Graelsis's page

209 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


1 to 50 of 209 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

Rysky wrote:
Graelsis wrote:
Most of the responses here are about the money cost wich, yeah, can be a hard time if your DM dont give you the money you should have per level.
No one was talking about PCs having access to magic, but to everyone else, the world as a whole. NPCs don't get the metagame choice of "No I'm not gonna be a Commoner, I'm going to put my first level in Wizard instead!".
Graelsis wrote:
Or, in the other hand, we have those arguments saying that "making magic risky goes against pathfinder basis..." well guys, that's what he's talking about, changing the basis
It changes the basis of Pathfinder and thus Golarion with already already established lore, and that goes for everyone using Pathfinder for their setting. Having all/most magic all of sudden hurt casters just for casting would be narrative/world shattering in its effects and changes, moreso than even the contentious introduction of Resonance. What happened, did every setting get hit with a Spellplagueblight?
Graelsis wrote:
It reminds me to dragonlance a bit.
If it does then that's fine for Dragonlance, but not every setting is Dragonlance. Pathfinder has its own setting, Golarion, while also being able to be used for numerous other settings.

Your argumentation is pretty solid, and i thank you for taking the time to make a calm, strong and deep response.

I agree with you, not in the first message (because you know there are people here talking about the examples and only that), but with the second one.

Golarion has a stablished lore, and a world mechanic system, however, they are changing it and maybe, just maybe, this is the right time to introduce a solid and well planned change as this idea can be, instead of adding "patches" to those parts loosing water. We can think about resonance, for example. It will make the whole world act different around magic, as it will do the addition of goblins as a playable race. Those changes are worldblowing if we look backwards to how things have been done untill now.

IMO, they should take this kind of ideas instead of the ones they are taking in this affairs.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Well, It's been a while since i've been here. But i think this post is worth the response.

I agree with Kong. Magic is broken, and i'm sorry, but i didnt find a single argument (and ive read all the responses) that gives such an excellent, deep and solid point of view as Kong's.

Most of the responses here are about the money cost wich, yeah, can be a hard time if your DM dont give you the money you should have per level. Or, in the other hand, we have those arguments saying that "making magic risky goes against pathfinder basis..." well guys, that's what he's talking about, changing the basis instead of adding more and more rules to controll the, by far, most unbalanced feature in the game.

That beign said, he also told us that this is only a primitive idea of a bigger thing. I totally applause his way to expose this "alfa" version of what magic could be in pathfinder, and i totally love it. Even if i'm a cleric player.

Also, he's not even talking about making damage to the caster, but putting some REAL price to magic instead of gold. I bet you will think twice if the lightning bolt you are about to cast will cost you a week of concentration checks because you are high on mistic energy. God, WHAT A WONDERFULL IDEA WE HAVE HERE, CASTERS WILL BE THE GODS OF THE TABLE NO MORE. And of course, high level casters will develop more resistance to this "magic toxicity". It reminds me to dragonlance a bit.

All in all, i love this way of thinking out of the box. This way of working will be easier, faster, and much more rich in terms of roleplaying. I hope paizo look at this post with critic eyes and find here a way to enrich the game.

And if they dont, me myself will try to develop a way to make this work with houserules, even if it's hard. My congrats and respect, Kong, you totally nailed it.

PD: Focus on the matter we are talking about here. Going around small arguments like the commoner example will only make this post boring and will end nowhere.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Hi tall folks.

I'm here just to say that the class looks pretty cool. Also tall folk Reynolds did a very good job sketching the alchemist as a goblin folk...i mean, nobody better to blow things up, right?

"All of this is only a small sample of what the class has to offer. The alchemist is also a master of poisons (which he can craft for free each day just like other alchemical items), has easy access to a number of skills, and can act as the party's trap disabler or healer if necessary. The diversity in the class allows you to pick and choose exactly how you want to manifest your particular brand of alchemical discoveries."

This part is the best, variety is allways a good thing unless you try to do everything.

Also, talking about healers...¡¡¡¡please tall folks show us some healer powa and feats, us healers are a small group, but we are still here!!!

2 people marked this as a favorite.
BryonD wrote:
nogoodscallywag wrote:
Initially I didn’t like the idea of Goblins as core. However, after breathing and looking at the facts, I’ve changed my mind.

Interesting, because my gut reaction was "cool", but the more I walk away and think about it, the more I comeback convinced it will be regretted.

Just to take you "core" <>" common" line.
Are you prepared to put your personal capacity for evaluation on the line behind the idea that less than 1 in 1,000 non evil NPCs in Paizo products will be goblins?

I think your entire argument here is tied to saying that whatever homebrew you run is more important that the Paizo default setting. And that would be a pretty big mistake.

Hey'ho dear tall folk, i agree with you.

When the master creators said that goblins are the same but now are also a core race i was a bit dissapointed. Your post is a great reasume of what is happening here

"if you want to be more than just a different goblin, your DM will have to change the basis of the world game".

It's perfect!!! (even if you are a pinky it's pretty good).

I hope Paizo read all of this coments and make a change in the route. Maybe they can find a way to make gobs a bit more interesting in general rather than in particular. I mean, a gob background about how heshe became a hero could be awsome, but forcing us to make that every single time that we want a goblin character can be tedious, and also very limited if you want a "social inserted" goblin.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
ThePuppyTurtle wrote:

The behavior I'm more concerned about (though decreasingly so as these discussions go on) is them being divas, as defined in the GameMastery guide. I'll post a relevant quote.

The diva is the center of attention, the focus of all roleplaying interactions that occur in the campaign world. Every conversation, introduction, and event is another opportunity for her to shine, while the rest of the group struggles to get a word in edgewise. No matter is too small or insignificant for her; she’s ready for the spotlight! Unfortunately, the rest of the players are bored to tears.
That's how I'm worried goblins will behave. It's actually the sheer excitement some people display at the prospect of playing goblins that makes me so worried, combined with some of the people at my gamestore group who are very excited about this either being ones who act like this already with their halflings, or ones who act kind of like this, but not enough for it to be problematic. Will it become problematic when they're playing a character who they feel would act problematically?

Hellow again!!! My dear best turtle friend.

First of all, i’ve read all your post, but i’m quoting this because i think is better for me to expose my super, Green, beautyfull, exotic response.

You are right, and also it’s normal to worry when you are a DM in front of this situation. What i believe is happening here is…What if the world ALLOWS my player to make a LEGIT Diva?? Well, what can i say, ¡¡¡that sucks!!!

First, we Gobs are not Divas (an epic goblin guitar solo starts in the hut)


As i was saying…not EVERYONE here is a diva, of course we have Diva’s in our tribes and, of course, we all Will be annoying if we feel that the world or our environment expect us to be. As i see it, behaviour is a result of biology and interaction with our surroundings, beign it social or phisical. This is why i’m asking for a change in the gobs background that allows all of us top lay them in different ways.

