HappyDaze's page

1,103 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


1 to 50 of 1,103 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

VRMH wrote:
Ecaterina Ducaird wrote:
There is nothing inherent in being evil that means "Doesn't play well with others."

You're kidding, right? That there's pretty much the definition of Evil.

No, Evil is the guy that "Doesn't play well with others...unless it benefits him to do so." Evil can do anything good can do and is willing to do so much more.

How about Ultimate Buddy - a book devoted to Leadership, cohorts, animal companions, familiars and other allied NPCs?

I've had great success with taking FE Undead. In almost every adventure and AP there are undead a various points.

I've decided to try and use the playtest rules to make a playable Satyr. It's not going to get the same level of performance as the monster - it's pretty much a downgrade across the board, but it should be playable. It's an Advanced Race costing 24 RP and should be on par with the Drow Noble and Svirfneblin.

+2 Strength, +2 Dexterity, +2 Constitution, -2 Intelligence, +4 Charisma: Satyrs combine impressive personal magnetism with raw physicality but lack the patience for deep reasoning.

Fey: Satyrs are creatures of the Fey type.

Medium: Satyrs are Medium creatures and have no bonuses or penalties due to their size.

Fast Speed: Satyrs have a base speed of 40 feet.

Low-Light Vision: Satyrs can see twice as far as humans in conditions of dim light.

Natural Armor: Satyrs have a +3 natural armor bonus.

Damage Resistance: Satyrs have DR 5/cold iron.

Natural Attack: Satyrs can gore with their horns as a primary natural attack for 1d6 piercing damage.

Keen Senses: Satyrs receive a +2 racial bonus to Perception.

Talented: Satyrs receive a +2 racial bonus to one Perform skill of their choice.

Elusive: Satyrs receive a +2 racial bonus to Stealth.

Fey Charm: Satyrs can use charm person as a spell-like ability 3/day. The caster level for this effect is equal to the Satyr's character level. The DC for this effect is equal to 11 + the Satyr's Charisma modifier.

Languages: Satyrs begin play speaking Common and Sylvan. Satyrs with high Intelligence can choose from the following: Draconic, Dwarven, Elven, Giant, Gnome, Goblin, and Orc.

Here's the RPs:

Fey (1 RP)
Medium Size (0 RP)
Normal Speed (0 RP)
Advanced Modifiers (4 RP)
Standard Language Array (1 RP)
Fast (1 RP)
Fey Damage Resistance (3 RP)
Improved Natural Armor (1 RP)
Improved Natural Armor (1 RP)
Low-Light Vision (0 RP)
Natural Armor (2 RP)
Natural Attack (1 RP)
Skill Bonus (2 RP)
Skill Bonus (2 RP)
Skill Bonus (2 RP)
Spell-Like Ability (1 RP)
Spell-Like Ability (1 RP)
Spell-Like Ability (1 RP)

I was looking at reworking the Dwarf to have -2 Dex, +2 Con, +2 Wis rather than the current ability modifiers. To compensate, I was also considering increasing Defensive Training from Lesser (+4 dodge bonus to AC against humanoids of the giant subtype) to Greater (+2 dodge bonus to AC). IOW, these dwarves are not naturally graceful or quick but they compensate for it, at least as far as avoiding attacks, with training.

But every ability score has an impact. Is Dex really more significant than all others?

Since I'm not sure where to post this, I figured this might work. I've looked through all of the races without racial HD and I've noticed that none of them have a -2 Dex. Every other ability score shows up with a penalty on one race or another except for Dex. Conversely, Dex seems to show up rather frequently with a bonus.

So, is there some mechanical reason that playable races don't tend to have a Dex penalty?

Loren Peterson wrote:

I lied, I need help finding two. I cant remember what the books are called or who published them but i remember their content

Book 1: This book had a sort of free form character creation and leveling system for D&D that used points to buy better hit die, saves, bab, and weapon proficiencies.

