Irrlicht's page

Malebranche.

Look at their names. They were picked from the Divine Comedy. Seems like a smart move, but it's not.
I am italian, and don't know how exactly do they sound to non-italian people, but for an italian I can assure you that all of those names, rather than sounding cool and arcane, sound more like the names of childish-tale buffoons' names.
To provide you a couple examples, Graffiacane can be literally translated to "scratch-dog". Cagnazzo is like a mock name for a bad and ugly old dog. Cicrciatto (original: Ciriatto) is considered to be meaning "pig". And so on. Some don't even have an exact translation but just sound plain buffoon-ish.
Rubicante and Barbarica (this last one translates to "barbaric" when referring to a woman) are probably the least terrible two, but that's just my personal opinion. Not even considering that the original name for Barbarica was Barbariccia, which translates to "curly beard".
Fact, on the other hand, is that any italian player hearing all those names is going to laugh like mad, regardless that he does or doesn't remember where they are from, and the session will die there. By consequence, it'd be nearly impossible to do things like using even a single Malebranche as a recurring name in a campaign (such as the object of a cult or the mind behind certain schemes) without having jokes and puns killing the atmosphere forever, with the campaign engraved in memory only due to the comical nature of a bad guy's name. Worse, an Infernal bad guy who's supposed to be a paragon of evil and terror whose mere name should cause common people to be scared.

Well, of course I'm aware those names aren't going to be changed or anything, but please, heed this suggestion: next time you pick names for a project that's going to be international from an old book, especially one which has "Comedy" on its title, please ask an opinion about their sound and meanings to someone who speaks the same native language of that book. It surely isn't that big of a problem, with internet and all in our age.

It's strange that I didn't find any other thread about this, and also that this doubt didn't take me till now, but anyway...

You have a level 8 Paladin. She then adds +8 on all her Smithe Evil damage rolls. Is this bonus damage multiplied on a critical hit, or is it added in the end, after any doubling/tripling/whatever? (RAW, it would appear that it is multiplied.)

And if it is multiplied, what then when the critical is in a first attack against an evil Outsider, Dragon or Undead (or in all attacks against one kind of creatures, as for the Smithe Evil of the Undead Scourge archetype)? As it is written, in such cases the Smithe Evil adds 2 points of damage per Paladin level (it's not written that it is multiplied x2, but that it is 2 per level). Would it also be multiplied? (Again, as it appear to me, yes. But I'd like thougths.)

It's pretty simple (and I'd like to remark that this is just a suggestion that I'd find nice to have and easy enough to add in the book): why not add to the name of each Target Word and Effect Word a simple syllable (or multisyllable words, for higher level targets/effects) which is, in fact, the Word Of Power that the caster utters at the moment of casting.
For example:
PERSONAL - AH'RYANG
MEDIUM CONE - P'TAH
COLD BLAST (COLD) - ABRATHON
TORTURE (PAIN) - METH
And so on.
Of course anyone could argue that it's easy enough to craft these words for any GM or player, but having an official version of them already written down is of course easier, and not only; it could also be used for countless in-game situations.
For example, the PCs find an ancient writing upon the walls of a tomb, and it contains a name that they are unable to translate or associate. Well, that name happens to be the Words Of Power combination needed to access the secret chamber (using the examples above, say it would be "P'Tah-Meth"; the PCs would need to cast a Medium Cone of Torture upon a designated spot to open the door to the hidden chamber). Whitout an already-written list of such words it would be much harder to build such a puzzle, since the players cannot know that the GM associated a given name to given Words Of Power.

I couldn't find any mention of this in the rules: Spellcraft skill's description speaks only about identifying a spell while it's being cast, but what about identifying effects that are already in place, like entering an area where Guards and Wards is active? Does it use the same DC as identifying a spell while it's being cast? Where is this specified?

Couldn't see anything about these in faqs or in specific threads, so...

1)

The following skills are class skills for eidolons: Bluff (Cha), Craft (Int), Knowledge (planes) (Int), Perception (Wis), Sense Motive (Wis), and Stealth (Dex). In addition, at 1st level, the summoner can choose 4 additional skills to be class skills for his eidolon. Note that eidolons with a fly speed receive Fly (Dex) as a free class skill, even if they do not gain a fly speed until a later level.

Should I assume the correct wording was meant to be something like: "even if they lose their fly speed at a later level"? Because if an Eidolon receives Fly due to its fly speed, then obviously it already has a fly speed...

