IQuarent's page

I would interpret Charisma 1 as a complete inability to communicate in any way, as Charisma 0 is permanent unconsciousness(until it raises above 0). In that interpretation, people would likely think you're asleep most of the time. Perhaps think of it as being "locked-in". Your intelligence and wisdom remain, but any function of communication simply doesn't exist in your brain, including body language and facial expression.

How about you become someone's familiar? Familiars in practical application have little physical use, so you basically just act normally as a party member with that as a fluff explanation. The concept of being a familiar allows you to roleplay without communicating; just your existence indicates a purpose. "I am a familiar and I never communicate." How would you play that? What would it be like to be a familiar? That's a roleplaying challenge for you.

You could even cheat the system a bit by using the mind-link rule, meaning you have limited communication, having only the ability to speak through your "master". In session, beyond declaring physical action, you whisper anything you say to that player, and they say whatever the hell they want. Maybe they tell the party what you said. Maybe they paraphrase it. Maybe they make something up. You role-play the consequences of that. "I don't think you look fat in that, but my familiar does."

It's more fun than is sounds. I played an Oracle with Tongues in a language no one else spoke. I was being too meta, so the GM challenged me, as a player, to NEVER SPEAK during combat. It was a good challenge and was a blast to play out.

It would be even funnier if you get your charisma back later; "I DID NOT think she looked fat in that, you jerk!"

I am a long time PFS player, and as a result I have 5-10 characters using a variety of sources. Carrying all the books I use(8 hardcover, 4 pamphlet things, 1 small binder, plus my character binder) has become overwhelming. (I don't own a car)

I've been doing this for YEARS, just to follow the "you must provide source material" rule, and I can't keep bringing the books to every session anymore because it's simply not realistic.

Is there a way to prove I have the source material to the GM without having to lug them there and back every time?

Obviously a photograph wouldn't be enough, but something along those lines. Small portable or perhaps digital.

I acquired my own laptop recently, so a PDF would be ideal, but I've already spent hundreds of dollars on PRPG and am not intent on spending $50+ more to get copies of books I already have. So that isn't happening.

Are there an official rules about proof of ownership beyond the bring it with you/PDF rule?

I have read every single post on this thread and I still ultimately do not understand why "chronicle fishing" is bad. The fact that it even has a term to define it baffles me. Is this really a big enough problem that it has to be identified and named??

Here is my comparison.

When a player sees or hears about something in a book that is "good for their character" they get excited as a result, and purchase the book. In fact they HAVE to purchase the book if they want to use it in PFS.

Is that "meta-gaming"? Why would this comparison not extend to scenarios? Monetary investment? Are we looking to punish players who try to improve their characters for free sometimes?

My biggest problem with continued condemnation of "meta-gaming" has nothing to do with rules. It has to do with calling players out on intent. Since it is literally impossible for a human to know another humans intent, I take issue with that.

Some of us play this game differently than others. I use the rules to express my character and develop them. I come up with a mechanical concept I like and then decide what kind of person would develop those type of skills in their lifetime. As the character levels with mechanics, they level with personality. I don't know their whole life story when I make them; the mechanics dictate the way they act, and the way they act dictates the mechanics as they grow. For me, there is beauty in that.

When someone then accuses me of meta-gaming or intentionally abusing the rules of the game, the reason I might be offended is because this character that I crafted over time is being unfairly identified as a symbol of greed and ill intent. Every character I make has a tiny piece of myself imbued within it, and when someone tells me it represents something bad and tries to take it away I'm going to defend it. I'm sure there are plenty of others who feel the same way.

When is comes to meta-gaming as a term to define rigorous pursuit of elevated mechanics for personal gain exclusively(which I myself don't identify with), there *IS* a mature and responsible way to go about that too. Someone else said it better:

the explicit raw text on bow is:

you require two hands to use.

there is nothing there indicating, by raw, that you only need 1 hand to grip, and one hand to draw, and that the drawing hand is free in between shots.

everything else discussed in this thread, isn't raw, it is haw a bow works irl, which has nothing to do gamewise.

