Finarin Panjoro's page

I hope the range of opinions on what the RAW indicates here is sufficient to convince people that the conclusion is unclear.

I also thank everyone for remaining so civil, quite refreshing :)

To DM Blake, I completely agree with what your saying about the rules not indicating everything that cannot be done, but I also feel that it is unrealistic to expect the rules to detail everything that can be done.

In this case I think it is unclear which is correct as both sides have valid points. My personal opinion is that the rules cited so far are more in favor of being able to disintegrate worn armor than against the notion (based on disintegrate specifying its use against objects and the existence of rules for damaging attended objects).

But everyone please continue! Your thoughts and points are welcome!

You may be correct, but I don't believe Corbin Dallas' quote actually refers to the issue at hand. That quotes clarifies that equipment is not damaged when a spell is targeting the bearer (save in the case of a natural 1 on the saving throw). It does not actually say that equipment cannot be targeted.

I'm having trouble because disintegrate clearly states that it can target an object. And equipment is by definition an object.

The ray ignoring armor class is a pretty good argument, but couldn't one just as easily say that the magic behaves so because the intention is to hit the wearer? In the case of a ray that may target an object couldn't the intention be changed?

Also impact location with a ray does seem to matter since a ray is capable of scoring a critical hit and thereby doing greater damage. If the target location didn't matter at all, as DM Blake suggests, then why would this be the case?

I'm fully prepared to accept that one cannot do as I'm suggesting, I just haven't seen any RAW yet that actually seems to state such a thing.

I'm unclear on why several of you assert that one cannot do this.

I find it difficult to accept 'the rules don't say that you can do this, so you can't' as a clear ruling against it. The rules are not inclusive of all possible actions.

Additionally the disintegrate spell specifically allows the targeting of objects, with no exception for worn or attended objects. The rules for attended objects would seem to indicate that the item would use the wielder's touch AC, SR, and saving throw.

That seems a stronger argument that it can be done, than that it cannot.

Can anyone site a rule that clearly precludes using the disintegrate spell (or any spell that allows attacks on objects) to attack an enemy's armor?

If a mage were inclined to disintigrate the armor an opponent was wearing how would one resolve this?

It seems like it would work as a standard disintigrate attack (ranged touch, wearer's SR or other magic resistance applies, saving throw as wearer, etc). The only difference being that any damage would be dealt to the armor rather than to the target. Hardness would still apply.

In other words, the sunder rules would not come into play at all. I admit I haven't scoured the books, but that seems the correct conclusion to me.

Is that how my fellow DMs would rule this?
Thanks,
Fin

You said a few things there that have me thinking, such as leaves the area of the spell.

I've assumed that mage's disjunction is essentially an instantaneous spell with regards to its effects (which it equates to dismissal by dispel magic) and that its duration only applies to how long a magic item is suppressed for.

That is that there is no lingering effect on the area in which it is cast, otherwise it seems like it is creating an anti-magic field and that doesn't seem to be what the spell describes.

My understanding is that the balor could reactivate a constant spell-like ability as a swift action on each turn that followed but what about those supernaturals? Do they restart for free? Are they immune in the first place?

Does a mage's Disjunction spell dispel/dismiss/suppress supernatural abilities that are in effect on a creature within the spell's area?

For example, if a mage's disjunction was cast upon a balor demon would it lose its flaming body, death throes, and vorpal strike supernatural abilities? For how long would these abilities be suppressed?

I know that it would lose all its active spell-like abilities and that it's sword and whip would lose their magical properties (on a failed save for each), except possibly the vorpal property which is a supernatural function of the balor.

Any thoughts, advice, or clarifications would be much appreciated.

So how does one handle something like this?

If I have a gargantuan creature (one that occupies a space 20' across) but he's standing on a 10' ledge, do I consider him to be balancing? squeezing? Is it easier for him to fall? What if it is a 15' wide ledge? or if he's at the corner of a pit such that the 10' square in 1 corner of his space is over the edge?

Any thoughts would be appreciated as I will be dealing with this scenario in the near future.

Thanks.

Is it possible for a monster to stack these feats on the same ability? For example, could a pit fiend, caster level 18 take empower SLA and apply it to fireball in addition to the quicken SLA he already has applied to it?

By the rule for Quicken SLA, the creature can only select a spell with a spell level equal to half of its caster level -4 this would still seem to be possible. An empowered fireball is a fifth level spell. And half of 18 minus 4 is 5.

Does this seem doable or is there a problem with my math?

These aren't strictly new items, but I ruled that alchemical items could be enchanted like ammunition. This resulted in undead bane holy water (2d6+2 extra damage against undead) and flaming burst alchemist fire (+1d6 fire damage to main and splash zone, +1d10 fire damage on primary target with critical hit).

Holy and Unholy are pretty versatile enhancements that up the damage nicely for higher level play.

My only problem with these approaches is that it basically gives the players only 1 or 2 adventures to experience this level of play. The problem for me is experience points.

I've considered having players start as NPC classes with the young template. They would lose the template at an appropriate time (dictated by story, not experience points)and convert their NPC levels into equivalent PC levels, simultaneously gaining points with which to buy higher abilities. This lets them have a significant series of lesser adventures while still experiencing some advancement.