Also, dont forget your are the god of gods (you call that DM), and you can make any changes you believe are good for the sake of your beautyfull world. That said, if you dont want a race that allows players to act like brainless monkeys or small Green Divas then you just need to speak with the god who wants to play a gob and tell him how the environment/social surroundings Will react if he’s nothing but a box of screams and lamelight sucking. That Will allow you to avoid that “permission for disrupting” of the race, and also will be helpfull for your god to create the character heshe wants.

Oh, and remember, my dear tall folk…there’s nothing you can do to stop the divinity of a goblin bard, even if singing in your world is forbidden!!!!! BECAUSE YOU CANT STOP THE GOB BEAT!!!

(epic choir in the background).

They dont want us here!

we're the goblin kind

treated just as pest

now in page num 5

do you think ur good?

just wait for us

goblin've came to stay

You will scream like past!!

2 people marked this as a favorite.


The real question for all of us here is...Are elves still sweet and tasty or do we have to find another gourmet meat resorce?

I have to say i really like the speed modifications, it makes the whole environment look different. Things like "oh, an elf! people say you can almost fly when you run...is that true?" and stuff like that.

I do like the new feats system and how it improves the weight of your race history. I'm happy in general with the changes. We will send all our love dancing around a big stone and trying to hit as many seaguls as we can.

4 people marked this as a favorite.

¡¡¡¡I’m back again!!!!!
Sorry for beign a bit late, i was taking a nap (long long one) and Dumb Ledore woke me up because some of you need some green answers.

ThePuppyTurtle wrote:

So I see posts like this where people defend the Goblins in character, and I want to lay out what goes through my mind as I see it.

"This strikes me as a typical example of the kind of person who wants to play a goblin. He's being very funny and it's amusing, but how naturally can he fit these jokes into a campaign? Is he going to be derailing things to talk about fire and dogs and other Goblin things? Is this going to disrupt the tone of a dramatic campaign I'm trying to run? Am I ever going to be able to run a session including this guy that is not going to be about the fact that he is a goblin? Will anyone else be able to get a word in edgewise? Just how constant are these jokes going to be? With the kind of person who wants to make them be the same kind of person who would think to not make them for the sake of courtesy to other people?"
It should go without saying that I don't know anything about the specific person I'm replying to here, and I'm sure they're wonderful. I'm just trying to get across what my anxieties are as plainly as I possibly can. This post is funny and I like it, but I would not like to experience nothing but it for 4 hours, especially when everyone was trying to do a published module. I emphasize that I am not saying anything about this particular individual, but I do worry that the kind of person who is attracted to playing a goblin is also the kind of person who would be a diva without realizing it.
Is this still too insulting? I swear I'm trying everything I can and do not mean any offense.

¡¡¡¡NO!!! You are not beign insulting, tall folk, you are actually a really, really nice turtle (the best i’ve known). Let me answer you:

Our jokes are not ment to make anyone fun, it’s the way we have learned to use because it’s usefull to make people dont try to kill us every now and then!!!! I mean, behind every gob there is a god (you call them players), and every god is different, if the god of your table is a bad tempered tall folk, then his gob Will be bad tempered, also his/her dwarf, elf, halfling…its all about the god, not the Green beauty he’s trying to play.

Also. Why did i say our jokes are not ment to make anyone fun? Because our behaviour have been made through years and years of bad relations with the world, wich means that if in your world THAT GOBLIN OF YOUR TEAM hasn’t felt that bad relation/people dont react crazy when they see him/her he/she should not be used to make jokes about himself/take the lamelight/love fire/hate books
Talk to your god, make the goblin PC great again. I KNOW YOU CAN DO IT TALL FOLK, I BELIEVE IN YOU.

ThePuppyTurtle wrote:
But in the places where he's serious, he, at least to my eyes, seems to break character and stop talking like a goblin in any way. The only thing he keeps doing is using the word "gobs."

This is key, tall folk. Do you speak the same way when you are sad and when you are happy??? This¡¡¡¡¡ this is the key to understand that your vision of us, Green skins, is very limited. It’s not like you are guilty of that, i mean…it’s how the world of Golarion show us, and the main reason that Will cause your god to feel out of the Civilization (goblins are bad and crazy, and they can only be that, so when you find a serious Goblin probably is because he’s not playing his character).

To make a goblin character we need to develop this vision, as i pointed in the first message!!!!.

Are you gonna eat that dog?

Malachandra wrote:
A lot of that can be chalked up to goblins only being portrayed under specific circumstances. A throwaway NPC will never have the depth of PC, or even a major NPC. You think of them in one mode because we've really only seen them in the one mode. There really hasn't been much said on goblins, culturally. Other than they like fire and trash and don't like reading. We will definitely need more for Core, and players may have to create their own goblin culture.

I like this tall folk, heshe (dont know the gender, sorry) has the vision of a good good god. You need to wake this people up from matrix Malachandra, it’s your duty as a gob friend.

-I want to eat heshe

-Shut up, Dumb Ledore.

-But i love heshe

-¡¡¡¡But heshe has books!!!
-Dumb Ledore? …

bookrat wrote:

I suspect there may be some confirmation bias there.

When I read the post, I see the entire thing in character. I may be experiencing confirmation bias in a way that makes me read the whole thing in character when the author didn't intend to. In such a case, I would be false attributing positive aspects and diminishing negative aspects to better support my position.

When you read the post, you unconsciously assign the perceived negative parts to the character and the perceived positive parts to the player. You may be experiencing confirmation bias that makes you separate in character and out of character when the author didn't intend to. In such a case, you're impressing all the negatives and stripping out all the positives to better support your position.
We don't know which of us is closer to the truth until the author comes back and makes a statement about which parts of the post is in character and which parts are not.

You were right!!! I’ts all IN CHARACTER (i mean, i cant do that because i’m myself a gob god, but you know…). I was trying to show that gobs can have the same humour states than other races, the problem here is to make the right changes to our background so then people dont react crazy when they find a serious goblin.


Yes, Leopold?

Book…Book rat!


BOOOOOOKK RAT, RAT WITH BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOooooooooookkkksssssssssss….. (water splash)

This forum is making the bunyip gain some weight…

I love you all, even if you are ugly tall folks. AND, we gobs Will need some changes if we want to play characters with more background than “someone experimented with me thats because i’m different” or “i was adopted thats because im different” or anything that ends in “i’m not a murder please give me a chance to be a PC”.
And that’s all!!!!!! I’m going back to my nap, wake me up again if you need more sweet gob love.

7 people marked this as a favorite.



No wonder why our ancestors decided to eat your children, look how maddy maddy you go when the great masters allow us to enter in the adventures!!! yooooouuuuuuuuuuuu oooopppppppppprrrresiiivvvee tall folks!!!

I want to say, since things are heated up, that i'm of course joking, and everyone of you that know me or my posts also knows that i love goblins. For the beauty of the sunny sunny goddess, I even act like one in this forum when i answer the topics.