That's actaully a good point. Where do the rules ever say that you have a free hand while wielding/using/holding/whatever a bow? Because if it doesn't, then only arguing from the rules kind of falls apart.

This is known, but there is nothing stopping you from switching to "using" the bow with both hands to "holding" the bow with one hand at the end of your turn. At the beginning of your next turn, you switch from "holding" to "using" once more. That's RAW.

Provide evidence.

Common sense is what dictates a free hand of course, but do the rules? Sure, it's logical to assume that someone would have a free hand at all times they aren't firing their bow, but...

the realism argument doesn't get very far in a game where you can take 10 arrows to the face and keep swinging, throw a fireball that melts stone, and swing a sword which does the exact same amount of damage as a crushing hammer whether the target is wearing plate metal or nothing at all.

My problem with using videos of archers on the Internet to determine the rules about archery (or anything else in the game) is not that I have something against the Internet, but that the only answer to rules questions are the rules themselves, not real life, not camera footage, just the rules.

...apparently we aren't arguing from realism or logic(in my last post I address that too).

Realism is what dictates to us what is fantastical and what is not. Completely abandoning realism in an argument like this is just as slippery as overusing it, if not more so.
Suspension of disbelief and a complete abandonment of realism are two different things. To get a good idea of suspension of disbelief from a player/GM, see ryric's comment. He explained the concept much better than I ever could.

A bow is wielded in one hand and used with two.

Provide evidence. Again, we aren't using common sense to iron out inconsistencies in the game, so the rules have to support the claim.

For people asking for a rules quote that says turns happen sequentially and not simultaneously:

PRD - Combat Section - How Combat Works wrote:

Combat is cyclical; everybody acts in turn in a regular cycle of rounds. Combat follows this sequence:
[list]

When combat begins, all combatants roll initiative.

Determine which characters are aware of their opponents. These characters can act during a surprise round. If all the characters are aware of their opponents, proceed with normal rounds. See the surprise section for more information.

After the surprise round (if any), all combatants are ready to being the first normal round of combat.

Combatants act in initiative order (highest to lowest).

When everyone has had a turn, the next round begins with the combatant with the highest initiative, and steps 4 and 5 repeat until combat ends.

PRD - Combat Section - The Combat Round wrote:

Each round's activity begins with the character with the highest initiative result and then proceeds in order. When a character's turn comes up in the initiative sequence, that character performs his entire round's worth of actions. (For exceptions, see Attacks of Opportunity and Special Initiative Actions.)

PRD - Combat Section - Initiative wrote:

At the start of a battle, each combatant makes an initiative check. An initiative check is a Dexterity check. Each character applies his or her Dexterity modifier to the roll, as well as other modifiers from feats, spells, and other effects. Characters act in order, counting down from the highest result to the lowest. In every round that follows, the characters act in the same order (unless a character takes an action that results in his or her initiative changing; see Special Initiative Actions).

Emphasis added by me in the above.

Linkified

Now THAT is what compelling evidence for that argument looks like!

Especially this:

Each round's activity begins with the character with the highest initiative result and then proceeds in order. When a character's turn comes up in the initiative sequence, that character performs his entire round's worth of actions. (For exceptions, see Attacks of Opportunity and Special Initiative Actions.)

(Emphasis mine.)

That seems like pretty solid proof for the overarching general application of combat that Malachi Silverclaw went over. I'll address my other point on that in the next comment I make.

Honestly, I'm just enjoying this because it's a good debate. In threads with discussions like this, we usually descend into ad hominem and Personal Incredulity at this point.

Is it true that all characters who act in a six second round are acting at the same time? If this is true, is it only true in a strictly thematic sense?

I don't see how Disable Device could be used in this case. The player isn't disabling anything or modifying anything in a way to cause a cease of function. Even if it were semi-relevant, using two skills for this one task seems unnecessarily layered. I really doubt it was RAI to use two separate skills here, and just because Linguistics, the skill for making forgeries, doesn't specify literally every single possible step to making forgeries doesn't mean the skill isn't implied to.

