Gulthor's page

My main issue with a shield as weapon is that you want different runes on your weapon and your shield.

Well, a Shield Boss is the actual weapon, so that's easy to enchant separately.

Regarding Str and Cha i would take the 18 in Str

Yeah, I've accepted a +4 STR will be required at level 1 so that I can wear full plate effectively prior to level 5. There's technically Grey Maiden Plate, but that feels like an "exploit" taking advantage of bad editing, and not an actual intended armor.

Gatewalkers seems to be a mystery AP, as a champion you will struggle to participate in lore- and research activities. No clue if that comes up in the AP a lot though, but it could be a good idea to take a lore or something to do something else but stand around as decoration while the others find out what is happening.

This was actually part of why I was initially drawn to having a starting +2 Int; it would give me a decent Occult skill check at 1. I'm looking at taking Clever Improviser at 5 with my Ancestry feat as well.

Thanks to everyone's excellent feedback, I've adjusted my plans to:

Str+4 / Dex +0 / Con +2 / Int +1 / Wis +0 / Cha +2

That does unfortunately knock Witch out of the running for my archetype, but I'm now considering either Bard or Soulforger. Soulforger is tempting since that would allow me to get an *extra* +2 hardness on my shield once per day on top of Everstand and Shield Ally (plus who doesn't love being able to don full plate as a free action?)

On the other hand, Bard's Healing Hymn is extremely comparable to Witch's Lesson of Life and gets me that 3rd Focus Point, as well as some really nice 1/d buff spells, skill training, and helpful cantrips.

I recognize that I could drop Cha to +1 and get Int back up to +2, but that seems like a real waste of getting Intimidating Glare from my Background; I'd still like to be able to make good use out of a solid Charisma with Diplomacy and Intimidate (also good for aforementioned social encounters.)

Yeah, like people above are saying you really ought to get some CON. I usually recommend 14 for frontline characters, but on a defender especially I'd treat 14 as the bare minimum. You can compensate to some extent with feats like Toughness (which you'd more than likely be getting regardless of CON) and items like a Belt of Good Health, but there really is no replacing a decent Constitution score. You'll definitely feel the difference come levels 3 and beyond.

What I'd be extremely wary about is using Everstand Stance as-is: that cool shield you're holding in both hands is, at the same time, your weapon and your first line of defense. If you use Shield Block a bunch it's gonna break eventually, which is fine early on when you can carry spares, but at some point your shield's gonna have all these runes on it as part of the game's expected weapon progression and it's gonna get a lot harder to sink money into other shields (unless you're using the ABP variant rule). I'd be really careful about Everstand Stance for this reason, though a low investment fix for this problem could be to use your own body to attack with Handwraps of Mighty Blows.

Thanks much! I'll have the Bone Spikes deviant feat from the Total Power campaign background as a backup weapon. I realize I'll need to use Shield Block judiciously, but I figure if I'm going shield ally, then adding even MORE hardness while in the stance can only help keep the shield safer and open up my blocking opportunities further. Glimpse of Redemption will likely be my primary reaction if I can use it anyway.

You're going to feel that con dump. Skimming through the AP, there are monsters with high DC fort targeting effects (and reflex too) all over the place just at level 1 so I suspect you'll spend a lot of the time on the floor or just straight up dying before hitting level 2.

Thanks for the insider insight - that's what I was worried about. Sounds like I should look to rely on Bulwark from full plate for my Reflex.

In your estimation, would a +1 Con to start be sufficient, or should I push for a +2?

My concerns are in a bit different of an area.

Delay Consequence is a reaction. So it competes with your Glimpse of Redemption Champion Reaction. You only have one reaction each round.

Also the duration of Delay Consequence is 1 Round and since you are the caster - but the spell is not cast on your turn... There are some questions regarding timing of when the delay effect ends.

Make sure to work out with your GM on exactly how that works and whether you can actually use your reaction for Delay Consequence, then get your reaction back at the start of your turn and then use your reaction again before the Delay Consequence effect ends.

Edit: Also, timing aside, there is also the Limitations on Triggers. It is again up to your GM if 'an enemy damages your ally' (Glimpse of Redemption) and 'A creature or object...

Thanks for the feedback! Yeah, Delay Consequences will be more "emergency" than general use (especially since it's also a focus spell), but our interpretation is that it delays the hit until the start of the enemy's turn - we're aware that there's some conflicting information with how 1 round means it *should* end, but given the whole line about it being dismissible (which wouldn't ever be possible to do if it ended at the top of the caster's turn), we believe the intent is for it to remain active for 1 full round and that it's just not worded/formatted correctly. But great call out!

We'll hammer out whether or not Glimpse of Redemption should be able to trigger when the damage goes through, because that's a great point. Even if not, I think it's still situationally useful enough to be helpful *and* it still gets me that extra Focus Point that I can use for LoH instead.

My main concern was whether it was a huge mistake to leave my Con at +0 and whether I was appropriately assessing the value of a +1 Dex (and therefore whether I needed to drop my Int and ditch the witch idea.)