2)

Unless otherwise noted, each evolution can only be selected once.

An eidolon’s maw is full of razor-sharp teeth, giving it a bite attack. This attack is a primary attack. The bite deals 1d6 points of damage (1d8 if Large, 2d6 if Huge). If the eidolon already has a bite attack, this evolution allows it to deal 1-1/2 times its Strength modifier on damage rolls made with its bite.

Should I assume (again) that this evolution can be taken up to two times?

3)

An eidolon becomes a skilled climber, gaining a climb speed equal to its base speed. This evolution can be selected more than once. Each additional time it is selected, increase the eidolon’s climb speed by 20 feet.

Although I would say yes, I'll ask anyway: does the Eidolon also acquire the +8 bonus to Climb skill checks and the ability to always take 10 and so on? The main thing that instills the doubt in me is that things like the differencies between primary and secondary attacks are explained in the Eidolon's entry (and it's good, since many players may just read the Core Book and APG and not know rules like these that are detailed in the Bestiary), while this other thing is not. This question also applies to the Swim evolution.

4)

This poison can be used no more than once per round.

Provided the Eidolon has both poisonous bite and one or more stings and makes a full attack, does this mean that it must declare to which of its attacks he will apply the poison for that round, before making the attack rolls, or that it can go freely and if at least one of its attacks hits he can apply poison to it independently?

5) About the Web evolution, regarding its use for climbing, is it to be treated as a rope? And how long? 50 ft.? How long does it last before becoming unusable?
What if another creature (be it ally or foe) tries to climb it? I mean, shouldn't she find it attached to herself? Even in the case where it wouldn't entangle her in that way, shouldn't the web be unusable for any creature trying to climb after her, since she messed it up by having it attached all over her or, at best, all over her hands, as if she was unwillingly reel it?

By speaking by strict rules, the shield bonus from Two-Weapons Defense should not be lost when flat-footed (as long as the character is wielding the two weapons), since shield bonuses are not lost when flat-footed; but I was wondering if this should be treated differently for two main reasons:
1) Weapons are not as large and covering as a shield (rather, they're usually pretty thin), which may offer some protection even when not readily set to parry an attack.
2) I tend see the purpose of the feat as using the two weapons to actively parry (by catching an enemy weapon in the crossblades of your swords or whatever, you get the idea) and thus wouldn't grant any shield bonus when the character is caught by surprise and the like.
Opinions? (Official ones, particularly.)

Given this:

Judgment (Su)

Starting at 1st level, an inquisitor can pronounce judgment upon her foes as a swift action. Starting when the judgment is made, the inquisitor receives a bonus or special ability based on the type of judgment made.

At 1st level, an inquisitor can use this ability once per day. At 4th level and every three levels thereafter, the inquisitor can use this ability one additional time per day. Once activated, this ability lasts until the combat ends, at which point all of the bonuses immediately end. The inquisitor must participate in the combat to gain these bonuses. If she is frightened, panicked, paralyzed, stunned, unconscious, or otherwise prevented from participating in the combat, the ability does not end, but the bonuses do not resume until she can participate in the combat again.

When the inquisitor uses this ability, she must select one type of judgment to make. As a swift action, she can change this judgment to another type. If the inquisitor is evil, she receives profane bonuses instead of sacred, as appropriate. Neutral inquisitors must select profane or sacred bonuses. Once made, this choice cannot be changed.

[Judgements list follows.]

I was wondering what is the purpose of a class ability like Slayer at 17th level:

Slayer (Ex)

At 17th level, an inquisitor learns to act quickly in combat. Whenever an inquisitor uses her judgment ability, she can select one of her judgments— that judgment grants the maximum bonus from the first round of combat onward. If that judgment is changed during combat, it resets as normal.

...since it'll only add +1, or in a best case scenario +2, to the Judgement selected and will be totally useless at 20th level, since the bonuses will all already be maxed out. Same goes with the part of True Judgement that involves Slayer.

I've read people say something about the bounuses increasing over rounds (like Spahrep in this thread: http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/pathfinderR PG/rules/judgements&page=1&source=search#0 ) but can't see anything like that on Judgement's text.

So... what am I missing?

Say I have a Wolf (its attack is bite plus trip) which tripped a PC.
The PC tries to get up from prone in his turn, so the Wolf gets an attack of opportunity; this brings the following questions:
1) Is the trip effect added to the AoO or not?
2) If it is, and if the trip is another success, does the character lose the move action he used to try to stand up or is it still available to him, since the Wolf made his AoO & trip before his actual action?