I would say Linguistics almost definitely because making a forgery could easily extend beyond just writing. In fact, here is the entry of an item called "Forger's Kit":

Price 200 gp; Weight 6 lbs.

These inks, pens, papers, templates for certificates, and tools for modifying or copying official seals facilitates the creation of counterfeit documents. It grants a +2 circumstance bonus on Linguistic checks made for the purpose of making forgeries.

While it doesn't specify wax seals, they are still 'seals' that fall under the definition of forgery, e.g. imitating legitimate documents to fool someone.

If your GM or someone else doesn't accept this, then I would personally say that it would likely fall under the Craft skill because you're creating something; a replicated seal. Craft(something to do with wax or Art/Sculpting).

We live in a world where killing five prostitutes is a lawful act because profiting from the destruction of civilization is treason. A paladin defends the values of civilization. Marriage may be a cultural value where unmarried mothers represent chaos.

I think that first sentence could use some clarification, but from my perspective it looks like you're confusing Lawful Good with Lawful Neutral.

A Paladin upholds what they perceive to be the purest ideal of 'Goodness'. It has nothing to do with civilization. It doesn't have anything to do with culture, either. Being "Lawful" doesn't automatically mean following societal laws; it means following a lawful nature from inside oneself.

A Paladin does not kill someone lightly. A Paladin who kills on a whim or without ethical and logical consideration is one who has lost their way, and they will pay the consequences.

However, I'm sure someone else on this site could explain it a lot better than I did, so let's get back on track.

WWCAD?

(What Would Captain America Do?)

Nah kidding. I find the situation rather dicey and questionable. If I were a paladin, I would absolutely ask why I am being requested to do sexual favors and what good it serves, regardless of if it's from a God or a person. That's just it; if an unquestionably good person asked this of you, would you do it without question? Why would the fact that a God is the one asking change things?

Ultimately, a Paladin, or any good-aligned character with a Wisdom score, will care about the results of their actions. To this we look at Simply Gabrieles post:

In most of these cases, just like this time, the character is a paladin, someone who is devoted to duty, doing the right thing, going out of their way to help others. Why does someone like that agree to have a child that they won't be able/allowed to take care of? To love, to see them grow, to have a relationship with... Wouldn't a paladin want to fulfill his or her parental duty to the best of their abilities, instead of being a glorified breeding stock for divines? Wouldn't it weigh down on their heart that there's a child of theirs somewhere and they will probably never see them?

Wow, well said!

However, if we are talking about the ethics of the action alone, we have Kolokotronis post:

Assuming the half god is not of an evil alignment (given they want heroes I am assuming as such) I dont see an issue unless your deity has some prohibition against procreation out of wedlock. Its certainly not against any general paladin's code. Especially if this demigod is some agent of good.

Also extremely well said.

Ethical actions without the consideration of consequences is simpler, but the world WE live in is not simple. Ten billion jokes have sprung from putting fantasy ethics in the real world.

It just depends on what kind of 'fantasy' your character is from.

I'm pretty sure that if Geb can't manage to kill himself, this won't succeed in bypassing his Rejuvenation ability either.

I'm not really seeing why the martyr needs to be undead, by the way.

They need to be undead because typical ways of injuring a living person wouldn't work on undead, especially incorporeal undead. Positive energy kills all undead, so death by positive energy *should* kill ghosts as well. If we killed the volunteer with swords, for example, nothing would happen to ghosts, or it would result in superficial injuries. Despite the link caused by the blade, it is literally impossible to kill incorporeal creatures that way.

I guess the question I didn't consider is whether the method of killing actually matters, or if it's only the resulting injuries...

However, I do think the fact that it links the soul *is* relevant. Based on the discussion so far, it appears to be implied that the soul itself must be destroyed though, and that is not easily done. From my perspective, the physical injuries matter the most because those are the results of the link that we can actually see, but I think that if any damage was done to the soul, that would carry as well; we just wouldn't be able to see it. Not 100% sure though. This is pure speculation.