Good morning all,

Our group is going to be starting Gatewalkers soon, and I'll be playing my first PF2E character.

My concept for the character is a support/4E-style defender. I'm repurposing an old PF1E Oradin concept that I never got to play.

We're using free archetype, and we're not stressed about using free archetype to build extremely optimized characters.

My teammates will be:
* A poppet Construct Summoner with the Familiar Master archetype (she'll be a tiny poppet familiar, a small poppet character, and a medium poppet eidolon.)
* A human nephilim Faith's Flamekeeper witch, leaning towards the Blessed One archetype.
* A human Way of the Drifter gunslinger with the Cavalier archetype.

I'll be playing an adopted (by gnomes) human Redeemer Champion of Shyka the Many.

My plan is to take Shield Ally and Everstand Stance to boost my Shield's hardness as high as I can, then pair that with Shield Warden and eventually Shield of Reckoning. I'm also looking to take Deity's Domain (Time) for a long-range reaction to delay incoming damage to my allies so we can reposition for my Redeemer reaction before the hit goes through.

Along with that, I'm thinking of starting at +3 STR and +3 CHA to provide additional support with Bon Mot and Intimidating Glare (IG provided by the Total Power Background.)

All that's pretty well settled and I feel really comfortable with it.

Where I'm worried that I might be hurting myself is with my Archetype choice, and I wanted to run it past some more experienced 2E players: I'd like to take the Witch Dedication with the Spinner of Threads patron to further represent my character's relationship with Shyka the Many. I'd be picking up Basic Lesson - Lesson of Life for a long-ranged focus heal spell.

It's also "important" for my character to have a familiar, which I could easily get with Animal Accomplice from my Ancestry feat, but I've really fallen in love with the idea of taking Animal Elocutionist now that it's a 1st level feat - so Witch Dedication also gets me the familiar that I want (I don't want to take the Familiar Master since another character in the party is taking it.)

So, how badly would I be screwing myself with a
STR +3 / Dex +1 / Con +0 / Int +2 / Wis +0 / Cha +3 starting array?

I could swap the +1 from Dex to Con easily enough, but I won't have a high enough Str to use Full Plate until 5th level. I am planning on picking up the Toughness feat, and I'll be boosting Con at 5 and 10, but would I be making a blunder by starting with a +2 Int? The extra languages seem like they could be handy with Bon Mot, same with being able to use Bon Mot on animals with Animal Elocutionist. But is the extra hardness on my shield and the fast healing focus spell enough to cover the hit point loss?

Thanks!

Any concerns about having Alignment in 1.e.i or 1.e.ii? I only ask since it's being removed from PF2E Remastered, though I realize the ORC is for broad use in a large variety of games.

I could probably get behind a small monthly subscription fee for this - say $4.99/mo like the old 4E D&D Insider - but paying hundreds of dollars to "unlock" books I already own when there are already far more competitive character builders out there? Best of luck to the devs, but seems a bit delusional to me.

I am so, so late to this post, so apologies for the necro thread. But, I figure with the recent Humble Bundle and surge of interest in PF2E, it'd be worth sharing a change I made to re-run the Beginner's Box for a mixed group of new players and players that I'd run Menace Under Otari for previously.

The biggest change that's needed for a group that's played before has to be the Abadar puzzle. So I used this instead:

Rather than the coins on the altar, there are instead three locked chests. One is a chest inlaid with gold, one is a chest inlaid with silver, and the third chest is inlaid with silver and gold.

The voice explains that each of the chests contain one hundred coins. One chest contains 100 gold coins, one contains 100 silver coins, and one contains a mix of 50 gold and 50 silver coins.

The gilding of the chests correspond to the possible contents, but they do not match.

A character may place their hand on one chest and receive a vision of a single coin held within.

The voice requests the characters prove their shrewdness to Abadar by placing the two more valuable chests in the statue's hands.

If the heroes succeed, the chests placed in the statue's hands vanish. The chest remaining on the altar containing the silver coins also disappears, leaving its contents on the altar for the players (100 sp = 10gp, so very close to the value of the original puzzle.)

I do think this puzzle is easier to solve with multiple attempts, so it's up to you how you want to limit the number of attempts. Personally, I'm only giving my players one chance (but I'll inform them that they'll only get one chance.)

EDIT: Naturally, any attempts to steal or unlock the chests results in them disappearing.

Thank you for all that you've done; wishing you the very best and a well-deserved retirement!

Quixote wrote:

Alright, I'm curious. Why and what is, then?

I don't think I'm too far off the mark in saying that Pathfinder is a power fantasy for the majority of its players-- this is a major part of its appeal, and a major part of why level-based systems are so popular.

Tell me, what is Conan the Cimmerian's dump stat? Which of his ability scores is below 10? Hell, which of his ability scores is below 13?

I'm not familiar with Golarion's iconics and other NPCs, but if you look at the official statblocks of practically any main character from any of the novels... they don't have dump stats. They don't have arrays you can legally purchase with point buy, or have any hope of rolling on any official rolling method.