That said, i've a few things to say about this, and i would like (like most of us) to be heared about this. I also understand that we all have different points of view, but you knwo what i allways say. I LOVE YOU ALL, TALL FOLKS (who doesn't when you are so delicious?)

ok, lets go now.

1: Dear world masters/creators. I know my people can be a bit tricky some times. We like to burn things down, kill people (and dogs), eat a lot (and dogs), scream a lot (and dogs), and that stuff. For me, beign a different goblin as a exuse to be in a party is ok, but i would work a bit more in the details about how do people see gob society in the new edition. I'm aware that this is just a blog and there are a lot of details to be revealed, but please, change a bit the situation of the gobs, just enough to make it more attractive rather than "you are different, but people will still try to hunt you down in every city untill you are famous for beign different". Even if that is ok, it seems like the only way to play a gob.

2: Dear world and adventures in general. YES, WE ARE NOW IN DA HOOD, AND WHE'VE COME TO STAY, YO PINKY'S. So...so...sorry, you know, the race. Nah, talking serious now; I can understand that making goblins a core race without any change is hard, even harder if you think that gobs are mostly evil and destructors and the background of the gob characters seem to be focused in just one thing. Maybe we can put our effort in asking for background improvements (i've seen a few awsome suggestions here) instead of fighting for the gobs to dissapear again in the monster manual as the pest they are now.

3: You dont know what a green kiss is, until you have try a goblin kiss.


¡I have one!

¡Me too!

¡Shut up Richard, nobody likes your suggestions!



Sorry for that, hard to contain the guys. Me myself have one suggestion for a new way to understand gobs; look, goblins have been long time despised and hated for the rest of Golarion, that's true. There have been now more than 15 AP's where the adventure's have fight against great evil.

What if, in the last adventure of pathfinder first edition, one goblin decides to change his destiny and joins the group of the official team in the battle?.

That gob doesnt need to be the greatest hero of all times, nor the lamelight focus, he just need three things; land, power and goblins. Maybe that gob can fight a greater evil just to turn himself in the biggest warlord of all times and then, with all that power, create with time, patiente and influence the core race you want to add in the game, a new race of goblins raised under the flag of a hero that believed in a possible change, in a new way of growing as an entire race, instead of just surviving fight after fight.

I think that may allow you to introduce a new type of goblin without the need of changing all the race. Of course there would be evil gobs, of course there would be still dangerous tribes, but there would also be the chance of fighting for a new socciety, for your beloved and your friends, for your family and, maybe, just maybe, for a moment when the people of golarion see you as a shinning beacon of hope, good, and prosperity for everyone.

And all of that without needing to say you are the only one different, but the result of years of effort, training, and the dream of one single goblin.





1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jason Bulmahn wrote:

Parts 3 and 4 are now live!

You can grab it HERE

Dear Jason "important tallfolk"

I have Heard the podcasts and i have to say i'm proud that we gobs are now a playable race.

The goblin community salutes you and we promise that we wont be eating too much ugly dogs.

Also, we want you to kill the goblin of the party, he's a disgrace to our magnificent race.

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Hi tall folk, maybe i can help.

First of all, a couple here have just said about talking to your friend. That should be your first option like..."hey man, i was planning to play a necromancer and you knew it, could you please play something that wont try to kill me if i turn some undeads?"

Your second choice is just to play it. Take animate dead and just use it like it's a normal thing for you. If the paladin rages on just tell him that's the way you use magic. Maybe you can stick to the neutral alignement if you use the undeads only for good purposses (the goal justify the means). And if he tries to stop you just stop the game and show your cards. "i was playing a necromancer and you decided to play a paladin, i think you should adapt him so then we all can play what we want".

If avoiding that spell is not that terrible for you, then focus in other necromancy spells, wich are a lot, or speak to your DM to see if you can create an alternative version of animate dead that uses a different sort of energy. Maybe animating corpses with good energy and say that there are redeeming souls trying to earn a place in heavens? i dont know, just let your imagination fly

RoseCrown wrote:
Graelsis wrote:

Thank you for the rules suggestion tho, maybe they are different from the kingdoom building rules and i can build this with less money.

The downtime building are usually much cheaper. :)

Rose, i checked the rules you talked about...i'm in love right now, my head is bubbling with ideas of a great school/hospital where the poor can be turned into students and also the school gains enough money to offer free healthcare to people in need.

Damn, it's like i'm playing the campaign of my dreams now. Thank you so much.

You have gained a new goblin friend.

RoseCrown wrote:

If you're not really playing Kingmaker but just want a school, I'd really recommend you to show your DM the downtime rules for buildings (also Ultimate Campaign).

In particular the Academy.

I looked for the Academy but its waaaaay too expensive for me to build it. Also its developed from library and my school is going to be a school of occupations, it makes more sense that i will have to pay a Smith, carpentry and the like to teach poor people/low society people some manual labour occupations.

Thank you for the rules suggestion tho, maybe they are different from the kingdoom building rules and i can build this with less money.

Warped Savant wrote:

IIRC Kingmaker/Ultimate Campaign don't list an actual size for the houses other than a 2x2 square takes up a block (a set of houses takes up 1 of those squares) and than each square that has a building in it increases the population by 250. Which would mean that, assuming an average of 4 people per house, there would be roughly 6 houses for 3 Build Points.

Also, be sure to check with your GM about the value of a Build Point.


...if you’re running a small, self-starting kingdom, the GM may allow you to turn your gold into BP at a better rate. You may only take advantage of this if you don’t have a sponsor; it represents your people seeing the hard work you’re directly putting in and being inspired to do the same to get the kingdom off the ground.

-Ultimate Campaign

Thank you very much!! i will give a look on this. I have to admit that i expected a bit more aforum capacity but i guess building houses from scratch is quite expensive.

Thunderlord wrote:
Schools won't end poverty. The costs can be found in ultimate campaign and in the kingmaker book, i think. d20pfsrd has the kingdom building rules in there too. If you truly want to end poverty in your kingdom, build a huge army and conquer. Your people will earn their pay and you can fund their payment through war.

War is far away from my first choice, yup, i'm a weird gob, but i'm who i'm and i like it that way ("start singing").

I will give a look to the ultimate campaign book since it maybe has the Price to a normal house. I wanted to know how big is the terrain that houses cover in kingmaker since i believe its not just a house but a couple of houses, but i cant find the place where the city is divided in boxes


i'm back! and i'm back so damn happy. Just to make a Little entrance here, i want to say that my character (a poverty vote cleric of Sarenrae) has been reincarnated into a goblin. Why? he decided to sacrifice himself in a ritual so then he can safe his friend, a noble cavalier who lost in a duel vs the goblin chief (who happened to be a druid, so he himself reincarnated my character). I'm hyped, because you all know...i love gobs.

Well, hands to the work: My powerty vote cleric keeps taking money from the adventuring treassure. His goal is to make powerty dissapear not through giving money to the poor, but through opening a school that has enough resources to teach them, feed them and keep them in untill they have learned an occupation.