But again I've never actually tried it. Perhaps my next campaign.

I love them. I'm using them in a high level campaign right now.

I also had the idea of giving them organic technology since their culture would not have developed fire and metal undersea. If you're familiar with the Yuuzhan Vong from Star Wars RPG I've made Yuuzhan Vong Sahaugin. They wear crab armor that grants DR, weild amphistaffs that are undersea serpents which can become double headed spears and/or whips and deliver poison or shock damage (eel variant), cloaks that grant SR versus arcane spells, thud and razor bugs (guided ranged weapons), blorash jellies (tanglefoot bags), etc. All of which can also be enchanted.

So far my players have enjoyed these unique undersea baddies.

Actually this raises another question: Would spell immunity- forbiddance allow them to planar travel within a forbiddance effect or merely make them immune to the damage component.

I mean it makes them immune to the spell, right? This could be important in terms of escaping.

They're entering the Eye of Ba'al, the most heavily fortified place in all the planes (according to the Book of the Damned).

I figure Moloch (Archduke of Malebolge) having a few thousand years to place his defenses (and forbiddance being permanent) means he'd have figured out that spacing them apart by 10 feet would make it nearly lethal for any non-devil to enter and move across the chamber. (Which by my design is a circular chamber of descending tiers 3 miles high and 1 mile across surrounding the magical replica of the 9 layers of Hell which floats at the chambers center).

So it is a pretty extreme case.

I figured Mind Blank wouldn't cover it, but I thought I'd see if my opinion was wrong.

However James suggestion of spell resistance gave me the answer. Greater Spell Immunity . They know they're going to encounter the forbiddance zones and they can cast this on themselves before they enter the area (the duration will be three hours at a CL of 18).

Thanks all, that's what I needed!

No, I'm afraid 10 levels of Master Spy isn't an option :)

Unfortunately neither is anti-magic field because the mind blank they have in place is necessary to keep them from being revealed to non-magical senses (their disguises are dependent on magic to work).

Anything that would cause them to be treated as LE (the alignment of the Forbiddance effects) should work, but I don't know what that would be. Limited Wish? Wish?

Is there any spell or ability that allows you to avoid or negate the alignment based damage taken by entering an area warded with a forbiddance spell?

What I'm wondering is if mind blank which prevents your alignment from being detected might work to negate the damage as in the field would be unable to detect your alignment and attack you.

Obviously the field might not work by detecting your alignment but is simply harmful to anyone of different alignment so that might be a moot point and I'm looking for other options.

I have a group of players who needs to move through an about a mile of chamber that is dimensionally locked and has alternating forbiddance effects every 60 feet.

Note that they will be disguised and observed by their enemeies so they can't simply heal up after each entry (or rest and recover) as that would give away the fact that they are not of the appropriate alignment.

Short of being the correct alignment how might they get through this? Are there methods of faking the correct alignment as far as the spell is concerned?

Thanks for any help.

I'm also curious at to the thought on this. This should have come up in my game two days ago, but I never even thought to question it and let the spell work normally.

Just my opinions here.

1. The best way to do this IMO is to have the blow fall and defeat the character (that is do enough damage to drop them below 0), but instead of applying the damage have the striker stay his hand. Let the PC know that they have been beaten, but are conscious because the villain wants to talk. Then no one feels cheated. You'd need rules for resolving further actions though by both parties (what if the guy decides to cut his throat, how can the player react to extricate himself, and so on).

2. A hit to a vital area is a critical hit, the rest is flavor text. Let the player describe it however they want without impacting the game situation. If the goal is to hold on to a large creature so that it can't get away from you (such as by flying) then I would call for a touch attack, followed by a Climb check every round to maintain the hold (requiring a move action). You're treated as climbing while on board (no dex to AC) and may use a standard action to attack with the other hand. The large creature could try to dislodge the little guy deliberately with a CMB check.

3. Yep, sleight of hand versus Perception and a surprise round.

4. That would still be a simple acrobatics check (for the movement part), the "your mine" part would fall under my answer to number 1. (If the ninja made a successful sneak attack that dropped the target he could instead hold a blade to their throat).

5. I believe there is a steal combat maneuver. Seems as appropriate for a kiss as it is for a coin. :)

You should assume no one can get within 60' without being detected since all dragons have blindsense 60' (see dragon senses). Even a silent invisible target will be instantly pinpointed at 60'.

Also dragons are immune to paralysis, so that's not an option.

You are absolutely correct, that is why I so frequently clarify that these conclusions are my opinions and interpretations. Also just a reminder, you did ask me specifically how a paladin operating under your interpretation would fare in my campaign world. The answer was obviously not well, but I would have made that clear to you before you found yourself in the situation so it wouldn't be coming at you as an unexpected surprise. If you made your concept clear to me I would recommend that within my world you would make a better cavalier or lawful neutral fighter/cleric than a paladin and would happily work with you to create an appropriate prestige class to help you achieve any particular vision for that character that you have (if not available within the existing classes). If these issues arose in play we'd take a moment to talk about it and come to a mutually acceptable conclusion (since I'm not omniscient after all) :)

I hope I've also been clear that I do not believe these conclusions are appropriate for a discussion of real world morality or legal systems. These are only conclusions on how I would run a game of heroic fantasy, Pathfinder in particular in which we have specific definitions of both good and law to site and from which to draw conclusions.