My guess is the answers are:
1) Yes.
2) The PC loses that single move action.
But I just wanted to be sure.

From PRD:
Touch Spells and Holding the Charge: In most cases, if you don't discharge a touch spell on the round you cast it, you can hold the charge (postpone the discharge of the spell) indefinitely. You can make touch attacks round after round until the spell is discharged. If you cast another spell, the touch spell dissipates.

Some touch spells allow you to touch multiple targets as part of the spell. You can't hold the charge of such a spell; you must touch all targets of the spell in the same round that you finish casting the spell.
_______

Doest this apply to class abilities that work with touch too, like Cleric's Bleeding Touch and the like, or does it regard only spells/spell-like abilities?

Seems like I'm the only one interested in this, since no discussion jumped out the search.
Well, you know, Andoran's flag/standard has this "Efrir Ep Bered" written upon it, and I was curious about the meaninig.
By randomly guessing I'd say "Freedom Is Everything", but of course I'd like a reliable answer, if someone has it.
Thanks.

I know a lot of threads exist about Vital Strike, but they're full of scattered and sometimes contradictory answers, so I'm opening this one hopening to gather all the answers in one place. And official answers, possibly. If something like this already exists, please link it, I was unable to find.

I already know some of the answers for sure, but I'll throw the questions in anyway for anyone wondering them in the future.

So... are the following cases possible or not?
1) Vital Strike + Charge
2) Vital Strike + Spring Attack
3) Vital Strike + Sneak Attack
4) Vital Strike + Cleave/Greater Cleave
5) Vital Strike as attack of opportunity
6) Vital Strike + Deadly Stroke
7) Vital Strike + Power Attack
8) Vital Strike + anything else I can't figure out at present

The answers, as far as I know, would be:
1) No
2) Yes
3) Yes
4) No/Cosmic no
5) No
6) No
7) Yes

But, please, correct me if anything is wrong and add any cases you can figure out.

A quick question.
Halfling Sling Staff, as PRD reports:
"Loading a halfling sling staff is a move action that requires two hands and provokes attacks of opportunity."

Now, seems like there's no way to reduce reload time to a free action (as per bows and arrows), since the Quick Reload feat can only be applied to crossbows.

So, is there an errata or the like stating that Quick Reload could be applied to slings too (or some other way to reduce the reload time) or did the designers really intended slings to inconditionately suffer a perennial reload time of a move action?

I need a clarification.
"Creatures that take a direct hit from a sticky bomb take the damage again 1 round later."
Is it willing to mean that a 20th level Alchemist may throw bombs that do 10d6+whatever on direct hit and then 10d6+whatever again in the following round?
It would mean a minimum of 400d6 damage per day (20 bombs/day, 10d6 + 10d6 for each one). That's huge.

Dunno if it's been discussed elsewhere, but searching gives dispersive result.

Anyone knows if Paizo has something in mind for a Pathfinder (and maybe Golarion)-based videogame for console/pc or a mmorpg (like DDO, but hopefully far better)?

Just one among the hundreds of baits thrown in the lake.
Weaknesses could be added for Eidolons, each one of which gives a set number of additional evolution points at the cost of its drawbacks.
For example (a quick and extreme example, just to show): Achilles' Heel - One of Eidolon's heels causes it to die instantly, if it takes damage equal or above 1/10 of the Eidolon's current HPs. The heel has AC equal to the AC of the Eidolon, plus 8 because of its size. This weakness grants 4 additional evolution points.
(This heel thing would call for rules about hitting specific locations, I know, but, as I said, it's just an example.)
These weaknesses could be of every kind: energy weakness (independent from presence or absence of immunity to the opposite energy type), lack of immunitary system (impossibility or huge penality to save against poisons and diseases), body parts that cause double damage when hit, blindness/deafness, slowness (capable of taking only one standard action or move action each round, like a Zombie), fragile bones (damage x 1.5 from bludgeoning sources), and so on.

Did I miss it or some Hexes lack the description on how many times per day they can be used and at which range?
For example, Death Curse is something virtually devastating if it can be used once per creature and has no range, or if it can be made at distance anyway and any number of times per day (except not twice to the same target).
Eternal Slumber is a bit more balanced, since it's touch, but if it can be used once per creature as well it's something demolishing.