I'm interested in playing the equals of those characters-- the main characters of the stories that me and my friends are playing out at the table, not their sidekicks.

Bilbo Baggins and the hobbits in LotR are nothing special by their ability scores, but are unarguably the heroes of their stories. It's precisely the fact that they do incredibly heroic things *despite* their humble beginnings that makes them such heroes.

Raistlin is one of the most iconic, famous, and powerful wizards in not just the Dragonlance series, but all of D&D, and he has a 5 Con. In fact, it's fair to say that he's such a well-known fantasy character *because* of his low Constitution.

The Ohmsfords of the Shannara series are often simple, humble folk who would have one or more dump stats.

John Ross in Running With the Demon is physically crippled, with an extremely low Dex, which is the price he paid for incredible magical ability.

The heroes of the Wheel of Time series all have critical flaws, many of which can be interpreted as low stats (Matt Cauthon certainly has a low Wisdom, for instance.)

In my opinion, power fantasy has no relation to playing characters with no critical weaknesses, and my friends and I far prefer playing flawed characters to "Mary Sues".

All of which is just my long-winded rebuttal to your hunch that most players prefer playing such characters.

So does anyone have an ability generation system other than point buy/rolling that is more organic, less random and less "Here's your dumpstat"?

Why I'd return today of all days after a few years away and see this thread - must be serendipity.

The Harrow Character Generation Method

A couple Spring-Loaded Wrist Sheaths are probably a better way to accomplish (on a smaller scale) what the player wants here.

https://www.d20pfsrd.com/equipment/weapons/weapon-and-armor-accessories/

On the plus side, it's much less expensive.

What are their other stats, out of curiousity?

If you're coupling the high Charisma with decent physical stats, you could always go the fairly classic farmboy-sorcerer route, such as Luke Skywalker or many of the Ohmsfords from the Shannara series (I wouldn't peg Luke at 8 Int, but you can pretty easily imagine how a lowborn, poorly-educated kid with a good heart - like Luke - could work with an 8 Int.)

I think for me, that'd be my guidepost that I'd start building a new character from.

Gulthor wrote:

Well, the Great Wheel cosmology has this conflict as well, between the Tanar'ri and the Obyriths (qlippoths are totally just the Pathfinder conversion/adaptation of obyriths.)

When the Blood War debuted, Obyriths either weren't a thing, or were so different that the retcon has warped my memory...

You're not wrong. Obyriths were defined in 3.5, though it was retconned that many of the non-tanar'ri demons were Obyriths or Obyrith lords, a primordial class of demons pre-dating the tanar'ri.

Well... Demons have Qlippoth to mess with right at home. Two forms of Chaotic Evil that absolutely despise one another- without getting into Demon on Demon conflict (Look at Lamashtu and Pazuzu: They aren't teaming up to take on the good guys at all).

Well, the Great Wheel cosmology has this conflict as well, between the Tanar'ri and the Obyriths (qlippoths are totally just the Pathfinder conversion/adaptation of obyriths.)

I always wondered something: Why is there a difference between demons, devils, and "daemons"?

Well, they are different fiendish beings from different cultures (daemons are their own thing).

When they were initially coming up with the planar cosmology of D&D, the idea was that there was a plane that corresponded with each alignment. Outsiders were made for each to fit, and they were just kinda' arbitrarily chosen.

If you can get your hands on it, I've long felt that the 2nd Edition Adventure, "Night Below" would translate really beautifully to a Pathfinder AP (in fact, there are a lot of themes in the adventure that fit so perfectly in Golarion that it leads me to strongly believe that James Jacobs probably ran it for his table).

It'd take a lot of work translating into PF, though, but I'm planning on doing so and running it for my group one of these days.

Gulthor wrote:

OP, you are being unnecessarily hostile; the intention of your initial post was very unclear (I also thought you meant in-game, and I also was coming in to explain that the magic item creation rules already allow you to do this).

In life, I really want a Headband of Mental Superiority +6, but it's a tricky thing to wear, so I suppose I'd couple it with a Pull-Ring of Scent that could be a small nose ring. A nose ring might be slightly socially unacceptable, but with an extra 6 Int/Wis/Cha, I think I could get away with it.

How am I being hostile? It was clear I meant the person reading the op. If it was meant to be a character, I wouldn’t have said You, because while you may play a character, you will never be that character. Nay, if it was meant to be a character, it clearly would read “Your character...”

Anybody who posted for a character was thus going against the topic.

"You" is commonly used as shorthand to mean "You as a player", or "Your character as controlled by you, the player." It's more immersive, and more conducive to roleplaying. You can't tell me you've never been in a game where the GM has said something like, "You enter the dimly-lit cave..."

On the forums, it's pretty normal for us to use and assume we're using standard role-playing table language.

OP, you are being unnecessarily hostile; the intention of your initial post was very unclear (I also thought you meant in-game, and I also was coming in to explain that the magic item creation rules already allow you to do this).