That said, my DM told me to look for the money that cost me to build a house (or a couple of houses) in kingmaker, and we will be using that system (and also the improved system, where 1 BP = 1000 gp in small Kingdoms)

So, i've to find a trustable NPC who can own the school (because i cant own it due to my vote) and also i've to gather 6000 gp. But a question came to my mind, and this is where i need you all to help me...

How big is/are the house/s that i will be able to build with that money?

How many people can that houses keep in?

How wide is the terrain that that houses/school are going to occupy?

Is there any way to calculate it?

Do you have any original/interesting idea to aid me in my goal to help the poor to reach a better life?

See you all in here, your allways fantastic GOBLIN CAVE OF LOVE

kisses, hughs, and all that things i allways like to give to you all.

Goblin Hype Maker wrote:
Graelsis wrote:
It's called "goblin hype maker".

What can I say? I'm good at what I'm doing.

I love you. Now we are bestys.
Thank you.

You put that as an alias!! dude, you really made my day

WormysQueue wrote:
Graelsis wrote:
It's too late to ask for us gobs as a basic playable race???? WE WANT TO BE FRIENDS, WE REALLY DOOO!!!!
Well good news, then. Your kind got the promotion to become a playable COre race, of all things. :)

ok, sir, you have just get a new ribbon. It's called "goblin hype maker".

I love you. Now we are bestys.

uuuuuuh!! uuuuuh!!!! uuuuuuuhhhh!!!!! uuuuuuhhh!!!!!

It's too late to ask for us gobs as a basic playable race???? WE WANT TO BE FRIENDS, WE REALLY DOOO!!!!

spanish hype now abroad the hypie train

i havent played the campaign, but i'm also interested in the answer to your question, so i will wait for someone to tell us here.

Also, if i would have to think about it based only in what the book is telling us...i think it's pretty sure you will find usefull some underwater fighting/breathing skills, even if the bigger part of the campaign dont take place in the water.

This issue, for me, can be solved answering another question. You know you are going to fight in/under/the water so...do you want to be prepared or unprepared? that's a personal choice.

In my case, i will probably buy pots as fast as i can or, if i can and the DM allows it, i will take a water-friendly race

Hi folk, nice to see you!

I hope this can help.

First of all, you should read a bit the campaign player's guide, there, you will find a lot of usefull information that can help you to decide wich character you want to play and, also, wich character fits the best in the AP.

This is important because simple characters are not made by their class, but by their playstyle. You can have a wizard, wich is a "complicated" class, but if you stick to evocation and avoid all the rest of the magic features, there u go; you have a simple character.

I recomend u to take the character you like the most. Since it's a heavy sea/pirates campaign you can let your imagination fly. Once you got it, just make it simple.

You want a ranged fighter? then focus on that, try to be the most feared shooter of the inner sea!

You want a healer? again, focus, improve your healing skills, areas and buffs/debuff removals, just that.

Its not the class, but the way we choose to roleplay what help us to make it simple, or make it complicated.

Hey bud, maybe i can help.

I want you to know beforehand that, even if i disagree with the majority here, their ideas are not bad for me. Some people here gave you prety good advice, and you would not be wrong if you decide to take that paths.

In the other hand, here's my point of view.

Talking with players is overrated in this cases. This is, of course, my opinion. Your player has a code to stick to, and also you have that same code. Iomedae is explained in a lot of books, you can also find her in detail in the inner sea gods book, wich will give you some tips to know what to do.

As i see the situation, you dont really need to make a lesser fall, or a "pre-fall", for me, such things dont even exist for paladins. Great power comes with great responsibilitys and, even if the power-players or the optimizers will tell you that the paladin dont need a nerf such the code can be, you should not listen to that kind of argument, because they will plot a perfect build to show you how balanced the paladin is...but truth be told, the paladin is a normal class wich dont really need to optimize to be awsome.

That said, if you, as the director of the game think that your player has commited an act oposite to Iomedae's believes, then you should make a shining ray of light appear in the sky, breaking the clouds and smiting the paladin, making him feel how he looses ALL his powers.

Too rough? try to see it through the eyes of the godess. Will you want such man to have your mighty powers on him? would you like him to speak in your name? or are you afraid of the path he's taken and you dont want to support him anymore until he shows you he's worthy?

There are a few here who has show he didnt follow the code, now he has to pay the rent.

In the other hand, you can make his redemption easier, and also improve your campaign setting with it. Maybe you can make him protect an evildoer until he's put under the law's hands, maybe the puppet he killed has some crucial information and now he has to find the way to revive him, maybe that evildoer was helping a family that now's danger because he's dead...tons of things

However, what you say about that player dont sound very nice. He will probably rage hard and quit the character. Again, in my opinion that's not a problem, its his choice to do that, as it is your duty to stick to the code of the paladin, because if you dont, you are not beign fair to the rest of the party who are under their limitations. would you let the wizard take spells without resting? would you let the cleric heal without his simbol? would you let the warrior use a shield without having it in his hand? Then, why are you letting the paladin use his powers without acting how he should?

Also, if the other players are agree with you and he's the only one raging and beign agressive i think the answer is clear. He's probably the one with the problem.

you just need 2 things to be the happy dude in Rise of the runelords, but i'm not going to say why, of course, i dont want to blow your history up.

1-An arcane caster

2- A paladin. Paladins wins this AP.

Thank you a lot guys, you all really are helping me. Far away from the main issue, i've learned a ton about what is usefull to take with a wizard or a caster.

That said, i'm afraid i cannot use any emotional/mind tactic with the other players, the game is supposed to be a fun gap in our daily routine, so i will just inscribe scrolls for me and one or two for "friend in need" situations.

It's not like i will be sad in the game if i have to make some scrolls. They dont want it? they dont get it, is just as simple as that as you all have said in this thread.

Also, i've followed your suggestions and i've talked to them about this from my perspective, asking them to stop calling me selfish between sessions just because they want something without helping me with the costs XD.

Cavall: of course i'm not doing a scroll noone needs and then asking for money. The issue came because they want some scrolls, but they dont want to pay me for them. And i'm not even gaining money! i just asked for the half of the material costs so then i can put the other half!!!

Matthew Downie wrote:
Graelsis wrote:
Also, i would like to thank you a lot for your backup and support.

You're probably right and it's the group being selfish, but there may not be much you can do about it.

The group as a whole will probably be better off with you spending your money on useful scrolls instead of getting yourself the shiny stuff you want. By saving the monk, you save yourself. It's a shame they're not willing to help pay for it, but you can only control what you do, not what they do.

Either way, you'll be more popular as the supportive caster than as the caster who's always demanding they contribute.

In a future game, when one of them is playing the caster, you can have your 'revenge' by demanding free spellcasting services.

Yeah, this is what i'm doing. They can use the money as they please and that's not making me mad anyway, i just wanted them to stop with the "selfish selfish". I will make my part as good as i can, even if that hurts my poket a bit, but i'm priorizing my shiny things just as they do.

