Chovesh's page

The dude has invested 25% of his 8 Feats and his 2 traits into that skill. Let him succeed in this thing he is good at. A lot.

Do not just have him spot traps, but ambushes with really well disguised enemies, the footsteps of invisible assassins etc.

I also have a ridiculously high perception character, and I WANT to be Sherlock Holmes who spots the extra clues and provides additional information. The guy who can walk into the room and tell you how many people were in it, who was smoking the cigar, and who the pipe.

He now has a 28 Wisdom, so while others make INT checks to determine if they remember things, he makes Wisdom checks at +9 to gain intuition regarding things, or he uses Sense Motive to figure out what the social situation is (Sense Motive isn't a lie detector, rather it gives gut assessment of the social situation, and possible motivation of someone.)

But I could instead have created the character to be the Diplomacy guy, making friends of everyone and making requests, even getting better prices (depending upon the DM). Oh wait, I have another character in a different campaign who is exactly that. Gathering information is quite effective and we don't get partial information or incorrect rumors.

In both cases the PC is "door opener" to opportunities the group might miss. This way I can not only pull my weight within the party, but also provide the party with some unusual benefits.

Some players want to play a character with lots of internal psychodrama, I'd rather have a well adjusted guy who is simply "amazing" at some things.

Excelling in something for a player like myself is a blast. I've only fallen for one magical trap that our Rogue missed, and one "mechanism" that our rogue didn't spot. (I now don't trust his searches.) I always take 10 using perception so that the DM and other players don't have to stop wile I search for my dice, and shake my hand "just enough times" so that the roll will actually be random. Sure, sometimes the DM tries to trick my by asking me if I'm "sure" that I don't want to roll, but only in a few circumstances where most characters would miss something completely anyway have I missed it by one or two due to the range penalty. Often I'm the only one who "could" have spotted it, and this has protected the group.

BUT TO SOLVE YOUR PROBLEM

1) Let his perception pick up clues to provide two or more possible narratives, each with supporting details.

2) Build traps where activating the trap (not disabling it) is the requirement for entry/progress.

3) Create traps that are more than just "traps," let them be important "tricks."

• A trap that enlarges you, where your head now pops up through an exclusionary ceiling. Or the opposite, above the PCs is an illusion only seen when looking down, such that there is a map laid out on the floor, you just have to have your head above 8' to see it. Detect magic on the ceiling simply confuses the players as they see the real ceiling.
  
• A trap the creates a 5 pit below you (expeditious excavation) that clears the way to the trap door to the secret room.
  

The campaign has everyone taking an elemental affinity, and I started out as a Wizard (wood School) with the elemental affinity to wood. Our affinity levels progress and give us "wood" powers. Other options include Force, Light, Air, earth, etc.

As for moving, the answer is yes, as the tree is not putting down roots, and is similar to the way the water element surrounds you in Seamantle.

A pine tree tends to be more fire resistant than other trees, and has a very sticky sap. The 30 fire damage (most likely magical) is enough to burn away much but not all. Trees in nature are often built to withstand the fires that clear out the forest and help the certain types of seedlings that rely upon forest fires. In the end, I've concluded that it doesn't "imbalance" the spell, although you do have a good point.

Hmmmm, good point.

I went with electricity since wood is an insulator and wood deadens sound. Acid can burn through foliage, so plant life generally has no special resistances to acid.

I figured it would be like a lighting strike against any tree. While it might normally damage or kill the tree, the magic nature of this spell would allow the tree to recover quickly from that, but not from fire.

For a homebrew pathfinder campaign, I wanted to get your opinion if the changes to the Seamantle spell, turning it into a Treemantle (wood element) spell are balanced.

Seamantle

Is the below balanced with regards to the 8th level spell Seamantle? (It would only be available to druids and those of the Wood School of magic.)

Treemantle
Duration 1 minute/level
DESCRIPTION
You sheathe yourself within a leafy pine tree up to 30 feet high that fills your space and which bends as if violently blown by the win. You can see, hear, and breathe normally within the Treemantle, but attacks against you are treated as if you were behind a wall of thick branches equivalent to several inches of wood. You gain improved cover (+8 cover bonus to AC, +4 bonus on Reflex saves) against foes that do not have freedom of movement effects. 30 points of fire damage (absorbed by Treemantle) will reduce this improved cover to normal cover until the end of your next turn. The cover granted by the Treemantle does not enable you to prevent attacks of opportunity or make ANY Stealth checks. Magical attacks against you are unaffected unless they require attack rolls.

As you are sheathed within a living tree, neither you nor the mantle can be grappled as the pine needles surrounding you bend and deflect all attempts at grappling.

========

1) I think that replacing the fire dispelling ability with the protection from targeted mind affecting affects (including beneficial ones) is a close trade off, although not "perfectly" balanced.

2) I think that gaining protecting from two less common elements (electricity/sonic) while giving limited reduced protection from fire is a fair trade off. The inability to use ANY stealth is a part of the balance.

Your thoughts?

Aberration creature has thorns with poison that does 1d4 damage, DC17, requires consecutive 2 saves, duration 2 rounds. Player are poisoned when they hit it.

QUESTION #1:
If they pass the first save, they get no damage that first round. Correct or not?

"Making your initial saving throw against a poison means stacking does not occur—the poison did not affect you and any later doses are treated independently."

QUESTION #2:

Round 1
Hit #1: DC17 - Saved - no stacking (DOSE #1)
Hit #2: DC17 - Failed - doses stack (DOSE #2)
Hit #3: DC19 - Saved - no stacking (DOSE #2) - 3 rounds duration instead of 2 rounds
Hit #4: DC17 - Saved - no stacking (DOSE #3)

Round 2
Dose #1: DC17 - Saved - Poison ends (no con damage was ever take from this dose).
Dose #2: DC19 - Failed - one more round to go, one more save required, all new hits add onto the DC19 and increase the duration.
Dose #3: DC17 - Failed - Poison ends (con damage occurred only in the 2nd and final round)

Is this correct?