In life, I really want a Headband of Mental Superiority +6, but it's a tricky thing to wear, so I suppose I'd couple it with a Pull-Ring of Scent that could be a small nose ring. A nose ring might be slightly socially unacceptable, but with an extra 6 Int/Wis/Cha, I think I could get away with it.

All the time: our group's house rules have been shaped by Rule of Cool changes, such as implementing many of the World is Square feat tax changes (and making a few more of our own), such as Power Attack being baseline, rolling Signature Skill into the +2 to two skill feats (Alertness, Athletic, etc), or utilizing the Pathfinder Unchained background skill system.

Our table adds Con *score* to starting hit points (as 4th edition did), and that hasn't presented any problems. Monsters get the same benefit, so it just smooths out combat in the early levels and makes it so that a PC can't be easily killed in one shot due to an unlucky crit.

Aroden. Hands-down, no contest.

The Ascended pantheon are actually my favorite deities in Pathfinder, but Aroden riles me unlike anything else in Golarion lore.

And it's not really Aroden's fault - he's actually fine - it's Paizo's fault.

Because for some reason, Paizo decided to do a J.J. Abrams-style mystery box with regards to the death of Aroden, and they did so in the most infuriating way possible.

If Paizo's official stance was, "The death of Aroden is a mystery, and while we have our own official answer, we're never going to use it or release it, so you should feel free to explore it for your personal games without fear that we'll release something that would invalidate the events of your home game," that'd be totally fine with me. Likewise, if their stance was, "The death of Aroden is a mystery, and we will explore it in a future Adventure Path at some point," that'd also be totally fine with me.

Instead, the official stance is that, "The death of Aroden is a mystery, and we may or may not ever release our official answer," which incenses me beyond a reasonable or rational degree to which I should care.

Paizo seems oblivious to the fact that there are some people who care very, very deeply about canonical lore. If it's a space that's open to personal exploration, that's awesome, if it's a space that's well-defined, that's awesome, if it's a space that we know *will* be definitely, totally cool: each of those creates boundaries within which characters and stories can be explored. Aroden occupies a very different space, in which the mystery surrounding Aroden actively removes the ability to explore any creative space surrounding a pivotal moment in Golarion lore.

And for that, he's a terrible deity.

Probably Uskyeria, the empyrael lord of hunting, prudence, and slumber; the bear is Uskyeria's sacred animal, and the domains seem to fit fairly well.

http://aonprd.com/DeityDisplay.aspx?ItemName=Uskyeria

In Tian Xia, I'd imagine Tsukiyo (in his aspect as god of the moon) would probably receive the worship of werebears.

Not only are Pathfinder Bards fantastic, but Paizo also did an incredible job exploring and utilizing the 6-level caster space (which WotC severely under-utilized).

In fact, 6-level casting classes are all easily my favorite in the game, and bard is near the top of that list (along with alchemist).

The old 2nd edition D&D adventure path, "Night Below" actually introduced this elven subrace for you; the Rockseer Elves. Might give you a little lore you may want to draw on.

Additionally, for what it's worth, the underdark described in Night Below fits so well in Golarion lore that it's my guess that James Jacobs ran the adventure path in his personal game back in the day.

Congratulations Blake!!! This is awesome!!!

Alright, I'm going to attempt to contribute a constructive post, here.

Piccolo, if you're concerned about the power level of a Rogue, then honestly Pathfinder is probably a poor fit for your gaming preferences. You may prefer to get and stay up to date on the Work-in-Progress that is Pathfinder 2.0, or you may prefer the lower power level of 5th Edition Dungeons & Dragons.

The reason that you're receiving the kind of reactions you are is because your concern is honestly absurd - and I don't mean that to mock or upset you. A well-built rogue is literally one of the weakest martial options that a player could bring to your table. At this stage in Pathfinder's life cycle, there are literally hundreds of builds out there (that are not that difficult to make) that out-damage a rogue. Seriously. Literally hundreds. I was going to say dozens, and then I just started doing the math.

So - honest answer - if rogue concerns you, then Pathfinder is just not your game, mate.

Where is AM BARBARIAN when you need him?

In 40some years of roleplaying game practice. FInd me any paladin of Iomedae who recognizes the legitimacy of the current Chelaxian gummint... I'm not even sure Abadarites do.

Sorry to Necro your comment, Klorox, I just wanted to point out that there are, in fact, some Order of the Godclaw Hellknight Paladins.

Even more specifically, Queen Galfrey has a claim to the Chelaxian throne, is a paladin of Iomedae, and recognizes the legitimacy of Chelaxian rule.

Even *more* pressing, Iomedae is, well... Iomedae - and she voluntarily works with Asmodeus out of respect of his legitimacy.

Notable cannibalism-themed options:

Witch Major Hex: Cook People
Gingerbread Witch Archetype

Deities: Kabriri (with an appropriate Demonic Obedience), Zura (also with a solid Demonic Obedience), Pavnuri (weak Obedience), and of course, Urgathoa (with of course good Deific Obedience options).