Moonheart wrote:

Well, if you are a quality player, you also wonder if the character personality you designed is fun to see for others...

But my point was just: there is no rule of conduct within parties, except to be fun and immersive.
Not wanting to pay for the mage's scrolls is neither [right] or [wrong], [selfish] or [not selfish].. it's just what is suited to the immersion and amusement, and what's not.

My problem here lies in the fact that my party companions are calling me selfish as a person, not as a character. My character is lawfull evil so, if i stick to my alignement, i should just take more money from then when i can XD.

Also, the situation, and the reason for what i asked is like follows.

Hey, i think we could really use a scroll of bull's strengh, do someone wants to help me with the money?

Them: no, but you should do it anyway, since it's your job.

Me: nah, if noone helps with the money i wont be inscribing a lot of scrolls, but its ok, you can use the money as you pleased, i just wanted to share some costs.

Them: nah, its ok, we dont want that spells.

Between sesions, them: haha, yeah, this is just as ridiculous as (my name) asking us for money to the scrolls, he's a selfish person since he wants us to do something so stupid and ridiculous.

Me: as i see it, asking for sharing cost when it comes to something that could reach 300 gp in total is not that stupid...

them: yeah well, then i will ask for money when i hit with my sword, haha, you can say what u want, it is stupid and you are selfish.

Me: well, lets ask the community, maybe someone supports me and i can send this buddys to eat cow poop.

It's not me asking about how the group should manage the gold, its more me asking about how should i feel about this, because i've been having two really bad weeks since i didnt know if i was beign stubborn enough to be blind.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Asmodeus' Advocate wrote:

Here are the first and second level wizard scrolls that I can think of off the top of my head (since that's the highest level of spells I know you can cast) :

Protection from Evil (You'll be glad you made this when you need it)
Invisibility (never know when you might need it)
See Invisibility (preparing see invisibility every day is painful at the low levels, since you won't usually use it)
Glitterdust (When you see something invisible, you often want to share its location with everyone else)

I'm sure other people can think of more.


I often leave tabs open to reply to later. This causes me to post after people have already invalidated everything I was going to say.

For me what counts is the fact that you tried to help me, so thanks a lot lad!

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Just a Mort wrote:

Pathfinder Society has the disturbing tendencies to throw incorporeal undead at level 1 characters, toss swarms at said characters, throw fliers at the party, send invisible monsters after the party and have you run into creatures with deeper darkness.

Which is also possible in a certain scenario which is labeled level 1-5.

We will not talk about Grabby monsters or the incident involving black tentacles. There was also a succubus somewhere around...

Remove fear tends to be more useful then remove sickness.

I'm taking your list.

I'm copying your list.

I'm printing your list.

I'm putting your list into my caster's agenda.

I'm telling my familiar (a bat) how awsome this list is.

I'm sending you a mental hugh.

I wanted to answer one by one your messages, but since they are a ton, i will put your names here and answer what i think is an overall of your thoughts.

Also, i would like to thank you a lot for your backup and support. Really, i needed it. I really was feeling awfull because of this. Some of you have pointed that maybe one of my choices is to beign passive-agressive like: "well, all the spells in the scrolls goes for me, sorry, if you want something you know what you have to do".

I can't do this because i probably will recieve even more atacks. It's not like my party asked me for any scroll anyway, but they are the ones beign passive aggresive, taking any time they have randomly to say things like (random conversation and suddenly) "yeah, like (my name), who thinks we have to pay for some scrolls just because they benefit us, xd, just as ridiculous as that".

So they do not ask for scrolls directly, but they do remind me they should not ask, i should do them and if i dont i'm beign stupid or some kind of...i dont know, just what you read above.

That said, your huge support has been crucial, this got to the point that i didnt really know if i had a problem that blinded me to see the evidence or not. Now i know that what i'm saying is not madness and i can stay calm and firm in my possition that, if you want a buffing and expensive scroll, you have to go 50-50 with me. Thank you guys, you are an awsome, awsome comunity.

That said, lets go with the answers.

MrCharisma: I'm going with a mixture of your first and third options. My scrolls are going to be for me in the vast majority. I will take a few for my teammates just because i dont want them dead.

SheepishEidolon and cavall: nah, you are right when you say that if they dont want a scroll they should not pay for it even if i think it's usefull. I'm agree with this, and of course i'm not mad when they dont want to pay, but they should not remind me i'm doing nonsense if i dont go mad and craft the scrolls for them anyway.

Born_of_fire and Ryan_freire: Born, i'm with Ryan in this one. You may think that melee characters need more money than spellcasters because they are "gear starving", but this, in my oppinion, is not correct. You can do as i did, I went to "Treantmonk's guide for wizard" and there you will find plenty of items usefull for that class, most of them magical and expensive items. That said, i'ts not about how much someone of the group need, i'm not asking my party members to give me more gold than they recieve, i just want them to participate if they want an specific scroll, its not like i want to pay it full anyway, i just want a 50% help.

Letric: yeah, putting buffs in scrolls may not be a good idea, i've seen that and i'm changing it, so propably the problem will be over since i will stop asking for gold to make scrolls if they are not meant to buff someone but focused in "oh s~%+ didnt expect that" kind of situations.

Mykull: he did that because the campaign we are playing gives us plenty of free time and probably i could have like 30 scrolls now without the limitation, and we are only in the second session of the campaign. I dont know how can that affect the game balance but i think he did that for good reasons...or at least i hope it XD.

Mystic_Snowfang and Just a Mort: any ideas of some scrolls i can find usefull? i'm percieving that you all agree that maybe i'm beign impractical or wrong in my choices for scrolls so maybe you can help me with this part.

Again, thanks a lot to everyone, really, you have making my day much better.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Priyd wrote:

Best thing you can do is role play it in character. Be the penny pinching finger waggler everyone expects and act accordingly. Once they require your services and you refuse on grounds of prior payment not received, they'll put up or shut up. Besides, asking one player to shoulder the whole burden of itemized wealth requirements (wands, scrolls, etc.) seems fairly selfish of THEM.

And that's not even touching on crafting wondrous items, something they're quite certainly going to want you to provide to them.

Well yeah, sadly i'm not allowed to take that feat (DM said it wasnt fit for the campaign and i accepted it).

I cant do as you said. Not because i dont want to, but because the answer will probably be: "ok, go f+@* yourself, we will find another caster" (we are in an evil campaing). Also even in a good aligned campaign the result would be the same, what we talk off-rol is also made inrol normaly.

With my teammates you cannot say "my way or the highway", and i dont really want it neither. Also, i'm not mad because they dont want to pay me, i just dont do that scrolls and keep walking happily.

My problem here is that they are repeating this during the weekend like a way to disturb me, pointing that my way of viewing this is ridiculous and a nonsense and that really, REALLY, piss me off. So i came here to know if i'm really beign selfish and i need to change my mind or i just need to send them to f***ck a cow and understand that their point of view is not the only one.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Mykull wrote:

I think your intentions are good, but, yeah, a bit selfish. You are asking for an extra portion of the treasure, after all.