Yes, there are exceptions, I just don't believe the scenario that the OP provided constitutes one.

Also I'd have to modify the points you suggest that I'm arguing to actually agree that they represent my position.

1) A system of Law and Order cannot be good if it executes innocent people and has no system for appeal which can delay that execution until relevant parties are convinced.

A good system of law and order in my world would recognize a paladin, convinced of the condemned man's innocence, as a relevant party.

2)A paladin respects good law and order and neutral law and order, but always places good ahead of law and order. If he respects the law and order that he transgresses against he submits himself to its authority and accepts whatever judgement it deems appropriate for his actions.

He knowingly transgressed against the legitimate authority and is therefore not innocent, so he supports that authority by accepting the consequences of his deeds as the law commands. In this way, no innocent is punished and the law is respected.

Or at least that is how it would work in my world. Yes, a condemned innocent has been freed and the legal system thwarted, but when people say "How can you allow this to happen", the courts can clearly say "because any who follow this paladin's example will be punished according to the law in the same fashion as the paladin who has been convicted and punished for his offense."

By breaking the law the paladin has sacrificed his innocence in the scenario and accepts the punishment that would be wrongfully applied to the original prisoner.

That is also the critical point of difference between a neutral or chaotic person who would most likely not submit to the authority he had thwarted.

Also the law of unintended consequences is a great friend to the DM because the threat of those consequences is the call to adventure! Not so good in the real world or actual political/legal systems, but great stuff when you're dealing with heroic fantasy.

Fin,

[edit]
If I may refocus your attention to one of my questions,I'm curious as to your answer:
"Forget the word "deontology" for a moment. How can you have law and order, which a paladin is clearly committed to upholding, if at any moment lawful good people like himself feel obliged to violently rebel against the rulings of the court anytime they think an innocent man is being sentenced to death? In any given decision, there are always those who are convinced of one side or the other. Should those convinced of the innocence of a man, violently rebel?"

Certainly, though my previous response regarding lawful rebellion was meant to address this issue, allow me to expand on my answer.

In my campaign world, a lawful good person would not find themselves in this scenario because I find the death penalty to be inconsistent with the definition of good as given in D&D.
"Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others." IMO respect for life and concern for dignity of sentient beings precludes a death sentence where an alternative (imprisonment, banishment, etc) is available.

If a lawful good person in my campaign world did find themselves in the scenario the OP described it would be a confirmation that the system was not good aligned. Either because the good system would have no death penalty or would have a mechanism for delaying judgment until a respected heroic figure such as the paladin could be satisfied that the punishment was just (essentially a system of appeals).

The OP did not allow for either of these factors. So in my opinion, it was not a case of a lawful good paladin opposing a lawful good system.

Should these certain individuals take the law into their own hands? What if it is their duty to uphold the law regardless of whether they think the law is good or not and they believe strongly in doing their duty?

Then IMO these individuals are not lawful good. They are lawful neutral. They are dedicated to a system and to duty (which is very lawful), not to altruism and respect for life (which is specifically defined for Pathfinder as good).

Does this vision of the paladin I have described have a place in your world? Can there exist Good and Lawful paladins who wouldn't violently break the Condemned Innocent out of prison? If so, is neither your version or my version "correct" in their interpretation as to what should be done, or is it just my version that's incorrect?

Neither of us is incorrect since we're clearly well into interpretation and personal definitions of good and law and how they relate and whether supporting one at the expense of the other is still consistent with respecting the first.

In my campaign world, this paladin would fall because I would make it clear to them that allowing the innocent to die through inaction constitutes an alignment changing decision (from lawful good to lawful neutral). In my world, a paladin would not put a legal system ahead of the life of an innocent and would see a system that required him to do so as something that needed to be opposed or at the very least reformed. Clearly it is a system which does not allow for mistakes in its own judgment nor allow appeals to its directives and is therefore more concerned with its own authority than with the well being of the governed.

But that's in my world, where I make the rules. I'm merely presenting that as a possible response to the OP's query.

Jupistar,
You make a good point about the paladin placing the blame for the condemned mans death upon the actual criminal. But I would still expect the paladin to act to save the innocent man's life.

Regarding your inquiry about lawful rebellion, I would not have put a paladin in such a predicament to begin with. As I said in a previous post, I would only find a paladin taking the law into his own hands acceptable if the penalty for the crime did irreparable harm to the innocent man, such as death.

In a world that can readily demonstrate the availability of illusions, domination, shape changing, and the like my feeling is that no good aligned court system would have a death penalty. So the paladin would be constrained to work within the system of a lawful good, neutral good, or chaotic good system and the system would allow him to do so by not killing the accused.