People notice when magic forces them to make a save. Now of course he won't know what it is without a some divination spells so I would suggest doing this quickly.

Yes, the idea would be to put the pieces into place and then go through the process quickly. Each step shouldn't take more than about 7 minutes each if arranged beforehand and competently executed. However, if the process fails on Gebs end, it's not like there is anything for Geb to go after. The volunteer would be completely physically destroyed on another plane of existence.

This is your evil entity known as Wraithstrike advising you to never use this item against him. :)

Hmmm... Or maybe you're just looking out for your own...? ':-/

Ok. This is a just for fun thread. It's not really about rules per se, just a discussion about a weird idea that occurred to me under the right circumstances and would probably totally work.

Primer on Geb here.

The idea is partially based on a PFS module called "You Only Die Twice". I was thinking of including a spoiler, but there isn't much to spoil. I will discuss nothing in the module and the concept is explained in the blurb, which is this:

The Pathfinder Society sends you into the undead-ruled nation of Geb for an undercover mission, not disguised as undead, but temporarily transformed into a shambling, zombie version of yourself.

The second piece is from Seekers of Secrets.

There is an item in Seeks of Secrets called "Blade of the Willing Martyr". A name that is quite appropriate for this purpose. Here is the crucial part of the description:

The blade of the willing martyr is a +3 keen vicious dagger, but its greatest power can only be invoked outside of battle. To activate this power you must spill your blood on your target, an object belonging to the target, or a physical token of the target’s body (such as a few strands of hair). Your target gets a DC 23 Will save (using the same saving throw modifiers as the scrying spell for the owner’s knowledge and connection to the victim) to avoid the effect, which forges a link between you and the target.

Once you forge a link, your soul and the target’s soul are intertwined. Should you die, your target dies, suffering the same apparent injuries and symptoms; likewise, you die if your target dies. The link may only be severed by break enchantment or remove curse.

So, here is how this would go down.

We would take our willing participant, and we:

1. We turn him into an intelligent undead.

2. We preform the ritual with one of Geb's belongings(probably acquired without too much difficulty).

3. Teleport the participant to the positive energy plane.

Poof.

The only problems I see with this are these:

-Geb is an EXTREMELY powerful ghost. He would probably make the save.
-Also, killing him this way would likely not stop him from coming back, even though it would destroy him utterly, due to the nature of ghosts:

Rejuvenation (Su)

In most cases, it's difficult to destroy a ghost through simple combat: the “destroyed” spirit restores itself in 2d4 days. Even the most powerful spells are usually only temporary solutions. The only way to permanently destroy a ghost is to determine the reason for its existence and set right whatever prevents it from resting in peace. The exact means varies with each spirit and may require a good deal of research, and should be created specifically for each different ghost by the GM.

However, this may be the exception, because of the way the blade links the two people. They are linked in soul, not just body. Not sure how that would pan out.

Even if it couldn't kill Geb, we could use this strategy to kill Arazni, to the immense relief of the Knights of Ozem. In fact, killing Arazni this way would be really easy, because they still have some of her mummified organs to use as the object and likely dozens volunteers to be the "Willing Martyr".

Basically the point of this thread is to point out the fact that the Blade, as OP as it is by itself, can also be used to kill completely ethereal creatures if my system works.

Any thoughts or comments? Is there anything wrong with my reasoning?

Depression can be "cured". What you will not have is no depression for the rest of your life. That is unreasonable.

The idea that you will be in therapy the rest of your life is false as well. Usually people who do end up in therapy for that long are due to circumstances beyond just "life sucking" (usually involving trauma or long term personality problems).

Heck, you don't even have to do therapy to get better, it's just AN option, not THE option. The major hurdle to getting better is the belief that you won't. Trust me as a professional and a sufferer of depression myself.

True Mental Illnesses (Not "Boy, I feel depressed today!") cannot be cured. They can be treated. One of the many, many, many reasons it sucks to have one. However, treating your illness is far better than ignoring it or toughing it out. For many people, treating the illness is the only way to continue living, or at least the only way to lead a life worth living.