....to spy on the material plane while they're summoned, to tempt/redeem their summoners, to advance their superiors causes.

Brilliant idea. Being summoned by a powerful mage means you begin to gather information on this mage, his "group," his powers, and his interests. This would not necessarily be a bad thing as at some point meeting a powerful planar lord, he doesn't go "Who are you?" but rather "oh yes, you are familiar to me."

This opens the possibilities that they might want something from you, or be able to offer you something you want (Plot Hook) because they know you and they can profit from the results, which doesn't necessarily mean profit at your expense. "YOU (and your friends) might be the perfect mage (and company) for the Job, and I'll pay you well!" (Because taking a lot of effort to figure out how to screw you simply isn't worth it, especially if they may need you again.)

:-D

As I am the original poster, I'm now going to summarize some of the more interesting valuable opinions here so far, adding a few of my own.

1. Summoned critters actually serve other greater lords of their plane, (like elemental lords, demon or devil princes, etc.) so if those powerful entities did not want their minions activities interrupted, it would be known. (A courier with a critical task that was interrupted by a summoning would have consequences.) Therefore these powerful creatures are probably involved somehow.

2. Cross planar travel is powerful magic, which means that a summon spell probably requires there by powerful magic on the other end to allow for the piercing and travel between the corresponding planes when a summoning spell is cast. Example: A creature (or powerful lord) than can easily send multiple creatures across the planar divide finds the magic "sent" to summon the creature to be "valuable," therefore it is simply sending creatures within its domain on a "harvesting" mission, because if summoned creatures were not helpful/useful, then who would sent the summoning magic their way?

3. A variant on the #2 above, is that a summoning spell is simply "pulling the trigger" on a gun that already exists, and the summoner isn't actually loading the bullets, but rather the bullets are being provide by others. If powerful beings help enforce their domain by creating powerful magic to allow for their minions or residents to be summoned, there must be a reason for it.

A) As Punishment (Lawful alignments simply punish in a more organized and disciplined fashion)

B) Because creatures "wanted" to be summoned for their own reasons.

• i) Example: There are no "weekends" on certain planes; just as the plain of air is air, air, clouds, and more air, it then means that if a you want a good story of what you for a weekend equivalent, you pretty much need to be summoned somewhere radically different from the same-old same-old.
  
• ii) The creature wants to impress (or pay) a more powerful creature on its own plane, and is therefore highly motivated to be effective/subservient to the summoner, even if chaotic or evil.
  
• iii) Each transport across the planar divide may provide the more powerful creature who is the "boss" of the lower types, some sort of benefit that comes from the occurance of a crossing of the planar divide itself. (i.e. Conjuration magic gives something that is desired by those who've created the ability to have creatures summoned from their side.)

3. Being able to be summoned is not a natural state of a creature on a plane, rather it has to become something that can be summoned because an outside force or energy allows for it, such as either being punished by a creature that can make susceptible to summoning, or being sentenced to being available to being summoned.

4. Getting summoned gives you bragging rights AND you get to experience something rather different from your own plane. (i.e. You get to go to normally inaccessible area, but only at the cost that you have to do exactly what the person who brought you there requests.) Or it may allow you to pay off a debt or accrue credit, either from a powerful planar being, or for something else.

5. Some people/creatures are complete homebodies, and would never leave the house, while others on the opposite side of the bell curve are thrill seekers, and willing to endanger themselves in a non-permanent way because for them, both change and thrill is good. Perhaps like kids on a bicycle who work on a trick until either they master it, or get bored.

6. The risks that come from avoiding being summoned are less than the reward of allowing oneself to be summoned OR the reward of seeking out being summoned.

7. Being summoned from your own plane is actually a CURE (to whatever). Anything less than total commitment is like not taking every pill of penicillin at the time you are supposed to take it.

I can add other items to this list and can repost them if there are relatively short and coherent.

I think there is and most people would perceive a difference between a person drafted, handed a gun, and told to kill the enemy and a person drafted, handed a rake, and told to rake up a minefield.

Ahhh, but whose enemy? Yours or the guy who was drafted.

Does it matter if the person drafted is also told they will be the "first over the top?" or the first to charge the machine gun?

And what if the 'death' is not permanent, but perhaps the experience/memory is?

Hmmm....

Isn't being summoned part of a punishment -- like community service?

*I sentence you to 20 hours of being summoned by casters!*

Now that is an awesome reply, one that I was hoping for, albeit one that supports my position.

...summoned critters actually serve other greater lords, like elemental lords, demon and devil princes, etc. If those powerful entities did not want you using their minions, pretty sure we would know it.

I HAVE to use this quote with them!

Keep these comments coming!

In a recent dungeon crawl my PC wanted to summon and send an air elemental to detect and set off traps so that we knew what we were looking at. The party had already taken a beating, had used numerous spells and healing, and had a few members with negative levels.

Several party members objected strongly saying it was immoral to send a "sentient" (although summoned) creature to scout and possibly trigger traps, and that it was the equivalent of torture.

I'd heard of PETA (People Eating Tasty Animals) and of a group opposed to exactly that by with the same name, but PETSA? People for the Ethical Treatment of Summoned Elementals?

Then to my surprise, they argued that it was morally OK to summon one to fight when you needed it. Even though here too it would be painfully destroyed (for 24hrs) while you use it to "defend" you (specifically they said "to keep you from dying"), and while it probably held ill will for you for disturbing it.

Part of the argument used was the "How would you like it if you were jerked from your home and subject to having to be injured or temporarily and painfully destroyed? Such that if they ever met you in the future, they would hate you for subjecting them to this?" But somehow the fact that summoning them unwillingly to save you from dying (even though they would get painfully destroyed and probably want you to die for simply having disturbed them in the first place) was considered to be different and acceptable.

I just didn't get it and still don't. And the more they tried to explain it to me, the more clear it became that I simply didn't get it. That it was somehow ethically wrong to summon an elemental from another plane to save the life or limb of a creature that would die permanently if they screwed up versus a trap.

1. I first tried arguing that it was morally better to pseudo-sacrifice a sentient air elemental against a trap than to buy a dog and run him over the same traps. (I think they agreed with this one, but it didn't change their POV.)