Any non-good system is going to have issues with a paladin even if the paladin grants that the system is largely just and fair. The system itself is flawed if it compels people of good conscience to circumvent it to prevent wrongs done in the name of maintaining the system. Even a lawful neutral or neutral system might have an appeal system that allows the paladin to delay the verdict and thus gain the time needed to prove his innocence (thus allowing the paladin to work within the system).

The OP however stated that no such route was available. So the paladin is put into a no win scenario because, despite the system's somewhat blood-thirsty and inflexible nature, the DM has described it as legitimate and non-corrupt.

Obviously this is just how I would handle it, many would argue that a death penalty is completely acceptable for a good aligned system.

As to your question regarding the actions of a lawful good paladin versus the chaotic good paladin, let's assume the court is lawful neutral. IMO both paladins free the innocent man. The lawful good paladin then strives to prove his innocence to the court, bring the truly guilty party to justice, and eventually turns himself over to the court for judgment himself (for a crime he knows he's guilty of, that of freeing the condemned man). The chaotic good character frees the innocent man and probably hunts down the person who framed him, but he doesn't consider the court beyond that. He certainly doesn't feel the need to prove anything to them or to answer to them for doing the right thing. The chaotic good character might even have acted before the conviction by providing false evidence or testimony to clear the innocent man, something the paladin would never consider.

And thank you for your continued well reasoned and polite debate.

Again I don't disagree with what you're saying outside of the context of clearly defined alignments (as much as something so subjective can be clearly defined). I just don't believe that the Pathfinder system lends itself to as strict a set of definitions as you're advocating. The alignment definitions as provided do not support a conclusion that paladins would be deontologist IMO (and also IMO directly contradicts your assertion that deontology defaults to NG).

You make it sound as though all lawful good people would have the same response to the same situation (such as the OP's) and I don't believe the alignment system is that limiting. Deontology seems to most closely resemble lawful neutral to me as the outcome of the trial is less important than that the system be upheld. That is that a deontologist would see a lesser evil outcome as acceptable as long as it supported the greater good (the authority and integrity of the legal system). Even if the system is intended to provide the maximum possible good, that position is lawful neutral.

Your interpretation makes it sound as though the paladin's code is inherently in conflict with having a lawful good alignment which I also don't agree with. For example, if the paladin is lawful and must follow his code which commands that he punish those who harm innocents than isn't he required by his code to punish the good and lawful court that executed a man he knows to be innocent? After all the code provides no allowance for "unintentionally" harming innocents.

I'm just saying that the alignments as defined for game use in the core rulebook don't seem to support your conclusions (assuming I've read them correctly- I think you've been advocating the paladin letting the innocent be executed to uphold the greater good of the legal system and avoid unintended chaotic and/or evil consequences down the road).

But again this is subject to interpretation and this is merely how I interpret it.

Finarin Panjoro wrote:

Jupistar, I don't disagree with your point about the law of unintended consequences, but that sword cuts both ways. Allowing the law to execute an innocent man can likewise lead to unintended chaotic consequences (loss of faith in the system, defiance, riots, even rebellion) and certainly leads to an evil consequence (the execution of an innocent). It is entirely possible for chaotic consequences to result from lawful acts, especially in a case where two lawful forces are in contention.

In the OP's scenario the paladin is faced with no clear choice, either one has unacceptable consequences. But the only one which is irrevocable is the death of the innocent prisoner (discounting resurrection magic as a remedy since there's no guarantee the prisoner would return or the magic would be available). If the paladin frees the prisoner he then has time to address the consequences of that choice, unintended or not. By submitting himself for judgement by the authority that he's offended he is telling the society that the law is still right and valid and must be upheld, but that it is not absolute. If he finds the evidence of innocence and turns himself and the prisoner back over for judgement he again affirms that authority's legitimacy.

Thanks, Fin. But here again, you admit to understanding the law of unintended consequences, but then don't seem to understand what that means to a deontologist. The deontologist follows the law (in this case, the Law of the Land), because he can't know what the consequences are. You present a good argument (one that I might or might not accept), but it's irrelevant, for it's a chaotic argument. It's one that looks at the consequences of ones actions, first, to determine if they're Good actions, not to the Law or to Order to determine if they're Good. The deontologist (Lawful) does not do this.

Yep, I follow. I just don't think that one has to be a deontologist to be lawful as defined by Pathfinder. I believe a deontological view to actually be inconsistent with paladinhood. Deontology seems lawful neutral to me (as those terms are defined in game).

So yes, my argument definitely looks to the actions to determine if they are good actions first because we are discussing paladins and that is what they should be doing IMO.

Finarin Panjoro wrote:

I don't believe that breaking the innocent man out of jail does constitute a chaotic act either. The paladin code requires them to respect legitimate authority. Respect does not mean obey regardless of the prevailing situation. Being lawful implies obedience to authority, but the paladin has sworn to uphold a higher authority than mortal law.

In any event a paladin falls for violating his code or committing an evil act. The first line of the PRD's description is "Good characters and creatures protect innocent life." His code commands that he helps those who are in need (as the accused clearly is). So the paladin must protect the innocent man accused of these crimes.

"Respect does not mean obey regardless of the prevailing situation" - agreed.

