DonLouigi's page

Well ... yeah, and then you haven't cast for a whole day, and if you blow all your two-days worth of spells you won't be casting for the next day. Shouldn't conserving ressources bring a little benefit, up to a point (obviously not conserving a week's worth of spell slots, that would be abusable like hell in downtime situations)?

Also, then what's the point of choosing any time other than right after your usual rest for spell preperation? It would be really cool to have this tied to midday or sundown, but then you would be operating at like half capacity, and that is far too much power to give up for a little nice flavor.

Ahoy,

a thing that has annoyed me about the rules of spell preperation is this bit:

As with arcane spells, at the time of preparation any spells cast within the previous 8 hours count against the number of spells that can be prepared.

Source: d20pfsrd

A divine spellcaster chooses and prepares spells ahead of time, but unlike a wizard, does not require a period of rest to prepare spells. Instead, the character chooses a particular time of day to pray and receive spells.

as the morning is the only choosable time without severely gimping yourself (unless, of course, your party adventures primarily at night and rests at day, at which point the afternoon becomes the only choosable time)

Now I might be in a position soon to houserule this, but I wanted to ask: Is there a particular (maybe balance-related) reason for the recent casting limit? Will I break anything if I abandon it?

THanks in advance.

Alright,l as it seems pathfinder does not have explicit rules, I agree, my reccomendation to our GM will be a standard action, opposed by the target's Sense Motive.

Bluff is always an opposed roll vs Sense Motive.

Well, the "Feint" action ist Bluff vs Passive Sense Motive (10+target's sense motive modifier). But I agree, should probably be actively opposed.

However, concerning the Stealth Check, I did find something else:

If your observers are momentarily distracted (such as by a Bluff check), you can attempt to use Stealth. While the others turn their attention from you, you can attempt a Stealth check if you can get to an unobserved place of some kind. This check, however, is made at a –10 penalty because you have to move fast.

So, if you use the distraction you take -10? That seems excessive on top of the action cost. On the other hand it basically allows you to hide in plain sight, so maybe it is justified?

Ahoy,

I've come across a part of the stealth rules in Pathfinder:

Creating a Diversion to Hide: You can use Bluff to allow you to use Stealth. A successful Bluff check can give you the momentary diversion you need to attempt a Stealth check while people are aware of you.

However I could not find a reference to this anywhere so I ask myself: How does this work? What kind of action is the bluff check? What is the DC (does the recipient roll Sense Motive, as usual for bluff)? What kind of conditions and/or modifications apply to the corresponding Stealth-Check?

Does anyone have further information or experience on how to handle this?

All the best.

Al right, I'm game

1) Probably Humans. I admit, I'm kind of a conservative concerning my races, and I have a little difficulty portraying other races so as to not just be a slapstick stereotype but on the other and to not be just a human in a different skin. So, if I would be playing a human with grey skin or long fangs anyway, why not play a human? I've almost never had a concept, where the Human wa not a very good choice to portray it. maybe I'm just inimaginative? Dwarves are an exception to the rule, because I love Dwarves and I enjoy playing them. Not as much as humans, because some of the dwarves racial features are annoying (slow and steady) or don't make the least bit of sense (Charisma penalty - I mean seriously, dwarves are not as good as being inspiring or intimidating as Gnomes? Give me a break!), but they are the only race I've played in Pathfinder except for humans.

2) Well ... see above. There's also the thing that I am very set in my ways and so the exotic races (Tieflings or such things as Strix) don't appeal to me at all. Maybe I just don't have Special Snowflake Syndrom, or maybe, I have advanced Special Snowflake System ("Look at me! I am the only one who dares play something as boring as a human! Pay attention to me!"), I don't know :D

3) Elves. I hate Elves. With passion. Possibly because in Tolkinian Fantasy, they are just so much superior to humans and dwarves and don't have recognizable flaws. Possibly also a contributing factor to why I love dwarves, as I perceive them as a little bit of the Underdog, especially in the Lord of the Rings films, where the only dwarven character got turned into a stupid comic relief sidekick.

Actually, as a non-native speaker, the first time I encountered the term "For the Greater Good", was as the motto of Gellert Grindelvald, basically Wizard Hitler in the Harry Potter novels, which has led to me beeing extremely suspicious against anyone using it as a justification.

Now, assuming that such a scenario as Dastis or Tacticslion describe actually comes up, assuming that the person in question has proof beyond doubt, that there is no double play and assuming that he has used every means available to him looking for another option, including crying for help, than it might be the right choice to kill the innocent. Might. The reason I am so careful here is that I am genuinely unsure on the subject. I have thought about it quite a bit, but I do not think I have come up with a definitive answer. And don't even get me started on where I would think the line is, if Dastis' scenario would be deemed appropriate.

However, the "Not lose any sleep"-Part of it is an entirely different matter. Everyone who causes another one's death, be it through an accident or another chain of events, where he did everything as right as he could have, and who does not feel regret or remorse or the nagging question, if he chose rightly, would be deeply suspect to me, because it just seems too cold and unfeeling for me to call such a person "good". Your mileage may vary, but to me, one of the prime indicators of a good person is a very active and often very painful conscience.

And even if we say it was the right action to kill that innocent to save the world or whatever (under the 'assuming'-conditions above), it would most definitely not be a good one. I'd probably not affect someones alignment or divine powers for it (unless of course their deity or code specifically forbids the harming of innocents under any circumstances, in which case, I'm sorry to say, the character is s@!$ out of luck), but I'd never call it a good act. Might seem like semantics, I find it important.