2. I then tried arguing that bringing a sentient creature into a fight that it didn't want to fight was then also as bad under their reasoning. They disagreed, and I just didn't get it. Apparently subjecting a random sentient stranger to violence to spare your life or to make it easier for you to kill another creature (possibly a sentient one) didn't make a lick of difference.

So I come here to ask the community their thoughts, as I've thought about it some more and concluded the following:

1. Using shards of their reasoning, I've since concluded that bringing a sentient creature to fight for you is actually worse (or "more evil") than sending it to check and trigger traps, possibly being destroyed for 24 hours until it re-formed on its native plane.

a) As Golda Meir once said, "We can forgive the Arabs for killing our sons, but we cannot forgive them for making our sons kill their sons." Forcing a creature to harm another creature that it had no interest in harming, no connection to, and no prior knowledge of, would therefore be an evil act, even a form of "gladiatorial" torture.

b) Summoning a creature to "fight for you" (to save your life) generally ignores the fact that you are using it while out there being a murder hobo trying to kill things and take their stuff. The summoned creature may even wish you ill, but has to fight and become pseudo-lethally injured for you, yet receives no compensation and no XP. This is the equivalent of saying, "I'd like steak for lunch. Here, take this knife and go up against the bull, and when you're done, I'll finish him up and have my Rib-eye for lunch (and all the XP) while you simply get to go home with the memories of being traumatized by completely unexpected violence."

2. In a fantasy and possibly semi-medieval world filled with fantastical, violent, and dangerous beasts, where life is often "Nasty, Brutish, and Short" the sort of modern day value systems about "sentient creatures" is wholly misplaced and very absurd. {I should probably mention here that in my second Pathfinder campaign, a different group overcame a dragon that had sought them out to destroy them, but when beaten and captured, this large dragon would not explain its complete enmity for our group that it had attacked. One player then voice this opinion that it was wrong/evil to kill this again unconscious creature because it was sentient. Thankfully the rest of the group strenuously and reasonably objected to this position, pointing out that it was a "marauding monster" and the fact that it was sentient was absolutely irrelevant. It was clear he had a hard time grappling with this concept, but when pointed out the fact that it was not a sentient humanoid, he seemed to be a bit mollified.]

3. Shouldn't the spell "Enslave Random Creatures" (A.K.A. Summoning Spells) have an "Evil" descriptor? Or at the very least, have a minutes or 10 minutes per level duration "if they are not called upon to fight or do not suffer being attacked?" A sort of "You have to clean the outhouse and take out the dirty laundry for 60 minutes, unless you get attacked by the Otyugh living there, then you have to fight for your life, limb, and 24hour existence for the next 60 seconds."

4. Shouldn't most compulsion spells, (not a including charm type spell, because they clearly and presently "want" to do good things for you) be considered evil as well, especially since they are often abused to cause injury or misfortune to a compelled sentient creature? This being the equivalent to involuntary slavery of the "Enslave Random Creatures" Spell?

5. To be fair, in my own campaign, I may introduce a situation where if one player is effectively traveling 100mph, in a burning aircraft, with both arms broken, at 1hp, and 10' above the ground just before the plane makes an "uncontrolled landing," I'll ask the player if his PC is either has A) "his life flash before his eyes,"" or B) if he has this very deep feeling of "I don't want to be here!" If the answer is the latter I'll simply let him have a large negative circumstantial bonus to his Will Save (maybe a -10 circumstance penalty due to his high level of distraction and stress) against a "regional" spell affecting his particular section of the prime material plane; a spell cast from another plane seeking to summon a creature of his type. Since he would be the one that most meets the conditions that makes it possible for him to be the one summoned (over ALL the other creatures in his section of the prime material), he'll be the summoned creature, with full health, having to fight and be possibly killed on behalf of another creature that he has no knowledge of or interest in. If he succeeds, he'll come back to the material plane someplace safe in his original condition (cured of all lethal poisons/diseases), and if he dies in the fight, then he'll come back 24 hours later to someplace safe, but fully healed. Not that I'm making a particular point on how a weak first level spell might be able to reach across the planes to bring forth and compel a creature to willingly fight for you, it is just that it might be hilarious. As would be the reverse, an adventure hook started by trying to find a severely wounded guy who disappeared in a vicious fight that occurred but only 12 hours ago. (A guy who miraculously appears nearby after the party spends 12 hours searching for him, and tells of a waking up with memories of a rather bizarre albeit violent dream that he's having trouble remembering fully.)

Clearly, Jonathan Swift I'm not, but since I OBVIOUSLY still don't get it. Perhaps someone here would explain it to me so that the position of the rest of my party seems reasonable and fair to me so that I will actually "get it."

On behalf of all but one other in my party (who agreed with me), I thank you.

My question is unclear, it should be "Can one start out as a member of the Primordial Ones" or does something special have to happen for this to occur in PFS play?

I'm about to start my first PFS game Thursday and I'm thinking of a doing a build that is Unarmed Fighter at Level 1 and then becomes a goliath druid.

The Primal Ancestry feat requires being a member of the Primordal Ones (Pathfinder Campaign Setting: Andoran, Birthplace of Freedom).

QUESTION
How do I accomplish this within PFS since it shows that the Primal ancestry feat is legal for play?
(http://paizo.com/pathfinderSociety/about/additionalResources)

Do I have to be a druid first, or can I simply start out as a non-druid member?

I don't think that works. Only snake style appears to be marked style. The other two parts of the chain are simply combat feats.

I think this answers my question if they are listed as simply "combat" feats. Thanks!

Also, where can I find a list of all the traits available in Pathfinder society?

I'm thinking about joining a Pathfinder Society game this Thursday for the first time.

I've decided upon a Human Unarmed fighter build at L1, which then switches to the Goliath Druid (growth domain) for the next several levels.