Should the fighter get more than everyone else so she can buy a better sword? After all, she's using it to attack all of the party's enemies.

Should the cleric get more than everyone else so she can buy wands of restoration? After all, he's using it to benefit the whole group.

Should the bard get more than everyone else so she can buy a masterwork lyre? After all, a better performance helps everyone.

By saying that you want a larger share of treasure to help the group, you are implying (unintentionally, it seems) that every other party member is spending their money exclusively on selfish items.

You get your even share of the loot and spend it how you see fit.

Maybe i didntn write it correctly. I'm not asking for more money to me, i'm asking for money of we all so we can craft items like that only in the case that the item is usable for all the party.

For example. I can cast bull's strengh over the barbarian, but making a bull's strengh for "emergencys" or for some unespected situation cost me 75 gold pieces. I dont think its selfish to ask the barbarian "hey dude, do you want to go 50-50? this can make me help you in an emergency and it will not hit my pocket so hard.

Basically what you are pointing is that i'm asking for more to do the same that my mates do with the same amount of gold, and that's incorrect. If you find me asking for gold to, dont know, buying a pearl of power, an armour, or money for reading and adding more spells to my book then yeah, you can compare my situations with the one you pointed.

If i have to compare what you exposed to similar situations, it would be like that same warrior says "hey guys, i made armour for all of you, them cost me 500 gp". Answer: "ok bud, thanks, but thats your job since you can do it so...thanks for the free armours".

Scrolls are not something i have to use because my class need to, scrolls are an extra, right? Also yeah, i wouldn't expect the cleric to buy that wand on his own just because he's the one that heals the group. He can do that with his normal spells, taking a wand is an extra that cost money, its not like a bard who takes a better ukelele, its more like a bard that takes "brew potion" as a feat and starts brewing. He need extra money.

I think you should talk to your DM. Maybe he can help you in this issue. Maybe he ask you to stop, for the good of the campaign, or maybe he's not that worried.

For example, you cannot grapple certain creatures, maybe that can help him to avoid your one trick pony headshot.

Chompy_Rex wrote:

Is this a campaign that you are playing with friends?

Your group seems very mercantile. Our group throws money treasure in a pile and we spend it as needed. No one abuses the process, as all money spent goes toward benefiting a player in the group, which in turn benefits the group.

When we run low on resources, we prioritize things, but really, it doesn't come up.

They are aware that this is a fake currency, dolled out by a game master who has complete control over the economy right?

But if that is the way your group runs, I would charge them money to cast a spell or use a scroll as per the cost for services in the players guide. Maybe then they will figure out the error of their ways.

Find less parsimonious friends.

we dont have that system, so i'm the only one asking for extra money from everyone to craft ítems for the group. XD, i like my Friends, even when we argue.

Letric wrote:

One situation is being ready for the impossible, the other is pretending I should have a scroll of resurrection just because I'm a cleric.

Now, in cases like Lesser Restoration, I demand a party buys a wand and everyone put money on it, because unless they want to rest for days to refill my spells, all should be preapared to dish out money.

I've a good bunch of scrolls and i didnt ask money for them since they are in that range of "beign prepared" section you talked about. I'm mooving in the second part of your response. I only asked for money for that spells that are designed for helping other members to be better in combat or to help them when it comes to "suck it". The wand of mage armor could be a really nice example.

Also i may say that my DM gives me a limit in the scrolls i can carry (2xlevl), so every scroll i inscribe for the party is a slot i can no longer use until i use that scroll.

pauljathome wrote:
I suspect that the problem that you're dealing with (either real or just perceived) is that YOU are deciding what to make and expecting the group to pay. If the group decides, then they'll PROBABLY be happy to pay.

Ew! no!. Of course i asked beforehand if they would like me to prepare some scrolls focused on them. They said that even if they are gonna use that scrolls i i'm carrying with the cost.

I'm not asking if this is right or wrong anyway, i'm just asking if i'm beign selfish asking for money that i can use to inscribe scrolls for the party. Of course if they say "no, i dont want to pay for that spell" im just not inscribing that scroll, even if it can be usefull for other member of the party...because i can use that money to improve my spellcasting and take items that protect me or help me to improve my skills, wich i think is also usefull.

What i'm trying to say is that i'm not mad because they dont want to help me to have more scrolls. If they dont want the scrolls of course i'm not gonna cry. What i need is your opinion about the act of asking for money to the team when you are spending it in things for the team and not for yourself only.

PCScipio wrote:
Tell the monk that if he buys a wand of mage armor, you will gladly activate it for him. There's no reason you should be paying for it.

I will be using the wand to...so thats the reason he told me to argument i should pay it instead of we. That and, of course, things like "you will not cast it over me in every fight, so i think i'm doing well with my brazalets".

Again, if he dont want it, i'm not paying it and that's ok, i'm not mad. Just worried because everyone seems to be in the same mindset about my worries with the gold XD

My situation is as follows:

Lets say i'm playing a campaing as a player. My carácter (wich class and levels actually dont really matter) can craft scrolls. When we first put our hands in a treassure, i asked my team to take some of the gold to craft some scrolls for everyone. My intention was to inscribe the scrolls with buffs and "team spells" such like, for example, protection from evil and that kind of spell.

I found my team calling me selfish and stubborn, because it seems that my idea is quite weird. They argumented that if i'm the caster of the team, i should take all the costs of making scrolls even if the spells contained in them are for buffing the party.

I will not post the majority of the arguments, because most of them are just "reductio ab absurdum" (like, for example: "then the cleric should ask for us to give him money when he heal us with a spell"). Obviusly if our cleric need some gold to heal us i wont see so bad giving him the gold he needs...but he dont. In the other hand, i need gold to craft scrolls.

Anyway, my question here is...Bull's strengh, buffing spells and the like of level 2 or 3 costs 150 gp, 75 if i craft them or 52 if i make them "evil aligned". Am i beign stupid or selfish for asking the party to share the costs of that scrolls? I would understand that asking for money just to cast my daily spells is ridiculous, but in this case i'm quite lost because i really didnt think this was an issue and now i'm afraid of beign stubborn.

Also the monk of the party asked me to buy and pay a "mage armor" wand to cast it over me and over him...but he didnt offer to pay the half, he said since its a wizard's item i should take the costs.

Thoughts?...thank you people.

If he's driven by nature and wild instincs the reason for leaving could be anyone from "i just felt in the mood to leave and i will stay just until i get bored" to "there's some fury tótem inside me telling me this is the thing i must to to be a wrath avatar in Golarion".

Chances are everywhere around someone who follow his nature just like a wild animal will...be carefull telling him in the sessions he has the need to poop while they are in a dungeon XD.

Also, if he wants to destroy that "corrupted rules" its hard for me to imagine him doing that without traveling. He should try to go here and there provoting revolutions and disturbances in the cities and then just sit there to enjoy the mutual slaughter (that can be his evil part).