Having said all this, I have to agree that talk is cheap. To actually influence alignment as written on a character sheet, actions would have to be performed.

I'm having a strange sense of deja-vu. Coincidence? :D

I also second the one with the hired assassins and/or bounty hunters.

If the campaign goes on rather far from the original lands of the character's family, then there is no reason to incorporate this at all (beyond some very dedicated hired mooks). But the party could hear talks about "that spoiled noble who brutally murdered his whole family, burned the keep down and fled" or something like that.

Also the party could be approached by certain interested parties, possibly benevolent but probably far less so, who offer help the character reclaiming his title in exchange for "a few favors". Those could be other nobles, foreign guilds or extraplanar entities like (minor) Devils. The motives could be just to motivate the party to do jobs for their new allies, to see justice come to pass or that they hope that this will destabilise the character's homeland to make it ripe for invasion.
Depending on the little brother's standing with the monarch/prince of his nation, there could be political feedback, either that the character should not show his face near the capital, or, in the opposite direction, that the monarch (through agents) hires the party to destabilize the younger brother's reign (maybe he is a thorn in the monarch's side and the latter wants a way to weaken him while also maintaining plausible deniability). But that should probably wait some levels and then the character's past comes back to haunt him or something.

Just some thoughts.

This is definitely one of the better character stories I have read in my (admittedly not overly long) Roleplaying Career, both content-wise (good old classical themes are considered good and classical for a reason) and in terms of expression. Thumbs-up, the character sounds pretty cool. Seems you didn't need any help from us :D

Note, I couldn't say anything about the historical names and the like; I assume your setting is Golarion and I've played very little in that setting.

A few things, which I hope are not understood as nitpickings but as suggestions, where to elaborate.

What happened to your mother? Did she pass away during Endrams youth? Or is she still in the castle now held by the evil son? Or is she even (secretly) in league with him?

It is a little convenient that Grolaar just happened to be hunting, unless of course evil Elban waited exactly for that moment as he feared the half-orc's opposition. Maybe you could strengthen the bond between the two by having Grolaar warn Endram of the plot and helping him escape. Just as a question of interest, is this guy a fellow player or some sort of NPC cohort?

As I've said, good work.

Aah, Backstory. I love it.

Just tossing some ideas out there, as I've also toyed with the idea of creating a noble-born wizard (but never actually came around to it). None of them are terribly original mind you, just putting them out there.

Let's start with the learning magic:
I like to imagine that nobles have court wizards in the same way that medieval nobles had chaplains or that the Lords in The Song of Ice and Fire have Maesters.

So, your character's father could have realised, that his son does not show a lot of martial prowess, so he asked his court wizard (who wouldn't have to be particularly high level) to tutor the boy.

Alternatively your character is the second or third son and was sent away to a wizarding academy to make something out of himself (the same way that real-life second sons were sent to become priests), possibly with an eventual goal of serving as his elder brother's court wizard.

Or maybe a close family member or friend (mother? uncle? old comrade-in-arms of the father?) was a wizard and took to teaching the boy, you showed quite an aptitude for intelectual capacity.

Going on to a slightly more exciting scenario, maybe the father lost some kind of feud and your character was, as a kid, sent as a hostage (or "ward" as it would be called) to the rial family, where he recieved that training; that could very well result in some torn loyalties and mistrust in the family (again, think Ice and Fire, especially the character of Theon Greyjoy).

Those are some admittedly very basic concepts about this, but I find them entirely plausible, if not particularly unsual or exciting.

Moving on to the matter of the reason for adventuring:
Again, I'm just gonna toss some pretty generic ideas.

The most obvious one is probably revenge. Someone wronged your family and now you're hunting them down. This can get very fun, if the DM agrees to imcorporate it in his campaign, but I tend to find it quite disappointing, if the DM does not. Also, it is a bit of an overused trope in my opinion.

The other obvious one would be curiosity. The young wizard spent his youth reading in dusty old tomes and listening to his father's war stories about exciting adventures and now he wants to see all these things for himself. He wants to see Dragons and meet fairies and use his spells in useful and exciting ways. He does not have some great goal except for some high-risk sightseeing. could go well together with a spoiled noble brat.

The slightly more driven version of the above, is that the young wizard craves power and knowledge, seeking old artifacts and forgotten magical secrets. Also very generic, but could do in a pinch.

As a more specific apporach, tying in with the hostage-idea above, when relations improved and he came back home to his family, he was greeted with a lot of cold and distrust. Feeling treated unjustly, he left his family to find his fortune elsewhere (though I wouldn' know why his father would then pay for the bodyguard. Maybe your char acquired him elsewhere?)

Your character could have discovered some shameful secret about his father or mother. For family's sake he agreed to keep quiet about it but doesn't feel comfortable staying under the same roof as them.

Maybe he has a rather strained relationship with his father, because the old man is an accomplished warrior and might be disappointed, that his son is a squishy academic and your char wanted to escape the father's constant pressure. Possibly the father had expectations for his heir which your char didn't feel he could match (certain kind of ruthlessnes or social graces).

Do you know, what your (first) adventure will be about? Maybe there could be a story-specific reason to adventure. Maybe he heard about some menace to the realm and being the lawful character he is rose to defend his homeland and his king. Or his wizard mentor told him on his deathbed to seek out a specific relic lest it fall in the wrong hands or some souch.

SO, there are some basic ideas. Again, probably not the most creative and original ones, but some are quite general and I think they can be applied to most games.

P.S. Of course, independently of that, you could put some sibling rivalry in your story, which is always a good trope for nobles. And, depending on how ruthless the sibling actually is, it could be a story hook, if the DM is willing.