QUESTION:
When looking at the unarmed fighter in UC it says the Unarmed fighter can take any style feat without meeting all the prerequisites. I'm interested in taking the "Snake Fang" style feat even though I wouldn't be able to use the feat until I got "Snake Style" at level 3 (earliest) as "Snake Fang" can only be used when using "Snake Style."

Is there something I'm missing that says I can only take the starting feat of the feat chain? If so, where is it?

Thanks!

druid wild shape is a polymorph magic
If a fire elemental is chosen it gets 20 fire resistance.
the spell "energy resistance" is an abjuration magic

The resistance of the abjuration is granted to whatever is targeted, while fire elementals has the flames from polymorph protecting them.

Do I used to resistance is from different sources stack?

During a full round action such as the Withdraw Action, can one move full speed, slow down to half speed to tumble (i.e.) and then pick up their speed again?

I had thought you break it down to the equivalent of two move actions, where you set your speed as either half speed, or full speed. One player insisted that as a base 30', he could go 10 squares, by simply speeding up again in the middle of a move.

While your point regarding a weapon's special abilities is good, the truth is that a fishing net should probably have 'entangle' but take less HP of damage to destroy, or have a lower escape artist DC. While a sheet might take a move action to remove.

I'm going to have to think about the 'special ability' use with the feat.

HOWEVER, you would still be able to use a 'boomerang' (exotic weapon) as if you were proficient. (They do not have the 'return' special ability.) It is an example of an Exotic Weapon that might be usable under the "Throw Anything" feat. Also, a thrown 'club' would count.

Previously in my campaign I would not allow the throw anything feat to be used on Nets which were a 'Weapon' as opposed to an 'Improvised' weapon.

"Improvised Weapons: Sometimes objects not crafted to be weapons nonetheless see use in combat. Because such objects are not designed for this use, any creature that uses an improvised weapon in combat is considered to be nonproficient with it and takes a –4 penalty on attack rolls made with that object. "

I've now reversed my decision based on two factors.
1. While the feat "Martial Weapon Proficiency" applies to a single weapon, the feat "Simple Weapon Proficiency" applies to all simple weapons.
2. It would be reasonable to argue that a normal 'Fishing' net, a clearly non-weapon item, could be used to entangle, and that a bed sheet could entangle or temporarily blind an opponent, where the Escape Artist check for a bedsheet would be much less as there are no holes/gaps to catch on anything like a net is apt to do.
3.

If I reverse myself, then Bolas, Nets, Grappling hooks, and anything that is thrown becomes useable, as if the person had gotten "Simple Weapon Proficiency" for anything that is thrown. I'm starting to think that this is reasonable, considering how many classes don't even have simple weapon proficiency, and how much of an impact this would have.

That having been said, I would not allow for "Net Adept" which requires proficiency in Net, to be available to someone who simply removes their non-proficiency penalty.

Am I wrong in reversing my previous ruling?
You do not suffer any penalties for using an improvised ranged weapon.

Alternatively, one could argue that a lasso, a bola, and a net require a specific skill set.

To address the OP:

Punishing Undead for non-compliance or for retribution is not evil, while causing unnecessary pain/suffering/humiliation is evil.

Here’s the general logic Path:

Is torture evil?

1. Defining Evil
The definition of evil is easily if there is a single source defining it. In a polytheistic system (Pathfinder), the number of ‘definers’ increases and complicates the issue. So this may not be the best route.

2. Defining Torture

This is where it gets interesting

Torture
a: anguish of body or mind : AGONY
b: something that causes agony or pain

Let’s start with the consensus that causing unnecessary pain/anguish/discomfort is wrong.

In your interrogation, are you talking about ‘Torture’ or about ‘Punishment?’

So let’s look at “Punishment” (and “is punishment wrong?”).

Punishment:
a: suffering, pain, or loss that serves as retribution
b: a penalty inflicted on an offender through judicial procedure

And this leads to “Is retribution evil?”

Please note, courts that are supported by a society (and maybe courts supported by the elites based on the fact that they are the society the courts serve) provide the ‘judicial procedure’ for punishment.

The key thing here is that courts apply tests against pre-existing laws, or attempt to provide society wide solutions.

This leads me to the following conclusion:
1. If the paladin is operating within the structure of his temple, and not of his own accord, then he can mete out punishment if it fits within the confines of what his institution allows him.
2. Others who mete out punishment/retribution run a much riskier path as punishment is not necessarily evil but it is generally recognized that most punishments involve some form of “Suffering, Pain, or Loss.”

Therefore, torturing him for the purpose of causing the vampire pain in order to get him to talk would be wrong while punishing him for refusing to cooperate would not necessarily be wrong (but could be). (Punishing someone who refuses to help you gain the information needed to rob someone (instead of saving someone) might be a good example.)

The difference is literally, “do you start with applying pain, or are you clear to him that he is being ‘punished’ for non-compliance?” Is the pain being used as a tool to extract the information, or is the pain simply punishment for not supplying the information? These two things are not actually the same since using pain to extract information means ‘starting’ with the pain, while in comparison, the threat of pain (via punishment) for non-compliance is not ‘evil’ as using pain as the punishment means that no pain might ever be delivered.

The purpose of the pain/discomfort/loss is where the definition of it being evil, as a court sentencing a murder to imprisonment is not considered evil, while a victim of a robbery who prevents his robber from escaping and begins to repeatedly strike blows on the robber after each separate request for returning the stolen goods, is also not considered evil.

James, the CL can be higher than the creator of the item.

The CL of an item adds to the DC, and is used for calculating a dispell on that itm, but it is not a requirement that the caster be that level.

Pearls of power are diffucult to make, but do not require epic level casters to make.

Basically, you can't create a Glove of Magic Missile CL1, then back-door CL9 MM from an intelligent item power for 1,200gp. It would be CL1.

You misunderstand.

I create a Hat of Perception that gives a +1 competence bonus. (100gp)

This could be at CL1, or CL9, or CL12, depending upon how difficult I want it to be to dispell.

I then make it intelligent (+500gp) and a Intelligence of 11 so it can cast L1 spells (+200gp)

I then give the 'intelligent' item a L1 spell 3 time per day (+1200gp), which I believe means that I can't cast it if I wear it (as it is an NPC), and only 'it' can cast it, or perhaps only 'it' can allow me to cast it.