The best way to make a viable Mystic Theurge (in my opinion, really the *only* viable way) is if you're able to use the Spellcasting Guild rules from Inner Sea Magic (which are completely and utterly broken, so I would not expect a GM to allow you to use them as written, if at all).

Spellcasting Guilds grant access to the Eclectic Training and Esoteric Training guild perks, which do the following:

Eclectic Training: Choose one spellcasting class you have at least one level in: you increase your effective caster level in that class (including the number of spells you know and can cast per day) by one, to a maximum caster level equal to your total Hit Dice.

Esoteric Training: The bonus to caster level you gain from Eclectic Training increases to three (but is still limited by your total Hit Dice).
Select a second spellcasting class you have at least one level in: you increase your effective caster level in that class (including the number of spells you know and can cast per day) by one, to a maximum caster level equal to your total Hit Dice.

Eclectic Training can be earned around level 3 on average, and Esoteric Training can be earned around level 5 or so. Note that they use the language used by prestige classes that actually increase your spellcasting - these aren't simply caster level increases, these are full-blown spellcasting increases.

Here's why they're busted: they're completely, 100%, totally free. You just have to mail in some homework during downtime by making skill checks that you can easily manipulate into succeeding with perfect accuracy.

Our group turned them into feats to make them a bit more balanced, and they work pretty well for us.

Eclectic Training

Prerequisites: Ability to cast spells, Knowledge (any) 3 ranks, Spellcraft 3 ranks

Esoteric Training
Prerequisites: Combined Spells class feature, Eclectic Training, Knowledge (any) 7 ranks, Spellcraft 7 ranks

With the standard Spellcasting Guild rules, you could be an Oracle 3/Sorcerer 1 with the +3 bonus keyed to Sorcerer and the +1 bonus keyed to Oracle, probably entering mystic theurge around 6th level as either an Oracle 4/Sorcerer1 (effective O5/S4) or Oracle 3/Sorcerer2 (O4/S5). So you'd either be O4/S1/MT1 (effective O6/S5) or O3/S2/MT1 (effective O5/S6), giving you full spellcasting ability in one of your two spellcasting classes, and only delaying your other class by a level.

With our rules, you'd have to go Oracle 3/Sorcerer 4 (or vice-versa), enter Mystic Theurge at 8th level, and then picking up Esoteric Training at 9th. It doesn't lessen the potency, but it does delay it and add a price to it.

This probably sounds bonkers OP, and for some groups/tables, it would be, so know your own table and what's appropriate. The problem with MT is that even though you're drowning in spells, you're incredibly light on class features, your class features don't advance, and you still can only cast one spell per turn, regardless of how many you can cast per day. There is a price.

But I would strongly recommend against Oracle 4/Sorcerer 4/Mystic Theurge 1 for all the reasons explained in prior posts.

Their orientation should invert, but they wouldn't fall - an air walking character can be knocked prone, but they treat the air beneath them as a solid surface. I would probably have them make an Acrobatics check to avoid falling prone as they adjust to their new orientation - probably a DC 10 or 15 or so.

Wow, that's awesome, RD! I've seen you here so often and for so long that I'd just assumed you'd knocked a few out by now!

That's a great feeling :)

We've knocked out Savage Tide (3.5), RotR, Iron Gods, and are working on Jade Regent now.

Our group has no problem with the CLW wand "meta"; it's cost-effective, action-inefficient, and a gold sink at early levels.

If you're looking for something radically different, your GM could implement 4th Edition Healing Surges; a subsystem I actually liked quite a lot, though we haven't taken the step to carrying it over to our home games in lieu of CLW wands.

There's also the recent forum post Finally, With Feats, Anyone Can Heal if you really want more of a price for your healing (skill ranks and feats being relatively "expensive".)

Could this be achieved by a slight tweak to your lich?

An alchemical lich with the master chymist PrC achieves this dichotomy pretty well. Lichdom as an expression/alternative of the search for the mythical philosopher's stone is also pretty thematically appropriate.

In fact, the Mutagenic Form class feature is so slippery, that not only does the mutagenic personality have a different alignment, but can also appear as an entirely different race - perhaps even appearing alive?

For further fun, maybe the mutagenic personality is the one that went through the process of becoming a lich and it's the primary personality that's still Good?

I am still looking for an answer for this. I don't understand why paizo is making a new edition when things need to be cleared up here first.

Paizo has always been - and likely will continue to be - advocates for tables figuring out their own interpretations for things. They don't want to spell everything out in very certain terms, and the community has a tendency to be more upset when they do than not, because they tend towards clarifications that heavily nerf the rule in question.

I'd actually say that their decision to abandon PF1E and move to a new system is because they have too many things at this stage that they'd want to address with PF1E, and the cleanest, most efficient use of their time to address all the concerns at once is with a new edition.

I would not hold your breath for a ruling on this. However, if you got your wish, I expect that the "official" ruling would be that you can only target "another creature" or "an enemy" (removing its utility in targeting allies entirely). They don't actually want to do that because they want different tables to decide for themselves how powerful they want the ability to be.