Book 2: This one was the rules for playing character at the "apprentice level", before your wizard has mastered his first spell kind of thing.

Re #1, the AD&D 2e DMG had such a feature. It was almost never used by any of the groups that I knew, and was very easy to abuse. If there is a more recent version of this system, I am not aware of it.

LazarX wrote:
HappyDaze wrote:
As a GM I can sympathize with the idea that the dead character's possessions disappear and are not available to the party, but I think it's far too damaging to any sense of immersion in the game world. There are many other ways to balance out the wealth system without such artificial and obvious steps.

Well if you want immersion; Then the custom would be that the dead PC's possessions go to his heirs. (There's always SOMEONE in this case, even if it's just a long missing protege.)

I won't speak to evil campaigns for the following reasons.

1. The campaigns that work, work because they've got a group of players th at don't need to be babysat through remedial instruction, that they've worked out a system of functional co-existence. So they'll deal with it in their own particular way.

2. The campaigns that don't work... they folded up last week anyway.

Giving possessions to heirs that might be weeks or months away just isn't too likely for many items (potions, scrolls, even wands), and may not make a lick of sense for some things. If a character picked something up yesterday, it doesn't make sense that it's going back to his family (that he may not have seen in years) when the rest of the people that risked death for it are still in need of it.

Besides, if you say it always goes to the heirs, then where are they? Why don't PCs ever start as the heirs of others that have left them thousands of gp worth of magic items? Doesn't happen, does it? Once again, immersion gets busted.

amethal wrote:

There are also those who think two wrongs make a right - "take 50 gp of my hard earned loot and I'll either murder you right now, or betray you when you need me most". I'll happily play with a group where crafters charge, and I'll happily play in a group where crafters don't charge, but I ain't playing with that bunch.

Yeah. No kidding. It really shows the lack of interpersonal skills and coping mechanisms some of these people have where the first thing that frustrates them in game must be met with in game killing and/or betrayal. Do these people always expect their characters to get their way, or is it only when they have detect PC up and running? It's really pretty sad.

I still contend that the FAIR way to do it is to charge for your time, not based on the item. Look at the Profession skill and see how much you could be making during the downtime as a barrister/librarian/scribe/whatever and then charge that amount. I would say that for a spellcaster making items, using Spellcraft in place of a Profession skill is perfectly reasonable.

Consider a 6th level wizard making a Cloak of Resistance +2. It costs 4,000 gp to make and takes 8 days. That's close enough to one week, so it's one Spellcraft check to see how much to charge for the time. Considering that the bonus is likely to be about +14 and taking 10 for simplicity, the 'cost' of labor is 12 gp.

Does that seem unreasonable?

I'd suggest rewriting Flurry of Blows to remove all references to it acting like Two-Weapon Fighting - just saying it provides extra attacks at -2 and that all attacks use base (not 1/2, not 1-1/2) strength bonus for damage should be a good way to remove a lot of useless wording. Then just add in a clause that states that Flurry of Blows cannot be combined with Two-Weapon Fighting/Multiweapon Fighting or natural attacks of any sort.

I'd actually say that, for balance purposes, I'd rather most of those things went off of Charisma for what 7Seas calls Panache. Intelligence already gives bonuses - namely skill points - to everyone, and Wisdom give bonuses to Perception and Will saves which everyone can use, but Fighters and such (excepting Paladins) habitually tank Charisma, so I'd like to see it get some loving.

As a GM I can sympathize with the idea that the dead character's possessions disappear and are not available to the party, but I think it's far too damaging to any sense of immersion in the game world. There are many other ways to balance out the wealth system without such artificial and obvious steps.