So this CL12 glove gains intelligence with a 17 crafting DC (5 + CL12).

It is NOT a glove of magic missile, it is a "Glove of Perception" that has a fantastic 'point defence systemn' that only works out to a range of 30' and only if the area is lit (and the weilder/owner is the same alignment) AND where the wearer has succeeded in at least one 'WILL' saving throw day to prevent themselves from being dominated.

So perhaps the pricing is fair.

(Since the hat of perception has only 'empathic' communication, it can't be particularly argumentative if it want to be where the action is.)

Clearly all those restrictions make this 'less' valuable than a Glove that allows the wearer to cast a L9 magic missile.

Why 1200 x 6?

I didn't see anything indicating that intelligent item powers is somehow multiplied by the caster level.

Item can cast a 1st-level spell 3/day +1,200 gp
Item can cast a 2nd-level spell 1/day +2,400 gp
Item can cast a 3rd-level spell 1/day +6,000 gp
Item can cast a 2nd-level spell 3/day +7,200 gp

Whereas in comparison, the magic item estimation chart gives completely different numbers.:
Single use, spell completion SL x CL x 25 gp Ex: Scroll of haste
Single use, use-activated SL x CL x 50 gp Ex: Potion of cure light wounds
50 charges, spell trigger SL x CL x 750 gp Ex: Wand of fireball
Command word SL x CL x 1,800 gp Ex: Cape of the mountebank
Use-activated or continuous SL x CL x 2,000 gp2 Ex: Lantern of revealing

If you think there can't be a discount for intelligent items, then think about the fact that intelligent items are NPC's. Furthermore, they are like items which are restriced to alignment/race (which are cheaper) since you gain negative levels if you try to use one not of your alignment. Plust they can dominate you if they are too powerful (or you are too weak).

If a L3 druid works with a L5 mage to create a cap/hat with the following:

100gp +1 skill point perception (as a hat)
500gp Intelligent Magic Item bonus
200gp 11 Intelligence
1200gp L1 spell 3/day (Magic Missile) - from the party mage

Then what level would the CL be for creating this?

I thougth the +1 skill point cap/hat could be made at any CL (DC = 5 + CL).

However, would it be limited to a CL3 for the creator (Druid), or CL 5 (mage who put in the spell that would shoot 3MM).

Can the item be made at a CL 9 so that the MM shoots 5?

@Gauss

Players will not have a that much harder time finding and selling equipment since the 'magic item' economy is already built this way. It should actually balance out considering:
1) Most items on the market will be for items that 'most' people in that region can use.
2) Some items in shops will already have been upgraded.
3) Items that are 'close' to what they want can always be 'upgraded' for the additional 30%.
4) UMD becomes a more important skill.

This means I can vary my treasure throwing in 'cheaper' more powerful items where those with high UMD can intermittently use them. This gives a sorcerer a more flexible role.

Most people take the list price of magic items as a given, but I’m thinking of making a fundamental change to magic items in my world which changes their respective costs.

Economically speaking, when humanoids are going to have magic items made, they are going to go for the best value for their money, and go for the cheapest price, which means that according to most economic theories, most if not all magic items are made with just one restriction regarding (Race, Class, or Alignment) to gain the 30% discount.

New Campaign Rule I’m Considering:
“The ‘Norm’ is for magic items to be created with use restrictions. Over 90% of all magical items created are limited in one fashion or another. The most common restriction (90%) is race.”

It seems to me that the most common restriction that allows the 'most' people to use an item is 'race' unless an area is very metropolitan or mixed.

This way PCs who find magic items have a chance to not only find items they can’t use, but it may require them to actually ‘upgrade’ an item before it can be used.

Many people complain about the 30% discount for items which are ‘restricted’ to use by certain race/alignments/classes. Some argue this is an ‘addition’ to a magic item, while others argue that it is that the item isn’t fully formed. The RAW is the latter interpretation.

But what percentages?
Wondrous Items: Mostly race, but a few would be class specific.
Armor: Mostly class, but light armor probably race
Weapons: Depends upon if Martial weapon or Monk weapon
Wands: Mostly Class or race
Scrolls: Mostly Class or race
Potions: Mostly race.

The downside of this change to my campaign is additional tracking and calculations, but I think the ‘reality’ is that most magic items would be restricted in one way or another, while those that can be used by everyone might be nicknamed ‘Greater Masterwork’ magic items. ;-)

Any thoughts on this change? It is a not so subtle shift in the underlying economics of the world for most players who are not used to it.

RAW indicates that it takes 1 round to activate the spell from the ring since the spell is a 1 round spell.

But nowhere does it indicate that a Concentration check is needed or would ever be needed.

So once I start activating it, can I then take AOO's (via combat reflexes) prior to the beginning of my next round where I would finally become 'large'?

I would think I could, but perhaps I'm missing something.

There is no text about interrupting the spell from the ring, or it failing.

After looking through other feats and their descriptions, I'm now convinced that he would have to get IUS first

Here is where I disagree.

You are skilled at fighting while unarmed.
Benefit:You are considered to be armed even when unarmed—you do not provoke attacks of opportunity when you attack foes while unarmed. Your unarmed strikes can deal lethal or nonlethal damage, at your choice.
Normal: Without this feat, you are considered unarmed when attacking with an unarmed strike, and you can deal only nonlethal damage with such an attack.

The “Normal” does not apply to the Ape, and is not the “Case A” for which a new “Benefit:” (Case B) then becomes the norm. The ape already meets the conditions that are the 'Benefit' and therefore the conditions which are a prerequisite for Improved Grapple are already met.

The 'Feat Name' "Improved Unarmed Strike" is simply a (name) 'wrapper' for an ability (do lethal unarmed damage) that must be had in order to use Improved Grapple.

Does my APE animal companion need to get Improved Unarmed Strike before getting Improved Grapple, or are they already considered to have it? (Their unarmed strikes do lethal damage to begin with, and they are always unarmed, unless they have a weapon feat.)