RumpinRufus wrote:

Graelsis, the issue with the system you propose of "Buy from Loot at Full Price" is that unless the armor you find is the exact piece of armor you were going to buy anyway, then it creates perverse incentives for the PCs, in which they end up selling gear that should really be kept.

It's not so obvious in your example that only has 2 PCs, but the math changes when you get to a more realistic party size. Let's assume 4 PCs.

Situation 1a: Party uses "Buy from Loot at Full Price". They come across a 2000 gp armor and 6000 gold.

Player A thinks "To me, that armor is worth 1600 gp. If I take the armor, I am effectively getting 1600 gp. But if we sell the armor, I get my cut of 7000 gp, which is 1750 gp. So, I'm better off selling the armor and using my gold to buy an armor I like better."

Result: The party sells the armor which is valued at 1600 gp for only 1000 gp, so the party effectively wastes 600 gp. Everyone gets 1750 gp.

Situation 1b: Party uses "Buy from Loot at Half Price". They come across a 2000 gp armor and 6000 gold.

Player A thinks "To me, that armor is worth 1600 gp. I'll use my loot cut of 1750 gp to buy it for 1000 gp, and keep 750 gp."

Result: To the rest of the party, this situation is identical to Situation 1a - the result for them is receiving 1750 gp. But to Player A, they receive 750 gp plus an armor worth 1600 gp, so effectively they're getting 2350 gp. Nothing is wasted.

If a situation arises wherein, over and over again loot drops that Player A wants, it is possible that he ends up with significantly more on-paper wealth than the rest of the party. But the important fact is that if Player A had never claimed any of that gear, everyone else would still have the exact same wealth. The fact that Player A has more has still in no way disadvantaged any other player.

So not only is it fair, it's better for the party overall, because it encourages less wasteful behavior. You never have the perverse scenarios like 1a in which the...

Why do you reduce the Price of the armor?

In your A situation, if you maintain the Price, that character takes a 2000 gp bite, and the rest of his team, 3 lads, take another 2000 gp of gold.

Everyone can reach ítems for the same value of the armor. If a player decide to sell it because he preffers gold instead of the armor, that's perfectly ok.

If he or she decides that selling the armor is prefereable just because he want the armor AND gold, then im afraid we are facing a selfish personality.

Moonclanger wrote:
Graelsis wrote:

I've been redirected here because i'm having some issues, and after a bit of Reading i have one conclussion, of course, this is just my opinion.

Buy from loot system dont seem to be fair for me.

Lets talk with arguments.

In a simple scenario, we have a group of 2 adventurers. After a hard time knoking down the beast, they find a treassure. In the mountain of gold there are 2000 gp, and also an armor, valued in 2000 gp.

With your system, one of the adventurers take the armor, and also have rights over some part of the gold pieces, since the armor is valued only in 1000 gp, to be even, this warrior takes 500 gp, and the other one takes the 1500 gp.

Result: one character has 1500 gp, and the other has 2500 gp in treassure, since his armor counts as 2000 gp when we talk about treassure limit per level.

Well, this seems to be unbalanced for me, so i proppose this to you.

Same situation.

One warrior takes the armor, the other takes the gold. Both of them will have the same armor if they want, since the market price is the same.

You can apply this to every situation you find. If someone of the group wants an item, he has to pay the market price to his comrades, since that's teh price they will have to pay if they need to buy something in the market because the loot is not going well for them.

That's, for me, the real way to make things even


What's fair depends on whether your group crafts or buys magic items.

You seem to be speaking from the perspective of someone who buys magic items and so pays market price.

In my group there's always someone with Craft Arms and Armour and someone with Craft Wondrous Item. And these guys craft items for other party members at craft price.

Yes, we are not allowed to take crafting feats but inscribe roll and brew potion, so everyone will be needing to pay full the Price of the ítems that we cant find in the loots.

I've been redirected here because i'm having some issues, and after a bit of Reading i have one conclussion, of course, this is just my opinion.

Buy from loot system dont seem to be fair for me.

Lets talk with arguments.

In a simple scenario, we have a group of 2 adventurers. After a hard time knoking down the beast, they find a treassure. In the mountain of gold there are 2000 gp, and also an armor, valued in 2000 gp.

With your system, one of the adventurers take the armor, and also have rights over some part of the gold pieces, since the armor is valued only in 1000 gp, to be even, this warrior takes 500 gp, and the other one takes the 1500 gp.

Result: one character has 1500 gp, and the other has 2500 gp in treassure, since his armor counts as 2000 gp when we talk about treassure limit per level.

Well, this seems to be unbalanced for me, so i proppose this to you.

Same situation.

One warrior takes the armor, the other takes the gold. Both of them will have the same armor if they want, since the market price is the same.

You can apply this to every situation you find. If someone of the group wants an item, he has to pay the market price to his comrades, since that's teh price they will have to pay if they need to buy something in the market because the loot is not going well for them.

That's, for me, the real way to make things even

RumpinRufus wrote:

1) Try to use spoiler tags when discussing any potential spoilers for published content. If you need help, below the text box where you write your post there is a button that says "How to format your text", click on "Show".

2) Check out this recent thread. In an evil campaign especially, I think the "Buy from Loot" system is almost certainly your best possible option.

Thanks a lot, lad!!

Hi again folks!

Some of you may know that i have started a new campaign as a player. Way of the wicked.

You lads helped me a lot with my character, and i'm here again because i need help with treassure management.

The story goes as follows:


We scaped brandescar without suffering 1 point of damage. A mixture of luck, good strategies and the outstanding hability in stealth of our rogue, who almost murdered every distracted guard.

One by one our captors when to their last dream and by 4 in the morning everyone in Brandescar was dead. We blew up the prison (yay!! my time to shine!) using all we found here and there just to ignite a huge fire.

And now comes the problem

Time to share the loot, and we come to a little bit of an issue. Our options are as follows.

1. If you take some item, we take the value of that item, and you cannot take gold or other things until we all have the same treassure level (example: if you take a 1000 gp armor and there are 3000 gp, you dont recieve any gold piece and the 3 members left gain 1000 gp each).

One of my mates is having issues with this, he preffers to take the armor, and divide teh rest of the gold between 4, since he needs some gold to raise undeads. Its not like he's not recieving any gold anyway, but of course in my version of the history he recieves less than the rest of us.

2. Even if you take an item, you share with the others the rest of the loot in equal parts.

3. We calculate half the price of the item you take, and then we do as in the option 1.

I really would appreciate two things from you, lads. First one, your oppinion about what option seems best for you. Secondly, i would like you to tell me your system if you think its better than us, or even if you think it can help us to avoid this issue and keep enjoying the campaign.

Thank you lot!!!!

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well...i finally undestand the point of this gentlemen here.

For all the others of you, i will write this so your low comprehension capabilitys dont feel overwhelmed by the pressure.

This guy just rolled a natural 1 in diplomacy and it all ended up like this.

The monk did the same with a jump

Compare both situations and you would see how possible and convenient his movement as a DM was.