Note that while Miracle and Wish can restore a character to his original form, that doesn't necessarily mean that's a good idea. The character's original form is the dead body that was given up when Reincarnate made the new one. A Dick GM can corrupt those Wish spells in this case without even trying. Of course, if you have another Wish you can now return the original form to life...

meatrace wrote:
TOZ wrote:

Same principle really. Long line of level 1 commoners, or even a zig-zaggy line, and one +5 Holy Flaming Burst Keen (or whatever) longbow. Peasant 1 makes an attack with the weapon, then drops it as a free action. Peasant 2 picks it up with a move, fires it with a standard, drops it again. Rise, repeat ad nauseum. Not the best attack bonus, but with a +5 Holy wtf ever weapon there's bound to be some nat 20s in there.

Next round starts with the last shooter and zigzags back.
It's how wars SHOULD be fought. One really expensive weapon shared by a whole army.

A bunch of low level sorcerers/wizards doing this trick with a wand of magic missiles produces a steady stream of damage against most targets as long as the charges last.

Somehow, Sun Orchid Elixir knows what class you are for determining what the roll is too. That seems kinda dumb to me.

I'd suggest having Sun Orchid Elixir reset the drinker to the race's starting age plus the first variable amount listed (the one for Barbarians, Rogues, and Sorcerers) for that race.

Increase the cost of the cheaper item by 50% and add it to 100% of the more expensive item. This give 60,500 gp cost for the combination.

I'm left wondering why monks are not able to follow the warrior discipline. They seem to fit it just fine.

Thalin wrote:
Orb barbarians have about 10 hp while raging (full 1st hp is a PC advantage). They have Str 20 while raging (they don't get PC stats either unless you raise them) and are +6 to hit. They also fall down the next round; they are nasty damage-dealers for CR 1/2 though; of course, barbarians are one of the most diffiuclt 1-3 opponents in the game.

Full hit points at first level is standard for anything that has a PC class as its first HD. Adding a PC level also gives the creature +4, +4, +2, +2, 0, -2 mods to apply to its ability scores. This is all in the Bestiary.

Deadmanwalking wrote:

Well, the best save enhancer Barbarians have (Will Saves included) is Superstition. A wonderful and effective Rage Power that you should acquire post-haste.

Raging provides a +2 morale bonus to Will saves. Supertition provides a +2 morale bonus on saving throws made to resist spells, supernatural abilities, and spell-like abilities. This bonus increases by +1 for every 4 levels the barbarian has attained. This means that it doesn't stack.

Also, while raging, the barbarian cannot be a willing target of any spell and must make saving throws to resist all spells, even those cast by allies.

Why would this not apply to potions?

1 person marked this as a favorite.


I dislike gnomes. I hate summoners. I have a player in my game that runs a gnome summoner. Why do I get the feeling that I'm not alone?

The Vanara have a prehensile tail that can be used to carry things but not to wield weapons.

Prehensile Tail (Ex): All vanaras have long, flexible tails that they can use to carry objects. They cannot wield weapons with their tails, but the tails do allow them to retrieve small stowed objects carried on their persons as a swift action.

So, with this in mind, I want to build a Vanara Gunslinger. Some of my ideas revolve around the tail, and it leaves me with the following questions:

1) Can the tail turn the barrels of a pepperbox? I'm hoping so, because a dual pepperbox wielding gunslinger that flicks his tail back and forth from gun to gun allowing a massive full attack just sounds awesome!

2) Can the tail hold a firearm while it's being reloaded keeping one hand free to do something outside of the reloading (perhaps hold a rapier)?

Green Ronin's Dragon Age game is nothing like True 20. If you want a simple game with clean mechanics, it has some appeal.

Neo2151 wrote:

And then when you cut that cost, the AoMF becomes very under priced for, say, a Druid or Animal Companion or Feral Alchemist or etc etc etc.

There needs to be a way to enchant an unarmed strike and ONLY an unarmed strike. The argument the devs are using with the AoMF is totally bunk, IMO.