I just have to laugh. IF you finish the story, move on to another adventure. Keep going. Why do you want it to end? So long as you have a goal is should continue. For me why Im hear is to continue on my goals.

Oh and thanks for proving my point about people caring more about game balance than story.

This is a great point for me to repeat what I said in my last post, but from another angle.

Playing the same character endlessly sounds *INCREDIBLY* boring to me.

From a story perspective - not a game balance one - one of my greatest joys in playing D&D has been giving my characters a satisfying conclusion to their adventure. Our game world is also persistent, meaning that while I may move on and play a new character, my old characters are still there, doing whatever it was that they were doing.

Noviliel, my character from Rise of the Runelords, founded the country of Storval, using Xin-Shalast as her new capitol. I feel immense satisfaction every time I think of her ruling her new nation, and I know it's taking up a ton of her time. She's busy; her adventuring days are behind her.

Gulthor, my Hellknight from Wrath of the Righteous? He founded a new Hellknight order (the Order of the Lesion) and then ascended to become the new demigod of the Hellknights. And when we looked to Hell's Rebels, our group smiled with satisfaction at the knowledge that our Hellknight formerly of the Order of the Godclaw, and our Mythic Paladin of Iomedae surely were behind the Glorious Reclamation in some capacity. But he's mega-retired. He's building a demiplane, building his following, building his church - he's busy, and his adventuring days are behind him.

Frag, my goblin alchemist from Iron Gods? He ended the campaign with a 44 Intelligence, and became a slum lord ruling over Scrapwall in Numeria, where he and his cohort continue to work at unlocking the secrets of creating the Philosopher's Stone. He's busy, and his adventuring days are behind him.

And each of these three characters - three of dozens that I've played over the years - are so different, so unique, so fun to play. Living out their little lives - the very essence of roleplaying - was so fun, so pleasurable. My current character, Lossenmel, is a lazy, mercurial, quick-to-anger/quick-to-laughter alcohol-themed alchemist. All he wants to DO is escort Ameiko to become Empress of Minkai so that he can live out the rest of his days on a fat, cushy retirement. His whole goal is to retire. I'll smile fondly when I think back to him lazing about in the lap of luxury, too.

And I have more characters whose lives I want to explore. I want to know what makes them tick, I want to know what challenges them, I want to know where they excel. I want to explore their relationships with their new friends - I want to experience the new characters that my friends' imaginations have produced. I want them to succeed... and I want them to have their reward at the end of their journey.

My opinion of the statements that you've made thus far are that you have an extremely elitist attitude of your preferences rather than simply asking what game system would be a good fit for those preferences, while accepting that there are a large number of role-playing systems for a reason. Someone out there is willing to cater to yours, and you've received earnest, helpful advice trying to lead you there. Instead, you just seem to want to put down those that enjoy PF/D&D for its method of storytelling. Yes, game balance is *part* of that equation - as I said, it is THE core, fundamental principle behind PF/D&D. Game balance is not an enemy to storytelling, and it's baffling to me that you think that limitations somehow hold storytelling back. As I said, characters are defined by their weaknesses as much as their strengths.

It sounds to me like you want to play multiplayer Skyrim. And honestly, I think that's okay - I bet it'd be a blast. I have good news for you, Bethesda is hoping to sell you Fallout 76 soon, complete with built-in griefing so that high level characters can prove their "superiority" over the little pissant noobs.

D&D/PF is not the game to explore the method of character fantasy that you're seeking.

Opening the game up after 20 years(for me) of Same Old, Same Old.

Yes why not make everyone a Spellcaster? Why not just allow every character to learn everything? The limit sholdnt be class balanced, but rational problems. For example would a Gestalt Cleric/Wizard advance the rate as a single class Wizard or Cleric?

There are already Magic class and archetypes for basically every class. Pick an Eldritch Scoundrel Rogue and make yourself Invisible. Take a Bloodrager and cast your own buff spells.

Im playing from the perspective of an experienced player that always takes mild-moderate-major magic classes and hates lower grinding levels before class features and magic become character defining. I gave up on Meathead classes a long time ago as being low tier and highly limited in what they can do.

From that perspective I dont know why the rules makers still insist that purely physical classes should be viable, while hypocritically nerfing magic again and again. My answer to that is "Can I play as Cthulu?"

A character that can do anything or that can do everything sounds *INCREDIBLY* boring to me.

Characters are defined by their limitations and weaknesses as much as they are their strengths. D&D/PF is built around the concept that individual characters are insufficient to overcome all challenges - relying on a well-crafted *party* that works cooperatively to overcome the campaign's obstacles is the CORE design philosophy at the center of D&D.

If you're interested in a free-form roleplaying system - as others have already suggested - they are many and plentiful. I would encourage you, in fact, to check them out. Our group found BESM/the Tri-Stat system to be a terribly entertaining diversion a decade or so ago.