I mean, whenever an average fight starts, a Witch could kill 1/3 of the foes with Death Curse and knock out another 1/3 with Eternal Slumber.
An encounter literally trampled by just one PC with only TWO Hexes (plus any other that she could use after them), and she could do the same on any following fight of the day.

Also, something like Healing/Major Healing once per creature would make Witches become the common-folks cure-dealers. Dark times would be a lot less dark with a witch around that can cure (at worse) 1d8+1 to anyone.
Wouldn't it be better to let it be something like 3/day + Int modifier (leaving or removing the 24 h limit per creature can be a different matter, but it just seems too much, to me, that it can be used once per creature for every living being every day).

I must say that, beyond what abilities may be unbalancing or not, the Summoner's overall idea presented today is the best fulfillment of a class I've seen many people look for in D&D for years.

Anyway I wanted to discuss a different thing (which maybe it's been discussed elsewhere, but I couldn't find it).
The four classes presented by now and the two coming next, like the common base classes presented in the core book, are all 20-levels.
Opposedly to what we had in 3/3.5, they are just too good to be multiclassed, even if the new class is a prestige one.
I mean, take any one class and look: the things you'll get by proceeding in it are far better than what you could get by multiclassing, in a great variety of ways (except only the flavour of the charachter, which depends solely on the imagination of the players). Just think to the newborn Summoner; it's hard to see a reason why someone should want to multiclass it and lose the opportunity of further developing its cool not-imaginary best friend.
Not that I deem this to be a bad thing; I personally hated those old chars made of 5 or so different classes for a wide range of reasons, and thus appreciate a lot the fact that a full monoclass in Pathfinder gets better things than a multiclass, but personal taste is not the point.
The point is: why not turn the prestige classes to 20-levels classes as well? To take the easiest of examples, no more crappy mixes of Ranger (or Fighter) and Wizard (or Sorcerer) levels to become an Arcane Archer who can't hit well nor cast decent spells. It just turns to a class with its own spell list and other privileges, and it's done.
Same for all others. Full classes, full flavour, as I see it.
Also, we'd have a far easier conversion from Paladin to Black Guard if the latter was to become a 20 level class, whenever we have to deal with a Paladin who turns to evil (or vice versa).
Last, just to throw a bait in the lake, if a fallen Paladin can turn to a Black Guard and a fallen Cleric can worship a new deity, why not create something for Druids and Monks too? Maybe a fallen Druid could be something like that class in the old Book of Vile Darkness who was about diseases, Tumor-Familiar and other ill-natured things (just saying the first thing coming to my mind, and I can't remember the class' name), while a Monk... uhm, I can't figure out anything at this moment, but it should be a way to make it turn to Chaotic or Neutral, of course, since Monk's bond is Law.

Say I have Vital Strike (normal, improved or greater doesn't make difference for the question) and Cleave (again, greater or not doesn't matter).
I have two or more creatures in my reach, and I choose to strike with Vital Strike one of them. I hit, so I'm allowed to attack one more creature thanks to Cleave. Now, since the first attack was a Vital Strike, may I apply that feat again in the Cleave-given attacks, or will they all be normal ones?

I can imagine the answer, but maybe someone can bring up some evidence to make it totally clear.

If this has been discussed already, I'm sorry, but I haven't found any related topic.

The introduction to Dragon creation doesn't mention any change to a Dragon's base speed (or to any other kind of speed except flight), thus it should stay unchanged through the various increments of size.
And in fact, watching the stats of all the sample Dragons, it's confirmed.
With one exception (which I suppose to be an error, since I can't see any special rule for it): the White Dragon has a base speed of 60 ft. at its original size (tiny), but all the three sample White Dragons (Young, Adult and Ancient) have a base speed of 30 ft. in their stat block.

So, which one should be the true base speed? The one on the basic stat block (60 ft.) or the one in the samples (30 ft., which, looking to all the other Dragons, who have a minimum speed of 40 ft., seems to be an error made and repeated)?

Since I haven't seen around a topic like this, here it is (I apologize if there is one that slipped away from my eyes).

1. (Oracle, Curses)
Haunted Curse's text reports:
"Retrieving any stored item from your gear requires a move action, unless it would normally take longer."
But retrieving stored items already was a move action (as noted in the Combat chapter of the Core Rulebook), so... was it meant to be that the curse turns the action to a standard one or is it correct (and in this case, what's the difference from not having it)?