I'm not sure I'd agree. For natural attacks it does have the benefit of application to multiple attacks, but each natural weapon only strikes once per turn whereas a weapon can potentially strike four times per turn (although with descending bonuses). Most of the natural weapon users you mentioned get 3-5 natural weapon attacks (assuming no weapon use) while the Monk gets up to 3 unarmed strike attacks if using a weapon as primary, and up to 7 if he's only using unarmed strikes. Why is this so much better for the natural weapon users?

Joyd wrote:
HappyDaze wrote:
Joyd wrote:
The system is still arbitrarily stricken of concepts like "monk that fights with a weapon but can also take advantage of the plethora of monk-focused character options that require a free hand", but whatever. Screw those guys. Weaksauce arguments for why the AOMF needs to be overcosted are way more important than a weapon-using monk being able to use Deflect Arrows or anything.
No, those concepts can still work. Fight with the weapon in one hand and keep the other hand free. If you'd like to make unarmed strikes without using that free hand, that's still an option too.

Under the clarification, a monk that wants to fight with a weapon and use deflect arrows has two options:

1) He can fail to enhance his unarmed strike, making half of the attacks in his flurry awfully feeble.
2) He can get an AOMF on top of his magic weapon, paying 3.5 times what a fighter pays for his magic weapon just to keep up, and be linerally inferior to a barefisted monk.

I'm not saying that I think that "fight with a kama, use all the monk stuff that wants you to have a free hand" should be an AMAZING option, but I think that two options still available to characters that want to do that are all but tantamount to evicting them from the system.

Consider option 1: If there was a rule that said that characters could only have one enchanted weapon, would people still consider the TWF fighter a real option?

Now option 2: If there was a "three-and-a-half weapon fighting" style that required you to keep 3.5 weapons up to date but offered no advantages over TWF whatsoever (and also required you to TWF with weapons from different groups, so you don't get to apply things like weapon focus to both with a single feat, for good measure), would anyone consider three-and-a-half weapon fighting to be a real option?

So it simply comes back to needing to reduce the cost of the AMF like I said before. It's an easy fix. Just cut the cost to 60% of what it currently is (effectively making it 150% of what a magic weapon would cost) and things get much more reasonable. With this change you could have a magic weapon and an AMF of the same level for the current cost of the AMF.

blahpers wrote:
That comes to the next problem: In RAW, such monster PCs would always have the same base stats. There's no mechanism for converting those stats into racial modifiers. I suggest starting with the d20srd rules for monsters as races, as it does a half-decent job as covering problems like attribute variance for creatures with exceptionally high or low stats.

I can help you here. Let's look at page 6 of the Bestiary under Ability Scores:

Unless otherwise indicated, a creature’s ability scores represent the baseline of its racial modifiers applied to scores of 10 or 11.

So, to get the modifiers, subtract 10 from all even-valued scores and subtract 11 from all odd-valued scores. Now a PC from those races can spend his/her point buy and then reapply the modifiers. This does mean that there are no ability increases to be freely allocated for the base racial HD, but that's probably for the best.

Joyd wrote:
The system is still arbitrarily stricken of concepts like "monk that fights with a weapon but can also take advantage of the plethora of monk-focused character options that require a free hand", but whatever. Screw those guys. Weaksauce arguments for why the AOMF needs to be overcosted are way more important than a weapon-using monk being able to use Deflect Arrows or anything.

No, those concepts can still work. Fight with the weapon in one hand and keep the other hand free. If you'd like to make unarmed strikes without using that free hand, that's still an option too.

blahpers wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
The problem with LA is that you are missing hit dice equal to the LA. This reduces HP, BAB, saves, caster level, everything. The benefits of the race often do not make up for this handicap

Not exactly. You're missing class levels equal to the LA. The monster's racial hit dice can often exceed its CR, and CR is used for LA in the posted rules.

Example: A Hill Giant PC joins a 7-th level party with no class levels. It does, however, still have 10 hit dice (d8), and the five feats that go with them. Furthermore, when the rest of the party hits level 9 and a half, the hill giant PC gets a free level (from 2 to 3), then again at party level 12 and a half and 15 and a half. At party level 16, the hill giant is level 12 in some class, for a total of 22 hit dice (with all 11 feats and 5 stat boosts that go with it).