D&D/Pathfinder is not your game if that's what you're looking to do. And in fact, after dipping our toes in the waters of RPGs that diverge from D&D, our group - that has *also* been playing together over twenty years (not sure why you keep repeating that as though it lends particular weight to your arguments) - made the conscious decision that gaming was more fun for us *with* those inherent limitations than it was without them.

I find it shocking that - for someone who has played RPGs for so long - that you *haven't* ever been curious about trying other RPG systems until now. You really missed out on the RPG boom of the late nineties/early 2000's.

Apart from its distinctive look (each order of Hell Knights has its own style of armor), a suit of Hell Knight plate functions the same as a suit of masterwork full plate.

Its stats match its description; a suit of Hellknight Plate is simply a slightly more distinctive suit of masterwork full plate (certain prestige class class features key off of using this very specific piece of equipment, which justifies the higher cost).

Therefore, Mithral Hellknight Plate would be identical to Mithral Full Plate in stats, differing only in price; fortunately, the description for mithral specifies that price, which is 9,000 gp for heavy armor (and includes the masterwork component).

This would mean that the price for mithral Hellknight plate would be 10,850 GP (2000 Hellknight plate +9000 mithral -150 masterwork; you wouldn't have to pay for the masterwork component twice, and as mentioned, it's covered in the 9000gp mithral cost). If your GM disagrees that the masterwork cost shouldn't be paid for twice, 150gp is not worth arguing over, pay it and move on - NPCs don't have to charge fair market prices anyway.

The armor check penalty would be -3 (full plate is -6, masterwork reduces by 1 and mithral by an additional 2) and the max Dex would be +3.

You're not likely to find a developer post spelling this out, and is unreasonable to ask others to cite you things you're unwilling to find out yourself; this is basic application of the rules and can be confirmed by looking at printed character or magic items entries, such as Mithral Full Plate of Speed.

Cavall wrote:

And once again fortune exists for a reason.

Bingo.

Assertions that RAW means you can use it on yourself requires the supposition that Paizo doesn't know how to write Misfortune so that it works on the caster...and yet they did that with Fortune???!! It's a nonsensical assertion.

It also requires that we construe "force a creature" to by synonymous with targeting oneself. If someone can show me one other spell/ability in any of the books written by Paizo where this convention is used, I'll concede the point. In the absence of such a reference, there is no context to interpret that as targeting oneself.

The ability is clearly written to put "misfortune" on others.

Wow, over four years later and you're still repeating the same opinion as though your interpretation was the only valid one.

You've posted the same opinion 26 times now in this thread (I counted). Out of 90 posts, nearly a third of them are you repeating yourself.

It's time to walk away from this one; I think we can all figure out what your thoughts are on misfortune at this point.

Speaking for our group, our plan is that now that we'll have a stable, complete, finished version of the game, our focus is going to be on house rules.

We're planning on taking a massive run at classes, archetypes, and feats and doing a rebalance appropriate for our table and cutting out a lot of fat to make a really lean system for our future games.

Like DaveMage, above, I'm not particularly interested in new content, as for us, the existence of a "Definitive Version" of PF1E gives us the elbow room to make these adjustments without worry that our alterations will be affected by future content.

1) Don't call them "vampires".

2) Instead of fangs, give them a proboscis or some other form of repulsive bloodsucking apparatus.

Now you have an entirely new monster even if it's 98% identical to a vampire.

I, too, like Darkest Dungeon: the Crimson Court ;)

There are already a number of variant vampires in Pathfinder already - Jiang-shi, Moroi, Nosferatu, and Vetala (https://pathfinderwiki.com/wiki/Vampire) - as well as numerous other undead and aberrations that function very similarly to the vampire, such as the Sayona and Nachzehrer.

You should absolutely go for it, and if your players are upset that they made assumptions without in-character research or verification, that should be on them.

I actually consider it a good thing to challenge player assumptions now and again - and I say that both as a GM and a player.

Our group has in fact houseruled them not only to be d10/full BAB, but we also gave them an accuracy-boosting class feature.

At 3rd level, Rogues gain the following ability:

Opportunistic Striker (Ex): Starting at 3rd level, whenever a rogue would make an attack that qualifies to deal sneak attack damage, she gains a +1 bonus on the attack roll. At 6th level and every three levels thereafter, the bonus on attack rolls increases by 1.

Our table now actually has a meaningful reason to consider rogue versus vivisectionist alchemist (though in my opinion, the vivisectionist *still* walks away with the edge).

Given that PF1E is on its way out, I wouldn't be surprised if they leave the FAQ unanswered.

Your table will have to make a decision/ruling. Our group tends to be more permissive/"rule of cool" and allow it (though no one's taken advantage - our Skald chose to go the VMC Cavalier route, above).

I'm having a bit of confusion, as is my DM. And how some of the feets and grit go together . On amounts of attacks per round and how fast one can reload.