My repects.

Tarik Blackhands wrote:
Graelsis wrote:
Kharzoug liked this thread*
Past tense because of death by adventurer or death by cybernetic time lizard while he was on the John?

I cant resist to say it was the lizard's fault. Godzilla time!!!!!

Well, i think we are all done here.

Just when i saw that stadistic and probabilitys there...Dude, that's far away from the initial thread.

I also dont believe you should turn off your player's habilitys if its not for fun or some roleplaying purpose.

The thing is...we are all telling you that what you did was a bit weird, but you seem to have made the choice to believe you are right no matter what we all say so, it doesnt seem to be so much else to talk about here.

Just my opinion of course, if some mathematics whant to throw stadistics here please just feel free to start an useless and endless discussion about something that's already solved in the core rulebook.

Kharzoug liked this thread*

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Hellow everyone!!

I dont know if somebody has done this yet, because i didnt read all the messages in this forum. That said im going to answer you from my point of view.

- Basic rules, core Rulebook: Slow Fall (Ex): At 4th level or higher, a monk within arm’s reach of a wall can use it to slow his descent. When first gaining this ability, he takes damage as if the fall were 20 feet shorter than it actually is.

The question here is: Was the monk too far from the wall due to that critical failure? If the answer is "yes", then he could not benefit from his aptitude even if he wanted to.

However, if the answer is "no, he was close enough but i still blocked that skill", then i think you nerfed your player because you wanted him to suffer due to that 1 in the dice, even if his class allowed him to land safely in a worse case scenario.

I dont want to make it seem that i'm judging you, actually, i know beign the DM also means beign under a lot of preassure and, sometimes, in our effort of making our players feel the pain for their mistakes or, at least, make the dungeon appear dangerous, we can commit some small mistakes.

In this case i think the answer is right in front of you, just a little bit of reading will give you the answer for your question

In the other hand, i'm going to say that you didnt describe the situation. I could imagine a campaign with critical failures in skills, and i also like to imagine the monk jumping, slipping in the landing, hitting his head and just falling down due to the momentary unsconciounes...just like in movies, and everyone looking down like "bruh, wasnt him supposed to be the best in this, cant wait to see the cavalier jumping"

Gold rule: the DM is law.

Just try to make the game fun to everyone and it will be ok.

EDIT: I just read what you wrote about reach and adjacents squares...Well, i'm afraid that in this game the answer is "yup", andjacent squares means you can reach something if your reach is 5'

You should not enter in that kind of discussion here, because that kind of basic rule is just too Deep in the game to be changed. Your player could say to you that an enemy cant grapple him because he's just in the corner of his 5' square so that enemy with the lance cant move enough his arm to reach him and make a grapple check.

When you have to "force" your point of view just to explain something normally its because you are not right, and indeed i think you are not, in that case.

The Toaster wrote:

INT is only added once to the damage done with splash weapons - so even if that weapon were to do 6d6 of damage it would only be 6d6+Int. (this is the rule in the Alchemist write-up).

Now, an Alchemist fire (which costs 20GP, {almost 7GP when crafted} something you got wrong in your OP) would do 1d6 Plus 1d6 the round after - in other words 2d6 spread over two rounds.... and an Alchemist would add in his INT bonus (for his Throw Anything Class feature) only once per splash weapon... so only with the first dice.

I guess you might have the damage added to the second dice - but then it wouldn't be added to the first... as it is added only once per weapon/target combination.

There is a Bomb Discovery that allows the INT to be added several times over a number of rounds....
** spoiler omitted **...

Now this is a solid, strong a pretty good answer. Thank you so much for the help, we really, really wanted to solve this issue!!!!

Also, thanks from my bud for the welcome!!!

Chess Pwn wrote:
int only on the first application of damage.

Is...that a rule you can please quote to me? Or is it your oppinion as an experienced player/DM?

This is something we (my friend and me) would really find usefull to resolve before the first "eat this you besterd" alchemist fire throw.

Just refreshing to avoid the lost of the question in the deeps of the fórum.

DeathlessOne wrote:

Anytime, Graelsis. I am more than willing to share my knowledge of the game with you and help you generate interesting concepts. Especially if you to try to do something that goes against the accepted norms. Phenomenal cosmic power (TM) is great and all, but it really unnecessary in most styles of game play. I love thinking outside the box and fitting together concepts that normally seem counter to each other, and then finding ways to make them work.

I am less familiar with the Occult classes (and I do not use, or even acknowledge 3rd party sources), but have a good working knowledge of the rest of the classes, should any of those peak your interest. Otherwise, I pretty well rounded on the other classes.

We will meet again for sure then!!! just cant wait to build something awsome like we all just did!

Hellow everyone!

As allways, first thing first. Glad to be here again talking to you all, gentlemen, i hope we can all find an answer to this issue.

There's an alchemist in my group and we want to solve this as soon as possible just to play as we should in the new game we are starting.

I've been looking for an answer in the FAQ's of the advanced player's guide, sadly without success.

My question is simple.

Does an alchemist apply his INT bonus to the extra D6 that an alchemist fire do to a creature? I'm talking about the delayed damage, not about the initial damage.

My thoughts are like follows.

1- As stated in the rules, an alchemist applys his or her INT bonus to ANY splash weapon he's using. The delayed damage is a part of that splash weapon damage, so the bonus should be applied since its the weapon that deals that damage.

2- Every alchemist fire cost is about 15 gp, 4,95 gp if the alchemist craft it. If every shot that a player is going to do cost about 5 GP it seems fair enough for me that he can apply a bonus to all the damage that weapon do.

3- Delayed damage is not a consecuence of the weapon but an effect of the weapon itself. Its not like you push someone into a volcano and say you can apply your STR to the fire damage because you pushed him and the fire is a consecuence of your bull rush.

4- Nowhere the book (or at least i havent find) a rule that says that you cant apply your INT damage to the delayed damage, so going back to the gold rule, if the book dont say you cant do it, then you can.

Waiting for your thoughts!!!

Have a great day

Hi again guys!

I'm here again just to say i'm very impressed with this community. I really didnt expect so much help from you all, god, i've even recieved full builds! Thank you so much, DEATHLESSONE.

I've learned a lot, i know i've said this like four times right now, but i'm not accostumed to this kind of respond, i was expecting something more like one or two answers telling me about a few feats...

You all have helped me to learn more about the game, also, after this much Reading, i think i was stuck in a "this is the only way" mode, probably blinded by the security of the melee classes, but hey, i've discovered how much i can do with a bit of imagination and tons of knowledge about the game.

Special thanks to DARKSOl, DERKLOLRD and DEATHLESSONE, since they have been here from the beggining and the level of implication has been amazing.

I want you all to know that i've read all your comments, and every single one of them have been usefull for me. Sadly i cant answer you all! ^^, but please, dont think that your time here has been a waste.

I hope to see you all the next time i need some help!

Have a great day!

1 to 50 of 209 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>