That's not too shabby so long as you don't mind having one average stat and three horrible ones (including Dex). The dex penalty is a pretty harsh one, though. Now, if you're a caster type, it's rougher, so I hope you picked a monster with decent innate abilities, as they won't get any stronger.

You may be better off coming up with a custom progression with your GM.

Most of that seems correct to me, but the bolded part seems off. Per the Bestiary, you only add the ability increases for every 4 HD or class levels added eyond what the creature starts with. The base 10 HD of the Hill Giant don't provide any ability bonuses other than what the Hill Giant already has listed.

And, I'd never go with Hill Giant when the Stone Giant is so much better both statistically and for roleplay. I really dig the Stone Giant.

By RAW, it's D, but no sane GM is going to go with that.

Dabbler wrote:
TheSideKick wrote:
im a big guy, so everyone uses me to move. i tell them there better be an all you can eat pizza and beer buffet at the end of this move or else.
Out of curiosity, would you still ask that of somebody who stood between you and an axe-wielding maniac while you were helpless, suffering grievous wounds in order to save your life?

Since you put it that way, as a correctional officer, I had taken part in several actions - none involving axes, but other weapons were present - alongside coworkers that did help me with a move. It was pretty clear that they expected compensation, and I wouldn't have even considered not offering it.

Korpen wrote:

It is all about in-group and out-group.

By saying that you wants to take a profit from the other characters one is basically saying that one is no longer part of the communal group effort, but only in it for the money. That is why there is a strong reaction; it is like making dinner for some friends and then presenting them with a bill for the time and effort one took to make the dinner. I for one would end any friendship with such a person.

Since everyone is making dumb analogies...

It's not like charging them for the dinner. It's like objecting when they feel like they are entitled to access your wine cellar just because you invited them over for dinner.

When you get into roleplaing the characters, chances are that not everything they do outside of active adventuring revolves around the other members of the group.

mdt wrote:


You miss the point I was making. If this is Paizo making a new ruling, that's fine. But the statement was, this is how it's always been. Yet the company hasn't treated it that way anywhere, at anytime. Not in a single supplement, not in any of the core rule books, not in any of it's APs. So stating this is 'how it has always been' just doesn't ring true. Can you make it work with everything that's been published? Yes, by retconning everything that's been published*. Can you make it work without retconning everything that's been published*? Yes, by using the interpretation that everyone (including Paizo) has operated under.

*Everything regarding monks.

My point is that getting a fix to the problem is more important than worrying about how it was done vs. how it was supposed to have been done. None of that really matters to me. I just want to know what options might provide a fair and balanced solution. I don't care whether the answer is seen as a retcon because the only thing that matters is how it will be done.

PS - I recommend 'revision' rather than 'retcon' as it's more appropriate terminology.

re: your last sentence

That's exactly what my proposal - the one you quoted - would fix. WTH did you think I was trying to say?

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well here's one for the upper end: The Elysian Titan is a CR 21 tough guy. Reading further down in the entry we find that one in every twelve has the spellcasting ability of a 20th level Cleric and is CR 22. Twenty levels of Cleric for only +1 to the CR. Nice.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The out-of-character-fair way to do it is to consider how much you could have earned with a Profession skill during the crafting time and charging them this amount over and above the materials cost. Oddly enough, you can't make money with crafting directly due to the design of the rules.

Mistwalker wrote:

This question/argument comes up on a regular basis.

Arguments that the other PCs should charge for saving the crafter (the tank putting themselves between them and a charging ogre, healing, etc.) are strawman arguments. The crafter is not talking about charging for casting spells in or out of combat, those he is providing at no cost.

