a flat 5 percent, but still possible.
Did they steal enough that it's obvious that something's missing? If so, according to the module,
Spoiler:
"If Grok finds evidence of theft, a full search of the ship and crew’s lockers is launched, carried out by Mr. Plugg, Master Scourge, and six of their most loyal pirates. If stolen goods are found, the penalty is usually keelhauling, even if such booty is planted."
Unless they've hidden the bag well, the stolen goods are going to be found. If they manage to bring it on board the new ship and nobody checks the bag for any contraband, then I suppose they do get away with it as written, but you could always contrive some reason why they don't get to take it or it gets found. You are the GM, after all.
There really is no good answer to this question unless you can be more specific about how often you want the extreme values to pop up. For example, 1d20 is fine if you are okay with uniform results, while 19d2-18 gives as consistent results as possible while still allowing for results from 1 - 20. 19d2-18 gives only a 1 in 500,000 chance of getting a one. Obviously, the optimal is somewhere in the middle, but that is something you have to judge for yourself. My vote is for the 2d8+1d6-2 that's been mentioned before, but again, it's up to personal taste.
Can I be swimming in water, and use a bow? Anything rules wise saying that you can't?
So, let's say it's rough waters for a DC 15 check to swim, and you fail by 5 or more, and begin to struggle and all that jazz. Now, you make another check, and fail by 4 or less. Do you regain your composure to not have to hold your breath under the 4 or less check?
As far as I can tell, RAW says yes, you can use a bow while swimming. Note that if you're underwater or shooting something that is, you take penalties on attack and damage rolls. As for the second question, if you fail by five or more, you're underwater at the end of the check. Failing by 4 or less means you don't go any further underwater, but you don't make any progress towards the surface either, so you have to continue holding your breath.
PFSRD wrote:
If you fail by 4 or less, you make no progress. If you fail by 5 or more, you go underwater.
Or, he takes 1d6 damage and falls Prone (if he fails, or does not make a check at all).
Not necessarily. If you intentionally jump down (as opposed to being pushed) you automatically turn the first 1d6 damage into nonlethal damage. Nonlethal damage from a fall doesn't knock you prone.
Creatures that fall take 1d6 points of damage per 10 feet fallen, to a maximum of 20d6. Creatures that take lethal damage from a fall land in a prone position.
If a character deliberately jumps instead of merely slipping or falling, the damage is the same but the first 1d6 is nonlethal damage. A DC 15 Acrobatics check allows the character to avoid any damage from the first 10 feet fallen and converts any damage from the second 10 feet to nonlethal damage. Thus, a character who slips from a ledge 30 feet up takes 3d6 damage. If the same character deliberately jumps, he takes 1d6 points of nonlethal damage and 2d6 points of lethal damage. And if the character leaps down with a successful Acrobatics check, he takes only 1d6 points of nonlethal damage and 1d6 points of lethal damage from the plunge.
The DC is 15. On a success, there would be no falling damage in the 10 foot case. On a failure, it's 1d6 points of nonlethal damage (since the fall was intentional). Surprisingly, a running start doesn't change the check or result. No matter what happens, you do not fall prone since in the worst case, the damage is nonlethal.
2. A turn-based strategy RPG using the Pathfinder rules and using Rise of the Runelords as its story.
That one sounds interesting, though I feel we're probably in the minority for thinking so.
Why do you say that?
I'd like it because I've DM'd it twice, though it died both times around book three. I just want to see it end, for nostalgia's sake. I think most people wouldn't like playing through it as a jrpg like Final Fantasy (if I'm understanding what you mean) because without a DM, you're not really interacting with the story. You're having the story happen to you, which gets rid of a lot of the fun of the AP. Like Rynjin said earlier, Kingmaker would probably be a better bet for the vast majority of people, and I think that's because with Kingmaker you'd actually get to make decisions that effect the game, even in computer format.
While not for clerics, the Champion of Irori prestige class gives a justification for their existence in their write up:
Paths of Prestige wrote:
The little-known champions of Irori give their lives in service to the perfection and uplift of society, their ultimate goal to create a safe and orderly world within which each person can find and perfect her true purpose in service to the whole. In their ethos, only through the accumulated perfection of each individual can societal transformation truly occur. Though Irori’s core teachings apply equally to good, evil, and neutral individuals, champions of Irori focus on embodying and promulgating the virtues of hard work, discipline, and devotion to the causes of justice, truth, and the pursuit of perfection. It is only through this pursuit that individuals can realize true joy and liberate themselves from the cycles of reincarnation to serve the Master of Masters in the life beyond life.
This could very easily be a justification for a good cleric of Irori, at least.