L5 Character with the following progression:

L1 Druid FEAT: Boon Companion
L2 Sorcerer(Sylvan) gains animal companion
- Animal companion level caluclation:
---1) Sorcerer 1 - 3 levels = -2 (but must be 1 minimum)
---2) Druid level stacks with other class levels that have Animal Companions

Therefore Sorcerer is 1(The Minumum)+ Druid Level 1 = 2

And both animal companions are L2.

Some would argue that the Sorcerer based animal companion is still L1, but I don't see the requirement of ignoring the Druid levels, rather I see that the Sorcer Level as Druid equivalent needs to be calculated FIRST and then the Druid level stack on that.

Now if Boon Companion were taken on this second (Sorcerer) companion, then it would be.

Sorcer 1 (treated as 4 levels higher [Sor5]) - 3 = 2 (which is his total character levels anyway).

I would have to add to this discussion that the "Evil" Nature of the spell helps balance its 'too powerful for a 1st level spell' character.

Why is it normally too powerful for a L1 spell?
1. It heals 10HP, Guaranteed. (CLW does 2HP or more)
2. It stops 'Bleed' damage
3. It instantly stabalizes the user if they drop below 0.
4. It can bring those below zero (or staggered) back to positive HP

Therefore chracters who cannot use spells with an evil descriptor are limited in terms of using it.

A DM needs to treat this powerful spell as having severe drawbacks.

I would even argue a Pally would lose his abilities if he failed his saving throw if it is cast on him. Evil is coursing through him, so that must have some effect. Since it is a L1 spell, the chances are high he'll succeed in saving against it.

My question is at the end.

My players recently had to deal with a 'medium forest' encounter which slowed the pace of battle down, prevented easy 5' steps, and where the concealment chances turned a few hits into misses. Also, nearly everyone got +2 to AC as the trees in their squares provided partial cover.

It was certianly a change of pace to dungeon encounters and easy mobility.

Using Excel and VBA, I created a 'mapmaker' for various types of forests to create these types of encounters.

After some thought, I've created a little chart for what I would call "Course Hazards" for traveling in forest.

Course Hazards (Forest)
Player rolls a D6 every 30, on a 1, they inform me they might have encountered a course hazard as they 'discover' their way through the undergrowth of the forest.

2. Bird poops on you.
3. Animal Trail (Draw new path on map through undergrowth)
4. Box Turtle , Frog, or Bird (taking flight)
5. Nettles (if in undergrowth -1 to concentration check)
6. Large Gooey Spider Web(s), Or Gooey Mold/Fungus growth
7. --NOTHING--
8. Slippery mud (acrobatics check)
9. Fallen Log / Stump (Next move costs +1 square, or climb for +1 to attacks)
10. Centipede/Bees/Stinging creatures (-3 to concentration checks)
11. Scampering Squirrel/Mammal
12. Snake (roll to see if poisonous/aggressive)

Only a few have in-game effects. I'm thinking of switching to a 2d8 instead of 2d6 to allow for more things.

Tiny snakes, if poisonious, always have an 'attack of opportunity' vs flatfooted PC's, and simply scamper away and reconceal themselves, sort of 'mobile mines' in the forest. (They are effectivly mini-traps that do Dex damage)

Any suggestions as to things I could add or change?

I don't understand the timing rules on this.

Example:
Touch of Law (Sp): You can touch a willing creature as a standard action, infusing it with the power of divine order and allowing it to treat all attack rolls, skill checks, ability checks, and saving throws for 1 round as if the natural d20 roll resulted in an 11. You can use this ability a number of times per day equal to 3 + your Wisdom modifier.

Is it until...
1. The 'end of their next round'
2. The 'end of your next round'
3. One round taken whenever they want (i.e. they can 'hold' it)

If a monk2/sorcerer5 casts chill touch,then on the next round can he flurry of blows two touch attacks?

Thank you for your comments.

His spells in addition to Chill Touch are indeed Mage Armor/Shield(while a student/initiate in the Hungry Ghost Monk Monastery).

Actually, I wasn't exactly planning on combining touch attacks with normal attacks. At low levels, his touch attack does as much damage as his unarmed strike, so there really isn't a need to combine. Furthermore, he can use his touch attacks for AOO's and even carry about scrolls of enlarge peson so that his reach weapon extends farther while his own reach goes 10'. At higher levels he'll eventually drop using chill touch in most cases even though his chance of hitting is better than his unarmed attack chance to hit. Chill touch becomes less useful at higher levels, and he'll eventually stop using it.

He also plans to get permanancy cast on top of a greater magic fang; hopefully giving him a +3 to hit/damage to keep his damage curve up. This should address your damage potential comments.

The vampiric nature of the H.Ghost monk is too good to pass up thematically, so I think this works better than the Qingong monk who incidentally might be better if I were to take the changeling race and a dual bloodtype.

Lastly, while the -1 to DC is mostly meaningless as it has only a minor effect on the chill touch saving throw to prevent damage (or to cause undead to run away) the other Flaw does have a real impact. While I considered taking 'shaky' to give a -2 to ranged attacks, I thought it a better trade off to have something more severe (to prevent too much of a 'cheese' nature of this build) and fatigue does the trick by reducing his offense/defense slightly for 1-6 rounds IF it comes into effect. All he has to do is make his first concentration check at 50% or better and he has no problem.

My concern with this flaw is that it may not be enough of an offset. On the other hand, becoming sickened, even for 3 rounds (on top of fatiuge) can have serious consequences with my saving throws at start of hostilites. Then again, this makes for an interesting set of choices (at low level). Does he take shield and THEN try for chill touch? If he loads up (mage armor, shield, chill touch) in the first 3 rounds, he pays an opportunity cost where he is likely to fail ONE of these three concentration checks.

I've created the following character for Carrion Crown (15 pt buy).

I took Dhampir with a Wildblood "Sanguine" (undead) bloodline to give him the opportunity to heal from eating the blood of freashly dead. (Those who've died less than a minute previously.)