2. (Oracle, Bones Focus)
"Soul Siphon (Su): As a ranged touch attack, you can unleash a ray that causes a target to gain one negative level.", etc.
Actually, the text does not say what the range of this ability is.

3. (Oracle, Bones Focus)
Spirit Walk's text does not specify if the ability can be used only once, consuming all the available time, or if that time can be divided into multiple uses.

Haunted Curse's text reports:
"Retrieving any stored item from your gear requires a move action, unless it would normally take longer."

But retrieving stored items already was a move action (as noted in the Combat chapter of the Core Rulebook), so... was it meant to be that the curse turns the action to a standard one or is it correct (and in this case, what's the difference from not having it)?

Maybe I'm just blind today, but where in the Core Rulebook or Bestiary is written that, like in 3/3.5, tiny (and smaller) creatures use their Dex modifier instead of Str for their melee attack rolls?
I just can't find the statement, although I can see that the rule is applied to the creatures in the Bestiary.

Creatures with a climb/swim speed have a +8 racial bonus on the relative skill, and these bonuses seem to be already included in the stats (unless there is an error), so all fine till here.

Also, some creatures have a racial bonus here or there, but is it always included unless otherwise noted or the opposite?

Take Nymph; she has +6 on Handle Animals, but it's not specified if it is included or not.
Doing the math with Nymph skills I end up seeing that after removing ability modifiers and class skill bonuses, she has a total of 76 skill points. Problem is that she should have (6 + Int) x HD = (6 + 3) x 8 = 72 skill points. So, with this error I don't understand wether the racial bonus was meant to be already in the stats or if it was to be added during play.

Another example? Look at the Mite skills and do the math yourself. Things get even darker.

Maybe I'm just blind today, but I can't seem to find where climb speed and other speeds are described.
Specifically, I wanted to understand the rules for climbing/walking on the ceiling.
Core Rulebook page 91 (Climb Skill's description) says that a ceiling with handholds only has DC 30, while perfectly smooth, flat vertical (or inverted) surfaces cannot be climbed at all.
This is alright for characters, but when I have a Spider or other creatures with climb speeds my question starts.
Spiders and other vermins may (in real life) walk on the ceiling, so it's alright with the above rules, though I'll make the exception that they can climb any wall, but how can I know if other creatures with a climb speed can do it like vermis or must follow the rules with no exception?

School necromancy; Level sorcerer/wizard 8
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V, S, M/DF (a bit of sponge)
Range long (400 ft. + 40 ft./level)
Targets living creatures, no two of which can be more than 60 ft. apart
Duration instantaneous
Saving Throw Fortitude half; Spell Resistance yes
This spell evaporates moisture from the body of each subject living creature, causing flesh to wither and crack and crumble to dust. This deals 1d6 points of damage per caster level (maximum 20d6). This spell is especially devastating to water elementals and plant creatures, which instead take 1d8 points of damage per caster level (maximum 20d8).

Now, maybe it's just me, but I never understood it in a way that I could deem clear and doubtless, not in 3.X, nor now in Pathfinder.
How many targets can it affect, or which is the exact size of the affected area? Spell info says only that no two of the affected creatures can be more than 60 ft. apart, but which are the limits of the area they must anyway be inside?
Can it be the 400 ft. + 40 ft./level? That vould mean that a Lvl 20 Wizard who casts Horrid Wilting in a town could kill every single person in a 1200 ft. radius, as long as everyone is no more than 60 ft. from any one other. That would be a genocide.
Or does it simply mean that the area has a 60 ft radius from the first target? In this case why not simply write "60 ft. radius, centered on a single creature"?

Raise Dead (Lv 5) can resurrect a creature that died up to 1 day x caster level ago (as in 3.5).
True Resurrection (Lv9) can resurrect a creature that died up to 10 years x caster level ago (as in 3.5).
Resurrection (Lv 7) can resurrect a creature that died up to 10 years x caster level ago (like True Res???).

Is it a typing error or was it really intended to be so? (I assume it's an error, but you can never know. 'Course I'll houserule it to 1 year anyway, but I'm just curious).

As a side note, Raise Dead's entry doesn't say clearly that a creature unwilling to return to life must succeed a Will save.
It says: "Saving Throw none, see text", but the text says nothing about the unwilling one to make a Will save. Or, at least, it may not be much clear for someone who isn't used to D&D.

Did the line about the save's DC for this ability slip away or does a lvl 1 ability really can make a creature shaken without a save?

Same goes for Undead Bloodline's Grave Touch.