Like wise, "protect innocent life" does not mean "Protect innocent life regardless of the prevailing situation."

By way of extreme example, "Protecting one innocent life, but sacrificing one hundred" is a bad and wrong choice. Read below to see what I mean when I talk about "prevailing situation" of protecting the innocent.

Finarin Panjoro wrote:

Further he is commanded to respect legitimate authority. So he must attempt to appease that authority, reason with it, or take the punishment upon himself. Ultimately preventing that authority from unwittingly committing an atrocity is an act of respect. If it became known that the legitimate authority had executed an innocent man, confidence and trust in it would be greatly eroded perhaps destroyed all together. If the paladin can spare that authority from such a fate by taking the responsibility on himself that seems both lawful and good to me.

Ultimately, usurping that authority's right to rule is *not* an act of respect, it's one of hubris and offense. It is, in effect, an act of war. Would a good authority want to do the right thing? Of course, but that's his judgment to make, not the Paladin's. But even a neutral or evil authority has the right to...

Jupistar, I don't disagree with your point about the law of unintended consequences, but that sword cuts both ways. Allowing the law to execute an innocent man can likewise lead to unintended chaotic consequences (loss of faith in the system, defiance, riots, even rebellion) and certainly leads to an evil consequence (the execution of an innocent). It is entirely possible for chaotic consequences to result from lawful acts, especially in a case where two lawful forces are in contention.

In the OP's scenario the paladin is faced with no clear choice, either one has unacceptable consequences. But the only one which is irrevocable is the death of the innocent prisoner (discounting resurrection magic as a remedy since there's no guarantee the prisoner would return or the magic would be available). If the paladin frees the prisoner he then has time to address the consequences of that choice, unintended or not. By submitting himself for judgement by the authority that he's offended he is telling the society that the law is still right and valid and must be upheld, but that it is not absolute. If he finds the evidence of innocence and turns himself and the prisoner back over for judgement he again affirms that authority's legitimacy.

Also to be clear, I would only support the paladin's breaking free an innocent prisoner if the penalty for his crime was death. If the society in question has no death penalty than a paladin would never be put in this position because the prisoner is not under the threat of irreparable harm. In a society with no death penalty, there is time to work within the system, to go find proof of his innocence and return it to the court. The paladin might dedicate his life to doing so even if he never found such proof (though that would make for a poor heroic tale). My personal feeling is that a lawful good society would not have a death penalty because of its irrevocable nature. The freeing of this prisoner might even serve as the starting point for a legitimate campaign to end the use of such permanent punishment (a perhaps unintended lawful consequence).

It seems to me that a paladin would have to include a limitation in his oath to a liege lord that indicated that his obedience was conditional upon his orders not violating his existing code as a paladin. If the liege lord could not accept that then no oath of allegiance would be taken.

If he is sworn to a liege lord before becoming a paladin I'm not even sure it would be possible to become a paladin since he's already taken an oath which may prevent the fulfilling of his code. In my world there are fighter/clerics called paladins who use this combination of powers to get around the requirement to be lawful good (or to serve a deity who cannot have lawful good followers). These seem more likely candidates for such service.

I don't believe that breaking the innocent man out of jail does constitute a chaotic act either. The paladin code requires them to respect legitimate authority. Respect does not mean obey regardless of the prevailing situation. Being lawful implies obedience to authority, but the paladin has sworn to uphold a higher authority than mortal law.

In any event a paladin falls for violating his code or committing an evil act. The first line of the PRD's description is "Good characters and creatures protect innocent life." His code commands that he helps those who are in need (as the accused clearly is). So the paladin must protect the innocent man accused of these crimes.

Further he is commanded to respect legitimate authority. So he must attempt to appease that authority, reason with it, or take the punishment upon himself. Ultimately preventing that authority from unwittingly committing an atrocity is an act of respect. If it became known that the legitimate authority had executed an innocent man, confidence and trust in it would be greatly eroded perhaps destroyed all together. If the paladin can spare that authority from such a fate by taking the responsibility on himself that seems both lawful and good to me.

In my world a paladin would be justified under the OP's scenario in breaking the innocent out of jail (assuming diplomacy had failed), remaining free long enough to prove their innocence or stop a relevant evil plot, and then turning himself over to the court for judgement.

This both protects the innocent (the framed individual and any others likely to suffer at the hands of the true perpetrator) and respects the legitimate authority of the judicial system.

Just my two cents.

Couldn't the defense argue that using magic period could be seen as influencing the accused's testimony?

Excellent point. In fact all a barrister/lawyer would have to do it argue that the "zone of truth" is a "zone of confession" that makes a person confess whether they're guilty or not, or a "zone of charming" which makes them say what the interrogator wants them too. But why would they do such a thing? Well, to maintain their ultra lucrative arrangement providing magical truth services by consistently delivering a high rate of conviction if nothing else.

And what about the right to not incriminate oneself? Or the right to remain silent? I realize this is a fairly modern concept, but many fantasy worlds would have developed this far philosophically with actual gods of order and law helping them along (as well as with magic replacing technology).

There's a couple of things I'd like to mention.