To go with this theme, all other levels he'll take will be monk (Hungry Ghost Monk - who will also vampirically steal Ki) I thought it made for a good theme.

One of the benefits of the single level of sorcerer is that he'll have both Mage Armor and Shield, and with the Magical Knack feat, these will be useful at higher levels and for long battles. And the penumbra cantrip is what makes this build work as he can then prevent himself from being dazzled in bright light.

And here is where it gets interesting:
1. The DM allows for FLAWS, so taking that into consideration, I thought I could take a two sorcer bloodlines (which reduce my spells known by one, and my will saves by -2) and make up for this with two Expanded Arcana feats. This gives me "3" Spells Known.

My third spell is Chill touch. So with the Campaign feat that allows me to cast one spell at +1CL, and that with Sanguine bloodline, Neocromancy spells are +1CL, I can then cast it as a CL3 at L1.

2. The second bloodline, in addition to the variant 'undead' blood line is Empyreal (Celestial based) which turns my casting stat from Charisma to a Wisdom 'based' stat for all sorcerer effects. Of course this benefits a monk build.

3. His main feat is Weapon Finesse, so now his Chill Touch will hit more frequently and do as much damange as a his early monk fists. His weapons are Cestus (a monks glove - "Simple Weapon" cateogry) and a longspear (which a sorcerer can use). This way he has BOTH reach and point bank attacks.

FLAWS
4. The choice of Flaws to take was interesting since being both a version of the Undead and Celestial (Sanguine/Empyreal) means that he is seriously conflicted/messed up (hence the -2 to will save for this dual blood archetype)

Flaw #1" -1 DC to spells
This was simple and really only affected his chill touch. But one would expect that since he has to cast off his wisdom, and has this internal battle between bloodlines, it makes thematic sense. While it is 'possible' he would or could continue as a sorcerer and have other spells, it is EXTREMELY unlikely.

Flaw #2: Possible 'fatigue' after spells
While there was a flaw that meant a failed saving throw put the PC into a 'fatigue' state until 8 hours of rest, this seemed excessive. Instead, I suggested to the DM that he have to make first a Concentration check, and then failing that, a Fortitude check whenever he casts ANY spell. (Including his spell like ability of detect undead.)

If he fails the Concentration check (DC11 for L1 spells) then he is 'fatigued' for 3 rounds and must pass a (DC11 for L1) fortitude save or gain another d3 rounds of fatique on top of it. Fatigue affects both his Dex and Str, which drops his to hit, AC, and damage for betweeen 0-6 rounds. I thought it a nice 'thematic' Flaw.

His stat block is
12 STR
18 DEX
10 CON
10 INT
14 WIS
9 CHR (no longer his sorcerer stat)
This means his concentration check starts at +1 and mostly maxes out at +3 by L3 (via magical knack)
His fortitud save is worse.

We've only played one session, and I'm considering suggesting to the DM that the Fortitude save be "sickened" (-2 to attack, dam, saves, etc) and be concurrent with the fatique status, but I think this may be a little 'too' harsh, but it would represent the 'taxing' nature of his spontaneously casting spells which come from his wisdome while his celestial and undead bloodlines are in conflict.

His history is that after not being able to initially fit into human society, he finds himself as a part of a vampire's court, and is captured (rescued) by a group that includes a Hungry Ghost Monk. His unique attributes (including his not fully developed sorcerers talent) made him a iniquely positioned in the vampires courts (magical knack), which made up for his low overall charisma - for showing elements of 'true' vampirism to eat/heal, even though the creature must have been freshly killed.

The party that 'captured' him, brought him to the professor (start of the campaign path) and in the process he was studied by the professor and befriended by the H.Ghost Monk. He is incouraged by the Professor (Inspired to Greatness trait) to develop his his magical skills (giving him +1CL on Chill touch spells) and eventually chooses to join the monestary of the monk in order to use that as a path into (mostly) civil society.

I figure that he has not yet passed his final 'monk exam' and while having all the attributes of a L1 monk, he dare not use them (LAWFUL neutral) as it would not be honorable or in line with the monks code. But to represent this, I give him the cestus (monks glove) as his primary weapon until he can start using the monks barehanded attack at L2.

The DM like this as it really seemed very good thematically.

Thanks, so it is a 15 point buy, but the DM may allow for more. Got it.

We are looking at doing an adventure path, but haven't bought it yet. What is the method for carrion crown character generation? Rolling dice, point buy (and if so, how many points)?

The creator must have the prepared spell to be stored (or must know the spell in the case of a sorcerer or bard)...The act of working on the wand triggers the prepared spell, making it unavailable for casting during each day devoted to the wand's creation. (That is, the spell slot is expended...)

The "or must know" refers to the fact that bards and sorcerers don't PREPARE spells, they only KNOW spells.

This is not a statement of restriction but of 'technicality.' To simply have written "a wizard must know a spell" (instead of using the word 'prepare') it would not make it clear that he would actually have to study and prepare it out of his spellbook. "My wizard knows Unseen Servant, but the only time he's ever memorized or cast it was two years ago."

Therefore the general rule (below) also takes effect:

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).

So a Bard/Sorcer would have to know the spell (since they can't "prepare" spells) "although access through another magic item or spellcaster is allowed." Furthermore, as a "general statement" it therefore doesn't have to be repeated in each case below, but covers 'all cases', while the wording in the case of a wand is pointing out a technicality that a Bard/Sorcer (who can't 'prepare' like a wizard) must 'know' the spell, and it has already been established as a general rule that in place of a "known" spell, access through other magic items or spellcasters are allowed.

I know that my sorcerer can have others prepare the spells needed. He's already made cleric wands etc.

I just couldn't find the that he somehow has to always make spells on the Wizard/Sorcer list at CL4 minimum if he can have someone else cast it.

Also, if he has someone else cast it, then he IS meeting the requirements.

Are the following two scenarios correct, or am I missing a rule.

Scenario #1:
To make a 2nd level wand of a spell he casts, a sorcerer pays half of 6000. (750gp x 2SL x 4CL = 6000) since he has to be L4 before he can even cast the second level spell. This makes a CL4 wand.