Special forces groups, which seem a lot like adventuring parties, do save each other's lives and have their teammates back in and out of combat. But if one of them is skilled in carpentry, none of the rest of the team would expect/demand that the carpenter spends days or months doing carpentry upgrades (customs shelves, dining room table, etc..) during everyone's downtime. Come over and help paint, or fix something, sure, but usually there is a payment of somekind (like free pizza and beer after the painting job is done).

Those opposed to a small fee (and 5% of the market price is a small fee), are you telling me that you do spend days or months doing things for your friends, while your friends are off doing something else?

Why would it be any different in the game?

This makes the most sense from an in-game view.

wraithstrike wrote:

Paizo has never errata'd AP's to my knowledge. They often tell you what the statblock should be if you ask about it on the boards though. Every monster that had an error when the books came out still has those errors.

Now they might make an exception for the monk, but then the questions will come about the other errors.

If they've never fixed such things as stat blocks used in one-time encounters in the past and it hasn't been a big deal, then this shouldn't be either.

Another question:

The Half-Dragon gains Immunity to the energy type associated with it's breath weapon. A Half-Dragon without racial HD - like a human Half-Dragon - does not have a breath weapon (according to JJ, per the second post of this thread). Does that mean it also doesn't have Immunity to an associated energy type?

This might be interesting for Half-Dragons of no definable dragon variety - such as from the magical experiments mentioned in the Half-Dragon text - rather than those of mixed birth.

mdt wrote:
HappyDaze wrote:
So, if the AMF was costed at 60% of it's current value (150% what a magical weapon would cost) and it was allowed to go up to +10 worth of enchantments (enhancement still maxs out at +5) then there would be no problem with the current ruling on FoB, right?


You'd still have the issue of the current ruling of FoB = TWF breaking Zen Archer monks as written (they use a two-handed ranged weapon for FoBs, and the ruling says that you have to use two weapons). Same goes for any Sohei/Tohei (always confuse those two) which uses a two-handed weapon for flurry (which was legal previously), or a polearm wielding monk. Also, it breaks all the entries Paizo has in every adventure path where they show monk stat blocks with the monk using flurry with a single weapon (which is every weapon using monk, as was demonstrated in previous threads).

Adding a line to those archetypes that specifically allows them an exception fixes that issue. Simple enough.

As for the previous examples being flawed. Doesn't seem to matter. Error were there, they can be fixed in future printings (where applicable), or a simple online errata document can show the corrected attack sequence. Another simple fix.

Pathfinder was never an 'innocent' game if we're talking about it being rules light. I would not recommend trying to parse it down to that level - it would just be too much pruning. Instead, there are a number of rules light fantasy systems out there.

In particular, Green Ronin's Dragon Age RPG has a rules light system with three classes/careers that each branch out into a few forks after a few levels. It let's you add a bit more complexity as you level up rather than dumping hundreds of pages of options on you from the start.

For old school, D6 Fantasy is so easy to play and goes away from the idea of classes and levels entirely. Fort he vast majority of characters (spellcasters are excepted), you'll have little need to ever consult a rulebook during the game since everything you need will be on your character sheet.

I'm sure that others can likewise recommend any number of light systems.

blackbloodtroll wrote:
Molthune is so Soviet Russia.

Not quite. It's militaristic, but it's also in the unfortunate situation that almost all of its neighbors are actually stronger (excepting Nirmathas).

So, if the AMF was costed at 60% of it's current value (150% what a magical weapon would cost) and it was allowed to go up to +10 worth of enchantments (enhancement still maxs out at +5) then there would be no problem with the current ruling on FoB, right?

Deadmanwalking wrote:
Darkwing Duck wrote:
A bard's spell list is distinctly different from a cleric's. I've never heard of an organization of oracles. I've always envisioned oracles as fairly rare. And I think a cleric would be able to tell if someone is an oracle or a cleric. As for houserules, I could rewrite the entire setting so that nothing bugs me, but in a thread named "what about Golarian bugs you?" That seems beside the point.