Mental Illness is a difficult concept to grasp. Many people simply do not understand. Many people will tell you that you don't have an illness, simply because they do not have the means to see it. Having a Mental Illness does not make your skin turn purple of give you a nasty cough. Those who believe that an illness is only real if they can see the symptoms are not worth your time.

You should seek treatment. Since you started a thread, I assume you have told someone that you know and care about(someone who knows and cares about you) about your depression and how it is currently affecting you; E.G. barely being able to feed yourself. If you have not, that is a good place to start.

I can see that you have had bad experiences with therapy. Unfortunately, this is very common. Many people have one bad encounter with therapy and assume it is not for them. Therapists are like first dates; you keep trying until you feel you found one worth going to again. Don't be afraid to keep trying.

Go see a doctor (preferably one you already know and trust), and see if you can get a concrete diagnosis, is you haven't already. starting a treatment plan is how to start getting better. Just making the plan will give some hope of eventually getting out of the deep hole that is chronic depression.

Seek the resources that are in the closest proximity. Like a phone to call a friend or family member. Or a place where you can feel safe to ask questions. A local help group or hospital.

I am not a qualified professional to give counsel, so I must preface this with stating this information is from my personal experience, and I have seen it work for others.

Also, simply going on walks in your neighborhood or in a park has been shown to be AT LEAST as effective as medication.

Good luck.

Since when has retraining meant you can change what class you are?

Self explanatory title.

Example: High intelligence low wisdom would be 'teenager syndrome' you are aware of the situation and know the consequences but choose whatever you want and disregard the danger.

How would you role-play:

1. INT:19 + CHA:10 ?

2. INT:7 + WIS:18 ?

More when I can think of them.
Feel free to add your own!

There are a few that I'm surprised nobody's mentioned.

Potions: There are a lot of amazing potions.
The best part is anyone can use them!

Potions of:
Expeditious retreat: 50 GP. Getting +30 base land speed is great for all kinds of things, but my favorite use is to dominate chase scenes. For every +10 in your movement beyond 30, you get +2 on all your checks. So that makes for +6 on every roll you make during a chase. Pretty awesome.

Shield. 50GP. +4 shield bonus to AC and negate magic missiles for a minute. This is good for almost everyone. Wizards? Yes. Sorcerers? Yes. Rogues? Yes(all the time!). Monks? Yes. Fighters? Usually. Barbarians? Can't hurt.
50GP for a shield spell that anyone can use is excellent.

Personally, I like to use wands of shield instead, for my rogues. Totally worth it.

Another wand that you may not have thought of, because it's ridiculously situational, is a wand of magic stone. Why? Why, with slings, of course! My halfing, with his halfing sling, at first level and beyond, was doing 2D6+2 with every pellet. 3D6+3 vs. undead. It also gives plus +1 to hit. With 80ft. range, I can't think of a better low-level ranged attack. (BTW this combo is entirely from the Core Rulebook)

Here's another one that I'm not surprised no one has heard of.

Snap Leaf.

Snap Leaf. Ultimate Equipment. 750GP, one use consumable item(it doesn't say it's consumable but it's heavily implied).

I love snap leaves. They are a little on the expensive side, especially for a consumable, but the thing they makes these especially good is that again, anyone can use them.

Snap Leaves: Gives bearer invisibility and feather fall at the same time (not separable). CL5, so 5 minutes of Invisibility and 5 rounds of feather fall. Why are they worth it? You can activate it as an immediate action!! Big boss swinging at you? 50% miss chance instantly. It can be activated at the end of your turn, such as after a full attack, or just before your turn comes up. Or, attack-snapleaf-move. The invisibility is what makes it worth it but having the feather fall definitely isn't a bad thing. Personally, I like it a lot.

That's all I can think of at this moment.

There need to be 20 more threads like this one...

I have about a million of these, but this is the most recent:

After analyzing the situation carefully, I realized it was my decision that I led to my characters death. Unfortunately, I had completely forgotten this forum until now.