First, how does the court know that the paladin is a paladin? His testimony is no more inherently believable than another person's because the court doesn't know what his code is or that he would never break his word. Universal awareness of a paladin's virtues is not a given (it may be the case in the OP's world or in Golarion, but it is not necessarily so).

Second, magic is probably not considered legally admissible for a number of reasons. First it is no more reliable than testimony since it can be shown to fail in even the most powerful of cases (even a 20th level caster can have the target roll a natural 20). Second it only conveys hearsay evidence since only the caster knows the result of most spells, so the caster then has to testify to what the spell revealed. Third it puts the power of the law into the hands of an elite group instead of a group of the accused peers, and elite groups are well known for having agendas of their own.

So using my own campaign world as an example, magic can be used as an aid to investigation, but it does not prove anything. The magic must lead to a chain of evidence that a normal person finds reasonable and acceptable.

Just thought I'd throw out these thoughts for the OP to consider. With these in mind, the situation he describes seems very possible to me.

This is mildly off topic, but I have a couple of house rules that I believe would make monks more effective.

1. Vital Strike Feat Tree is free for everyone (this includes monsters).
2. Two weapon fighters with BAB 11+ may make a dual vital strike (that is two attacks as a standard action, they only gain extra vital strike damage as though they were making one attack but may divide it between weapons or place it all on either weapon).
3. Feat: Mobile Vital Strike: Prereq BAB 11+, in circumstances where one can normally make only a single attack as part of an action (thus not on an AoO) the character may make a vital strike (this applies to charging, spring attack, ride-by-attack, etc.)

With the monk's high speed and high base damage dice this would help them deal and avoid damage significantly (especially with spring attack) and might allow them to spend feats on more interesting things.

It has also had the effect of keeping our melee types on par with the spell casters up through 17th level (the party will advance to 18th very shortly). We don't have a monk in our party, but the ranger and paladin are both getting a lot of mileage out of these rules (as are quite a few of the monsters).

anyone?

Hey all,
The sorceror in the party I DM for has recently started using Mislead which is a tremendous defensive boon for her. I want to make sure that I'm ruling its use correctly.

On the round she casts it (using a standard action) she can cause the illusion to appear anywhere within the spell's range simultaneous with her turning invisible (including over top of herself so that the switch is not noticed).

In that round she can also have the illusion move away from her (as she's already spending the standard action). She can also tell the illusion to pretend to cast spells.

If she wants to move the illusion again or tell it to pretend to do something else she needs to use another standard action for concentration. If she doesn't do this on the next round than the illusion only lasts for 3 more rounds.

So here are some of my questions.
1. She has to stop concentrating on the illusion to cast any other spell (even a quickened spell), right?
2. Can she change the illusions actions by spending another standard action after she has stopped concentrating?
3. If she is casting ray spells or the like can she make them appear to come from the illusion or do they give away her actual position?

Thanks for any help you guys can offer and if there's anything you've run into with this spell that I haven't mentioned here, but you think I should know, please feel free to share.

When you get 7th level spells consider Caustic Eruption. It's a 30 foot radius acid attack for 1d6xCL damage that ignores spell resistance. If they fail their save they take half the dice in damage on your turn in the following two rounds.

Magic Circle against evil is helpful and there's always summoning monsters of your own (which can allow you to stay invisible/hidden).

I'm going to recommend against you playing a character while you're DMing and recommend instead that you play a highly developed NPC or series of NPCs. Particularly if you only have a single person playing an actual character.

The reason is that if you think of the character as your character you will over invest in them. With only two players if you are playing both sides of the game you will end up playing against yourself for well over half of your game time, even if the character never speaks. Just imagine a combat with your two PCs versus two monsters. You're running 75% of the pieces on the board (so to speak). With four monsters you're now running almost 85% of the combatants. This is going to leave your friend sitting around and watching far too much of the time.

Instead if you make them a well developed NPC you can let your friend run them during combat (difficult to do if you are invested in them as your character) which helps balance how much play time each of you will have at the table.

Additionally if they are a well developed NPC you can swap them out for different well developed NPCs which can open up different adventure directions for your campaign (stealth mission team him with a rogue, divine mission with a cleric, wilderness mission with a ranger or druid, and so on) and you won't feel like you're getting rid of your own character to do it.

Just my two cents.

I've done the following and with a 17th level party I'm having no balance issues (ranger, paladin, sorceror, cleric in the party).

-The entire vital strike tree is available to everyone for free (monsters as well as PCs). You simply qualify for it when your BAB is high enough.
-TWF's may as a standard action do a dual vital strike in which they make attacks with both weapons, but apply additional damage dice to only one weapon (but either weapon if it hits).
-Disallow Metamagic Rods. Replace them with specific magic items which can be applied to a specific spell (or group of spells). For example, bracers of lightning which allow you to automatically empower or quicken a certain number of lightning spells per day (probably created by a cleric of the god of weather or storms or some such). The important thing here is to disallow the complete freebies of applying quicken to whatever you want at no cost.

Your mileage may vary, but it's worked well for me and my group.

Seems pretty cut and dried IMHO. Line of effect is blocked so no summoning across the wall.