Now if brings in a wizard to cast the same spell when he makes the wand, there should be no 'penalty' and the wand should be half of 750 x 2SL x 3CL = 4500. The wand is CL3 (from the wizard who cast it at CL3)

Scenario #2:
Using the following,
A) Rod of Extend, lesser
B) L2 Spell (invisibility) - cast by a Wizard as CL3
C) Wand made by a L7 sorcerer with craft wand feat.

The wand would be half of the cost of...
750 x 3SL (metamagic boost) x CL3 = 6750
and have a duration twice as long as normal for a CL3 wand.

At what point do monsters get to overcome the "+3" armor enhancement "Invulnerability" (DR5/magic)? Is it HD, or does it specifically have to say in the stat block that their natural attacks are considered magical? (Obviously energy effects overcome DR).

Thanks!

The rogue's attack deals extra damage anytime her target would be denied a Dexterity bonus to AC (whether the target actually has a Dexterity bonus or not), or when the rogue flanks her target.

I'm not sure I understand this phrase "denied a Dexterity bonus to AC"

Does this mean a 12 dex (+1) creature in a net gets -4 to its dex and is denied the 'positive' bonus of +1 (as it is now -1)? Or that since it has a dex bonus of -1, there is no sneak attack.

Alas, the 4th level monk referring the match would not allow bludgeoning as it was "wrestling". The boxing matches came later.

Pinning is usually a count to 3, so three six second rounds were not going to cut it.

Here's what I did, and it worked:
1. Each round had a new initiative.
2. Once pinned, you had one chance to break the pin. If you couldn't break it (3 seconds) you lost.

"Technically" this meant that if you went second on round 1 and then first on round 2, you could get the grapple, then confirm it on the start of the next round, and go for the pin. Of course it didn't happen this way, but it could have.

Players and opponents had
CMB: +3 to +6 range
CMD: 14-19 range

It tended to see-saw back and forth, and a good time was had by all.
Each faced 3-4 opponents, who were a bit less 'heroic' than them, as they weren't PC's, but nevertheless, some matches were easy for the PC's while others were close and 'worrisome'.

I'm about to run the encounter, where upon travelling to a small village because villagers spotted a tunnel when doing maintenance on the local well, the adventurers find that it isn't a tunnel at all, but a 5' grotto that looks like it could be a tunnel entrance. A bit of a letdown for the PC's.

Nevertheless, upon arriving to town they learn that there is not just one wedding, but three; and as a part of the celebrations, there are various contests, including a hastily arranged wrestling contest that will consist primarily for the locals and those who have traveled to attending the wedding. This is an opportunity for players to use the Combat Maneuvers to win a contest, a little money, and maybe a sash or medal.

Afterwards, there will be a series of boxing matches (non-lethal damage) where a local cleric will 'heal' all non-lethal damage between rounds by channeling positive energy. A monk will be the judge (and no monks are allowed in this tournament, for obvious reasons). The two PC's I expect to participate are an L2 Fighter (2-weapon fighter), and an L4 Bard. No magic assistance is allowed, and it will be an elimination ladder format.

I'm planning on tweaking the combat rules so that I can run the wrestling matches for the fun of the players.

A wrestler has a choice of 4 primary actions at the start of the match:
1. Demoralize (Intimidate)
2. Feint (Bluff)
3. Ready an action (can be bypassed if feint is successfully used by the opponent).
4. Take an action (move & standard) (initiate a grapple or trip)

I'm not sure if I should:
1. Simply award a win for the pin
2. Award victory upon pushing opponent outside a circle (pin, followed by a move action and then +4 to attempt by the defender to break the pin when being forced outside the circle using the 'move defender to "Hazardous Location"' rule.)
3. Use a point system: 1 point/Trip, 3 points/Pin

I'm also thinking of putting a time limit on each match of 2 or 3 one minutes matches (10r/turn), or to make each match 30 seconds (5 rounds), but with 3 of these rounds per match.

Any thoughts suggestions?

The parents of the various parties are putting up small purses, with buy-in at 4sp, and winner getting 20GP, 2nd place 5GP, and 3rd place getting double his entry fee. Not much for L2 and L4, but they are visiting a small village.

Secondly I dont see the point of the AOO reference in your above example since you cant grapple somone in as an AOO.

If you are unarmed, you don't get an AOO without the appropriate feat: Improved Unarmed Strike.

1) You would need to release (Free Action) the grab then perform the Trip.

Why? You are point blank with him, why not trip him while he is grappled (and where you lose the trip condition once you do, after the act which was a choice to 'not maintain' the grapple, as opposed to choosing to drop the grapple as a free action). The classic 'take down' while grappling? Either way you lose the grapple condition for 'trying' to trip, It seems that starting the grapple shouldn't require the grapple be dropped first. However, as I point out, with or without the grapple being present, it is a wash regarding the overall mathematical effects.

2) You can not take a standard action (or move action with Greater Grapple) on an AoO, so you can not take an AoO Grapple.

I'm confusing Trip (which can be in place of a melee attack) vs the standard action.

Sailing in daylight under ideal conditions with a full crew DC 10
Calm seas DC 10
Rough seas DC 12
Storm DC 14
Hurricane DC 16

You're kidding about the hurricaine, right?

Walking in a hurricaine should be a DC 25 check, much less sailing.

Rough seas have troublesome winds sometimes, so you have an up and down motion alongside wind that is pushing sideways.

In a storm, the water is pushing you sideways as well.

In a hurricaine, crossing an open space on the deck takes reflex saves, probably in the DC20-25 range if you are hit with high winds, AND walls of water.

"a successful check allows you to continue grappling the foe" as a STANDARD ACTION. But at the start of your turn, you and they are in the grappled condition, with you needing to take a standard action to continue it. By making a trip instead, (from the starting point of already being 'grappled') you would or should expect to have a -2 to any combat maneuver check, which balances out with the defenders -4 Dex. It winds up being 6 of one, a half dozen of the other. (Unless you are using Agile Manuevers.)