I just gave an eye to the Bestiary Preview. I didn't read everything, but I have a few questions about what I did.

1) Where's the Fast Healing special quality description? I couldn't see it anywhere.

2) Regeneration, first question: a regenerating creature cannot die. But, what is the minimum HP it can reach? Is it equal to -(insert Con score), which is the value at which it would die if it didn't have regeneration, or can it go further down?
To say it simply, let's take a regenerating creature with 16 Con. Can it go below -16 HP, or is -16 the minimum?
I'm brought to think that it may go further down (I can see no reason why it shouldn't), but when the damage is huge it would mean that its body totally ruined, devastated, almost disintegrated. At that point, if the regen still works, it'd mean that the creature can regenerate even from ashes, and that would bring forth two more problems (to me, at least):
A) Even if the creature's regeneration has been halted for 1 round and it was killed, what would prevent it from coming back to life by regenerating from its remains when after 1 round the regeneration would restart functioning? I mean, why should it keep working when the creature is reduced to ashes and instead not returning in function after 1 round, if the body is still whole (more or less)?
B) If regeneration works the same for every creature that has it, that would mean that both a dismembered and devastated Troll AND a disintegrated Pit Devil (just to take two "classic" regenerating creatures of totally different nature) could heal troublelessly in the same exact way.

3) Regeneration, second question: I recall in 3.5 ed. (or was it 3, or both?) the rule that a Coup de Grace used to cut a creature's head would kill it despite its regeneration (provided that the damage is enough, not counting the Fort save). Has it been removed? It made sense to me. Without it we can have Trolls who regenerate even from a meaningless finger, if that finger escapes a proper burning. That would make things a little weird (also because, if the brain is to be recreated anew, how could it contain memories? The regenerated creature would be child-like in the mind aspect).

Since 3rd ed. I didn't agree with aging penalities, and now they didn't get better with Pathfinder.
What bothers me is that with age a character takes -1, then -2, then -3 to Str, Dex and Con, for a cumulative total of -6.
Putting aside the fact that this, if applied, would destroy a DM's chance to create an old melee NPC (such as the classic old monk, unless he is lvl 17 or above; or, say, the old fighter master, mentor of the PC fighter, and so on), I find that it's also not much realistic.
I mean, the average human has 10 or 11 Str, Dex and Con; let's wiev it optimistic and say 11 in all three scores (not counting the +2 he could have now in Pathfinder). That would mean that by growing old and losing the 6 points in the three ability scores he'd go to 5 Str, 5 Dex and 5 Con.
Now, it's right that old people get frail and weak, of course, but 5 is a really low score. Most people don't get THAT weak and frail at 70 years old (like the table 7-2 says). Plus, if we apply this to adventurers who constantly get magical healings of all sort, we'd have bodies far stronger than normal, since they don't have sicknesses or other troubles of sort that a common man may get and grow weaker because of.
I think that a cumulative penality of -1, -1 and -1 (instead of the current -1, -2 and -3) would already be too much, also because starting to get a -1 at 35 years old (table 7-2 again) seems way too early to me.
Personally, I'd make it that a character (speaking about humans) takes the first -1 at 53, the second one at 70 and the third at 80-85 (given that he reaches it).
Same progression for the mental scores bonuses, except for the fact that the only stat I'd surely give bonuses is Wisdom.
Intelligence (ability of making calculations, remembering things and so on) tends to decrease over the years, not increase. So about Int I'm a little doubtful wether it should get penalities or, at best, not be modified at all. But surely not go up.
Charisma, on the other hand, may be seen like a 2 face coin. One face is that with age (and the life experience it brings) a person may tend to become more accommodating, authoritarian or some other thing (after all many communities or groups are ruled by elders), thus increasing Cha. The other face is that age may also turn a person to become surly or the classic "old man who no one listens to", which would be represented by a decrease in Cha.
Finding a balance among these two things I'd make that Cha gets neither bonuses nor penalities.

This is my thought.
Your opinions?

Alright, here's my question now that Clerics can not anymore wear heavy armors (unless they take the feat, of course):
I had in my campaign a lvl 5 Cleric Warforged who took as its 1st lvl feat the Adamntine Body feat (Eberron's feat).
Now, since that feat considers the Warforged as it is wearing a heavy armor, is the performance hindered by the lack of proficiency in heavy armors or must I consider it as a different effect, thus affecting everything it must, but not touching the proficiency matter?