By the rules, a grappling opponent has to make a grapple check in the next round to move himself and his target half his speed (placing the target in any adjacent square).

It is unclear to me what an opponent who is not considered grappled has to do. A -20 is a pretty steep penalty so I'm inclined to go with them being able to move (since only the grappling appendage is involved, leaving legs, wings, fins free for travel).

I would however think that pulling someone into the air counts as moving them into a dangerous position and entitles them to an immediate escape attempt with a +4 bonus.

In the absence of this clarity I find MendedWall12's interpretation to be the easiest to use, the most reflective of expected monster tropes, and consistent with the rules. That's just my opinion, but in the absence of a definitive answer that's all any of us have :)

Well since you asked :)

The most important thing I've found so far is to not treat Hell as one monolithic den of villainy with a common purpose. In each layer there need to be factions with conflicting agendas (this duke wants the other duke's territory or harbors a grudge of some kind) and so on. Also conflicts between layers can be food for much adventure and intrigue. These factions may want to manipulate, bargain with, or outright help the PCs if they are moving against one of their political enemies within Hell. Otherwise your adventures will become repetitive battles against a single empire.

Also don't be afraid to have large numbers of non-lawful evil encounters. Visitors from other planes, mercenaries hired by a duke of Hell, celestial or demonic spies, and so on. I have almost as many neutral evil bad guys roaming around Hell as lawful evil, the idea being that these neutral evil creatures are just one step away from belonging so Hell encourages them to visit in the hopes of winning them over to a lawful evil perspective.

Also remember the environment, part of the fun of adventuring in Hell is that Hell is vastly different from the Prime Material plane. So try to find ways to use the environment to make travel and combat unique (fireballs falling from the sky, poison gases erupting from the ground, etc).

Along those lines is the issue of travel magic. If your plan is a quest through Hell it can be made way too easy by spells like plane shift and teleport. In my campaign I decided that each layer is considered a separate plane for purposes of plane shift (so they need a special rod attuned to each layer to be able to plane shift to it) and that no one can teleport from one layer to another layer unless they have already been to that layer. So once the party reaches a layer for the first time they attune a rod to it, they can also then teleport back to anywhere they've already been and return to their current position.

Also because of the endless hordes of enemies that are ahead of them stealth has been important in my campaign. To aid in that I have a houserule that modifies the aid another action with regard to skills. I let the best member of the party make a skill check with a -2 penalty for each creature that he is aiding. The people he aids then only need to make a DC 10 check to use the result of the primary skill user. That usually winds up being my ranger helping the paladin, cleric, and sorceror with stealth checks, but it also applies to climbing and other reasonable activities. This way the investment of a few points in stealth (or other skill) is still worthwhile (the paladin has a natural stealth bonus of -3 due to armor check penalty) without requiring them to spend everything they have to be mildly competent.

My players have shown no interest in prestige classes because they like the base Pathfinder classes so much, so I can't help you there, but do watch out for extremely Hell specific combos and don't be afraid to say no to something that will affect the enjoyment of the other party members.

Hope that helps. If I think of anything else I'll post it here.

It sounds to me like MendedWall12 has the right of it.

A large enough creature with flyby attack (or Spring Attack) and grab could grapple someone and move with them in the same round by taking the -20 penalty on the check. Since they aren't considered grappled themselves they would not be prohibited from moving unless the grappled target was heavy enough to apply an encumbrance penalty.

This interpretation is consistent with snatching monster themes and also easy to adjudicate so it's a win for me.

I am running almost the exact same scenario. I have a party of 17th level characters that are working their way layer by layer through Hell now. One of the players is a ranger and he has maxed out Hell as his favored terrain (and evil outsiders as his favored enemy).

I have let him use it in almost every instance, but if I feel that he's in a terrain that is more specific than being generally Hellish I restrict the bonus. For example, the city of Dis applied his bonus to urban environments because it was more urban than Hellish. You might consider allowing half his bonus in very specific less-Hellish environments.

But in general I let the bonus apply most of time and so far it hasn't been unbalancing. It just means his character is particularly alert in this environment. His companions are a celestial sorcerer, a half-orc paladin, and a CG human cleric.

My feeling is that having these bonuses helps keep him on par with the spellcasters and the paladin who are all insanely powerful at this level.

So my advice is let it apply. It's not going to make him overpowered and it will allow him to excel in exactly the places that a ranger should (fast reactions, high perception, stealth, and survival/tracking).

Remember that unless he's lawful evil Hell is also applying a penalty to Int, Wis, and Cha checks which will counter many of his Favored Terrain bonuses (Perception, Know (geography), and Survival). Unless of course he has a cleric friend available to cast Planar Adaptation everyday like mine does.

Good luck with this, our campaign has been a blast so far.

It absolutely is evil (IMHO). The devil wants the soul because he can perform greater acts of evil with it. The deal actively increases the power of an infernal being.

Just my two cents.

Finarin Panjoro wrote:

I house ruled that everyone gets the Vital Strike feat chain for free. This has kept all of our melee types on par with the spellcasters (in a 16th level game no less). With this the melee types can still move and make a meaningful attack each round.