Regardless, I feel like I made it perfectly clear that it easily could have been my fault. At the end I even said if there was any advice I could take about being a better player, implying that I might not be as good of a player as I think I am. The only reason I even thought about it being a GM problem was two reasons:
-It has happened before
-Sometimes when people play with me, they get frustrated with me, and it could have been that the GM thought it was better for the party to remove me from the game.

Both the characters in question were rogues, neither of which had toughness, in front line combat, in risky situations. I made a bad move; I just didn't see it that way at the time. My fault.

In the end I learned something, and I hope I didn't offend anyone along the way. I always, always, always want to be respectful. I try really hard to be a good player, helpful to the GM, and fun, despite my handicap. I really, really, do.

P.S.
Based on reading the responses, I get that it didn't come across that I was being facetious when I said that "the GM has a nasty habit of killing my characters". Being a GM myself, I know better than to think of them like that. No GM gets in the habit of killing people, or they wouldn't be a GM.

In 5 out of 7 times that I was around when a new person was playing for the first time I heard something very close to, "All you need is the Core Rule Book to play. Here is your character number." This was both at conventions and at our local. No statement of you need to go to this site, download this, or check this.

IF I AM THERE TO HEAR IT, I always tell them to go on the the Paizo website to double check that they got credit for their scenario and download the latest PFS guide. I try to have a copy of the quickstart guide printed off that I can hand to a new player to get them started. But that's only when I am there to hear it.

I think alot of people forget that a new player might not already know about all that is available on this site.

Really, it ought to be printed on the little character number card they hand out.

Thank you for phrasing my argument in a better way than I could.

I recently came upon the unfortunate knowledge that their is A LOT of banned stuff in pathfinder (organized play, I mean). I already knew about some of the more obviously broken banned things, such as Undead lords or Holy guns, but the more I look into it, the more illegal my characters become. I just found out that 'heart of the fields' is banned, which kind of messes up my 4th level human fighter/barbarian build. He's already fourth level, but it specifically says:

"Updating your character means adjusting only the things that have changed, but not rebuilding the character."

So I can't rebuild him to be better. He is strictly a combat character, with terrible social stats, so I want him to be as effective in combat as possible. Heart of the fields was a big reason why I decided for him to be a barbarian in the first place (with heart of the fields, I can dismiss the fatigued effect that comes with the end of rage. Yes, that is really powerful, but it works for the character because he is multicalssed, and hence doesn't have as much rage as a barbarian of his level should. Also, it fits with his backstory of growing up in a farming community.)

Not letting me rebuild the character seems.. well, really unfair.

I also found out that my elf alchemist can't have dark vision, which was a significant part of his backstory... I wanted him to have some abilities that would make his drow heritage show in gameplay...

((Side-note: low-light vision is a really nerf ability, because most Gms don't even accommodate for it when appropriate, so obviously I'm going to try to replace it with an ability that is more useful if I can; as least give me some good, flavorful options...))

I understand there are reasons for banning these, as they are really powerful most of the time, but it's annoying at best that it's from a faceless company that doesn't explain it's reasoning and then says you can't accommodate for the banned things by changing other parts of your character.

Anyway, I know for a fact that other people don't play completely legal characters because they don't keep up with the new rulings, and it doesn't seem fair that I'm being punished for wanting my characters to be legal. At the same time, I know how much it sucks to make a character and then be told that you have to change it because of rulings you don't know about, so I don't want to ruin the game for these people; after all I'm not a GM so it really shouldn't be my job.

It seems a lot easier to just pretend to not know these, but that would be cheating and lying so obviously not doing that(not on purpose, anyway, there are still a lot of rulings I haven't read that might apply to my characters), even if other people do.

It just kind of sucks to spend my down time looking through all this errata when the only reward is finding out the the work I will have to do/redo. It makes me not want to look at it at all.

Is there anything I can do to make this less painful and annoying, or other abilities or errata that can give me back what I've lost?