'Priests' of the Prophecies of Kalistrade are an organization of Oracles, as are several other followers of philosophies. The leader of Druma is called out as such in Inner Sea Magic, for example.

And I agree, pointing out the in-setting reasons for (or ways around) someone's problem is one thing, but suggesting house-ruling is a bit...odd considering the nature of this thread.

There is also a nation in the Dragon Empires that is advised/ruled by oracles.

I'm a little disappointed that character creation isn't quite as compatible with baseline Pathfinder as was described above. It's not just one feat that makes the difference - ability score points are determined differently and unspent points become bonus skill ranks. It'll work out fine if doing an all-Earthdawn game, but it makes it harder to include characters not made with this guide.

The rules from the Bestiary appendix indicates that the CR (or CR adjustment) is added as an effective level. For all purposes, it is a LA without the name. There is also a mechanic listed where the effective CR is reduced with increasing character level, up to a maximum reduction of half it's initial value, but this part is specific to creatures with racial HD.

Within these rules, a Half-Dragon made from any of the common PC races will be two levels behind most of the others. For Fighters, Barbarians, Monks, Rogues and similar characters that benefit greatly from strength and natural armor (or flight), this may still be an attractive option (assuming the GM offers it).

Are elves immune to poisons that cause sleep, like that of the pseudodragon?

Thefurmonger wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
If this means there are fewer half-dragon humans in the game, I consider that a victory.

Hell yes!

This is the kind of designer speak I can get behind.

I'm not sure taking away a 1/day breath weapon is really going to dissuade all that many people that might be interested in taking half-dragon. The biggest attractions - the big boost to strength, natural armor, and flight - are still there and can make for some fearsome melee fighters.

"Devil's Advocate" wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:

LE Cleric of Abadar anyone? Or Evil Cleric of Pharasma? Both are more than capable of fullfilling the Richelieu role easily enough, with no aura of Evil to speak of (from Undetectable Alignment, which is even on their spell list).

Such people (or slightly less evil, but no less antagonistic, versions) are also potentially doable as a particularly harsh LN, opening up the Lawful Good gods as patrons.

I think the point they are trying to make is that an Evil character serving a Good (not N) church/faith/deity does not have spells, stands out in the crowd to any magical detection (even if they can get some sort of antidetection magic up on a daily, 24 hour basis some other way, that's pushing it), and are essentually a high level commoner. The rules do not allow for such a Cleric to play Emporer Palpatine and that ruins a lot of story potential.

I agree, but not sure if that is what they actually mean?

This may apply to Clerics, but there are other divine spellcasters these days. Oracles - particularly organizations of oracles - allow for this kind of thing.

LazarX wrote:
HappyDaze wrote:
Muninn wrote:
It's that unknown element for people who can't spellcraft that makes me think that common people would be a bit more perturbed by spellcasting in public, even in Absalom. If I'm a regular guy on the street, how do I know if that guy spouting incomprehensible words just used prestidigitation to clean his shoes, or cast magic weapon on his dagger? Or maybe, as you said, he's just waving his hands around and saying nonsense...

IRL, when I see someone with an unfamiliar handheld electronic, I don't immediately assume it's a bomb/detonator/phone hacking tool/laser designator or any of the other things that may be harmful (to one degree or another). Instead I assume it's something safe and likely legal because the guy IS using it in public.

Magic used in public is probably much the same. Assume that it's safe unless it is obviously not.

What if that "electronic box" was instead a gun? Perhaps to the untrained eye. unfamilliar magic looks more like something dangerous than something odd.

This would be the equivalent to using a spell with obviously harmful effects. The word obviously is the key.

Beyond that, when playing in Golarion remember that weapons (and thus likely including harmful spells) are commonplace and it's largely an armed society where almost everyone is carrying something. In Golarion carrying around a gun/sword/wand/whatever is generally not going to get you censured unless you're using it cause harm or you have a history for doing so.

1 to 50 of 1,103 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>