Does this go for Monsters too?

Yes, it does.

I house ruled that everyone gets the Vital Strike feat chain for free. This has kept all of our melee types on par with the spellcasters (in a 16th level game no less). With this the melee types can still move and make a meaningful attack each round.

A Celestial sorceror's wings of heaven ability is a supernatural one. Does it take a standard action to sprout the wings for a minute of use or do the wings sprout as part of movement?

In the case of a sorceror falling off a high ledge could they immediately use the wings to arrest their fall or would they plummet due to an inability to activate them before impact?

Thanks for your thoughts.

I'm currently running a level 16 campaign that started at level 14 and will go to around 21 or 22.

The Pathfinder OGC is your friend http://www.d20pfsrd.com/.

In particular there is a monster builder in their bestiary section that allows you to advance most of the monsters from the Pathfinder Bestiary by adding the most common templates and straight hit dice increase.

There's also a great random treasure generator under the Extras section (at the bottom of the left most column).

There are a few things that have made this easier and more fun for me.

The first is remembering not to sweat precise details. Don't build full NPC stat blocks if you can avoid it. Give them the stats you need for their purpose in game. Base it off of something similar if you have it, if not wing it. Don't create a brand new monster if a repurposed monster can do what you want (use the stats for a white dragon to create a new ice demon for example).

The Second is ignore experience points. Keep a rough tally of the number of level appropriate encounters that it should take to advance to the next level and when they're there tell them to level up. If you stop tracking XP it greatly reduces your book keeping.

Third throw out the treasure by level guidelines and don't bother tracking it to closely. Start them at about half what the book tells you to give them. Otherwise your treasures will be minor bumps (from a +4 sword to a +5 sword, instead of from a +2 sword to a +5 sword). Realize that certain characters will get way more use out of certain items than other characters and so it's actual impact on gameplay is way less than it's gp value would suggest. For example, my current party is a paladin, a ranger, a sorceror, and a cleric. At this point they've all specialized in their chosen fighting styles. So if I throw in a +5 holy anarchic hammer I know only the cleric is going to be interested in using it and he almost exclusively casts spells in battle. So despite this being a +9 weapon by gp value it will almost never come into play. This can be a problem if you allow easy selling and purchasing of magic items since they might sell it, but I don't make it easy to do that so it hasn't been a problem for me and the treasures feel substantial. The trick is to keep their primary weapons relevant, but not overpowered.

Also don't be afraid to throw really powerful creatures against them or to kill them. At this level, they can handle almost anything. Also don't be afraid to throw underpowered encounters at them, you want them to feel powerful at this level. Just use what your story calls for. If they can't beat it they almost certainly have the power to escape, gather new resources, and try again.

I ran a campaign that went up to 14th level (this is actually a continuation of it with nearly all new characters) and I hated it because I tracked every detail meticulously. Learning to relax and just go with something approximate makes all the difference in the world.

Good luck!

You can use vital strike, improved vital strike, and greater vital strike with missile attacks.

Maybe everyone else knew it, but I just realized it the other day, so maybe not.

As an aside, there's probably scads of errors in these stat blocks. Creating a perfect stat block (as anyone who reads the stuff published by Paizo knows, and from their comments afterwards) is a huge effort. Since the combat isn't the point, having it be about right in way less time is far better than having it be perfect and having no time for plot.

I'm running a 16th level game that will probably go to level 22 or 23 and these are words to live by. Don't waste time being super detailed because that's not going to even be visible to your players. Focus on what matters engaging stories set in an engaging world.

Daemonslye,
This is amazing. Thank you so much for your efforts.

Finarin Panjoro wrote:

I don't like the idea of magical invisibility granting a straight up bonus to stealth. Because Hide and Move Silently have been combined this really doesn't make sense anymore. After all the invisible target is no harder to hear than they were before.

Perception does not equal seeing or hearing. It is noticing. It's not about the sensory input, but how well you process it. We need to move away from the old paradigm of spot and listen. The problem is that we are hanging on to checks based on individual senses. Sure they are more realistic, but they (potentially) bog down game play.

What you are heading toward is a very granular check that provokes more checks until the target makes all of them or fails 1 and is located. You will get bogged down into "check if I can hear him", "check if I can see him", "check if I can smell him".

Embrace the abstraction!

If anything, I would go in the direction of failing a perception check by 5 or less gives you a +2 bonus (circumstance/alertness) on your next check against the same target.

Otherwise you risk going down the path of triggering a re-roll if you would have succeeded without a specific modifier.

I'm not sure I understand how your response relates to my original post. I'm all for the abstraction and I agree that Perception is about understanding (noticing) what one is seeing/hearing/etc. I'm just arguing that invisibility should not apply a bonus to avoid being noticed, but should make it more difficult to pinpoint a target's exact location.

I was unclear on whether or not spell resistance would fall in the category of level dependent effects which are effected by negative levels. Especially in the case of dragons who have higher SR as they gain hit dice via aging.

That seems sort of like an unspecified level dependent ability to me.

Plus my players are looking for ways to lower the defenses of powerful dragons and outsiders and I know this will come up eventually.