My character, is a dhampir not that that's important. But is a mysterious stranger. 22 charisma.
He uses 2 double barrel over and under pistols. Plus a single shot pistol in his belt. He uses Alchemy cartridges. And has rapid reload. He also has Quick Draw.
Can someone here please tell me for sure, how many barrels per round can he reload. And how many shots per round can he make

You've inadvertently entered into a somewhat contentious bit of rules debate, and I'd encourage you to do some searching into previous forum threads on the matter (there are many).

That said, if you are able to reduce the reloading speed down to a free action, many tables would rule that you can reload between iterative shots, just as an archer is not limited to the number of arrows they can draw and nock.

The only rules text on the matter is that the GM may limit the number of free actions a character may take each turn, and many GMs feel that it's neither realistic nor believable that a character could reload early/mid firearms that rapidly, and may still put a limit on the number of reloads a character can make in a round, regardless of the action speed (making a fast action speed still valuable, but not allowing for infinite loading/firing up to BAB).

So it's really up to your GM to decide. Normally, this discussion should happen before or during character creation, so that the player may make an informed decision as to whether they want to proceed with their character in the event of a more restrictive ruling.

As your character is already 11th level, presumably you've been playing them for some time, and I would therefore recommend your GM to go with the more lenient interpretation that allows unlimited loading if reduced to a free action.

Ultimately, your table will have to make the decision, and no amount of endless forums debate is going to give you a clear, "official" answer.

When "in combat" begins is not specifically defined in the Pathfinder system.

Certainly, characters should be able to potentially rest even in stressful situations, even if combat is nearby (consider a warzone, for instance, where soldiers are rotated out to rest).

That said, there comes a point when danger is so imminent that a character could be forced into "in combat" whether they like it or not. If the aggressing forces initiate direct combat, you're in it. You still have agency over your actions and can choose to abstain, but you'd still be "in combat".

I'd say the defining moment is when you're called upon to roll initiative. At that stage, combat is imminent and happening.

Can you abstain from rolling an initiative check when the GM calls for it? I'm going to say no (unless your character *actually* isn't awake or conscious).

But really, all of this rules debate aside, there's a deeper conflict here to consider, and that is this: the party is under no obligation to adventure with you.

If I was playing with a character that refused to participate in combat and refused to aid their allies when they were in danger, that character would find themselves swiftly and unceremoniously kicked out of the group.

Therefore, my advice is not to even pursue this line of mechanics exploration. This character concept sounds extremely ill-suited to a cohesive gaming group, and I would recommend reading up on player/character expectancies and how to be a helpful, contributing member to a gaming group.

The word "worship" has no mechanical meaning in Pathfinder. Certain classes/feats have their own inherent restrictions that may force a character to be a particular alignment or set of alignments.

From James Jacobs on the subject.

Venerate and worship are synonymous with regards to Pathfinder. Not to bring our world into a gaming discussion, but people have historically done hideous, abominable things in the name of "good" Earthly deities and were "pious" and "devoted" in their own minds, following what they truly believed were the teachings of their deity.

There is nothing in Pathfinder to prevent this kind of character. The GM thinks it's an interesting idea. Maybe it wouldn't fly at your table, but it's going to at theirs. Playing such a character could be a fascinating roleplaying opportunity. It is highly probable that the character will find themselves in an interesting scenario as a result of this disconnect.

the GM liked it, and it sounds fun to me, so I'm gonna run it

This is half of what's important; the other half is making sure that the rest of your table likes the concept too! Once you have the buy-in from your group, that's really all you need. Sounds totally reasonable to me, though. No reason a character can't be a hypocrite - happens in life all the time.

I think if there is any further support for PF1 to be had it's with a 3rd Party publisher who can put out quality products. He's not interested in that. Paizo is supporting Starfinder AND a pending new edition. Where is the manpower coming from to continue to support 1E? Where is the money coming from to pay these people to support 1E? He also has no idea of the manpower and the amount of time that goes into creating just ONE hardcover book and how far ahead in advance that needs to start.

I've been listening to publishers, designers, and developers for over to a decade on how this particular business works and what goes into it. I listen to them because THEY'RE ACTUALLY DOING THE WORK. It doesn't take a lot of effort to find where developers, designers, and publishers are saying the same things that are being put forth here. and a fair amount of what we're saying is COMMON SENSE.

but like I said, he's not here to hear any of that. He just wants what he wants. And really you cant have a productive conversation with a person like that so...

Agreed; time to lock this thread.

I'll share what might be a controversial opinion, but it's true for my group of 7+ (that have been gaming together for over twenty years): we don't give a crap what gaming stores do, and have no interest in stepping foot into another comic book store.

We buy all of our books/PDFs online, and couldn't be happier.

Additionally, as a passionate supporter of PF1E, I am also confident and comfortable with the fact that PF1E is about to die. Paizo has released such volumes of material that we could continue playing PF1E for decades, and the fact that they'll continue to sell us copies in digital form years from now is more than I could ask for.

Paizo can't do what you're asking for. If they're going to survive, they need to innovate and move forward. I may not have personally agreed with their decision to move to 2E, but it's done.