Lorila Sorita's page

I am not sure if there is anything that actually makes you younger, but in this case I am wondering about Youthful Appearance which makes you look younger but can't reduce your size.

If say a human casts it on them self, how young could you look?

I don't like DC tied to CR. My young son can consistently identify an Elephant. What's his knowledge nature? According to RAW that's a DC of 17 and can't be done untrained. So my first grader has around a +7 knowledge nature?

Reminds me of a game recently.

DM: "You see a large dog like creature. You can roll knowledge nature if you want."

Player 1,2,3 don't have nature.

Player 4 rolls and fails.

DM: "Yeah, some kind of large wild looking dog."

Player 4: Is it a wolf? I think I could recognize a wolf.

DM: "Apparently you can't."

I find that a lot of people I play with like overpowered characters, so I embrace that and go with the flow. Outside the stuff other people mentioned, being a little overpowered makes encounters go a bit faster as well since everyone is a bit more deadly. Also if you adjust CRs up a bit then you level faster, while if you adjust CRs down for a weak party, it takes longer to level. So I think people prefer leveling more quickly than slower.

I think you are taking it to a bit of an extreme though. 42 point buy is crazy. Top of the mark is supposed to be 25 point buy. Standard is 15. Over or under a bit is fine, but you still want some sort of balance. If it gets too out of balance, then wonky stuff might start happening.

Even if you are super focused on spell casting vs will saves, it might not hurt to keep some scrolls around just in case. When you run into a spell caster, just pull out the scroll to hit them with a fort save or something.

honestly, if you don't want him around any more, he can be killed off by any number of reasons that don't involve combat. He could be tricked into allowing a high level wizard to teleport him, not knowing he is being interplanetary teleported to a plant with an environment that is lethal to him but not the caster.

The game is not built to give challenges to characters above 20 plus some mythic levels. If the Great Old Ones are CR28, creating a character with 60 levels move well beyond the scope of the deities and would require storytelling decisions to cause their demise. This seems like just trying to play the game on "god-mode" and then seeing if some kind of glitch will kill them off.

I actually thought of that as well. If you agree to allow someone to cast a spell on you, they can do all sort of nasty stuff. The funny one I was thinking of is quick girding to teleport armor onto the character, which ironically causes him to lose a lot of his abilities that require him to not being in armor. His character likely has no magical related knowledge, so it can get a lot worse than that.

For example he could lower spell resistance and not resist when you cast wish on him, while you say it is a healing spell or something.

I played pathfinder and 4th edition d&d with my nephew who was 5 at the time. He had a fine handle of the basics. The biggest problem we ever had with him, is his focus. He loves playing games, but can only go like 2 hours and then he is done. I played a few times with an older girl as well, who I think was around 7 or 8. She could handle playing the entire game but got easily distracted and did weird stuff at times.

Keeping a child's focus seems like the biggest problem with having them play. I think he will probably be fine with a ranger, since the pet is easy to keep track of. Just pick something with like one big bite attack, and not for example, a wolf that trips people as part of their attack. And when he picks a spell(when he can cast them) just keep the same spells all the time, instead of swapping them out each morning.

Very unique answer, I'm digging' it, but would this pugilist ability not work against it?

Tempered (Ex)

At 11th level, a pugilist can use physical resilience to avoid certain attacks. If the pugilist makes a Fortitude saving throw against an attack that has a reduced effect on a successful save, he instead avoids the effect entirely. Tempered can be used only if a pugilist is not wearing medium or heavy armor or carrying a medium or heavy load.

That is annoying but you still fail when you roll a natural 1. So the cloudkill will still eventually kill you. Which is why it really helps if you are asleep or something.

On a side note, if you are asleep someone could just do a coup de grace on you. You being immune to crits 75% of the time might include immunity from coup de grace, but that still means 25% of the time you will outright die if they are capable of doing 50 damage in a single swing.

Mythic Cloudkill, which can ignores poison immunity. Also cloud kill doesn't allow spell resistance and you always take at least half damage. Surprisingly it would only take a 9th level wizard with a single mythic level to do it. I would say have him cast it on you while you are asleep, as it will take a couple minutes to kill you. Though if he can keep you from fleeing, that would work as well.

That reminds me of the other day, the group was all on a wagon, and we just used a 10x10 area for the wagon since it was convenient, plus I think that is the size pathfinder gives. Anyway one of the players said they wanted to be in the front but it just so happened that people put the mini's in a way where he was in the back(there was 4 people in the wagon). He was upset for a moment that he some how ended up in the wrong position, until another player pointed out that there was no real reason each person had to be sitting in 5x5 area, and that he could basically say he was any where he wanted to be within the wagon regardless of where his mini happened to be.

Another person was on the right side of the wagon and wanted to get off on the left side. I was charging them an extra 5 foot to get down off the wagon(basically difficult terrain), so they were like, it is 5 feet to walk across to the left side of the wagon, then ten feet to get down and they get five more feet and out of movement because their speed was 20. Then one players was like, the wagon probably isn't actually a 10x10 so you shouldn't need to spend 5 feet walking across the wagon. So another issue just because they use 5x5 squares. I allowed that too, and let them get off either side of the wagon, and just included the extra distance of moving to one side of the wagon or the other in the extra 5 feet of difficult terrain.

I was also thinking about it the other day, how walls are often drawn as lines, which is probably way too thin for actual wall thickness in a lot of places.

Well it seems like an easy compromise. If I know the distance across the entire city, I can divided it up into smaller chunks fairly easy. That makes it easy to make stuff up on the fly. They been to the city before and it wasn't too bad just going with generalities on distances, though I know a lot of combat will happen this time, and with more combat people will ask far more detailed stuff.

Anyway, after looking at the numbers I am thinking of making the city 1 and half miles across. At least the fortified walled area of the city. The actual city is larger but sprawls out with a lot of large farms and stuff. I wasn't planning on the buildings being 14 stories tall, more like 3 or 4 stories tall. Which does give me the idea that I should perhaps extend the area outside the walls, and make it a lot larger.

Thanks for the help with all of this. I think it helps a lot to visualize this sort of thing as well.

They were once up in a tower and saw something in the distance and asked me how far away it was, I said. "It will take about half a day to get there." And you know what they did? They said, "Really I can see that far? That seems far..." Then started calculating how far their group could walk in half a day, and how far a person can see from an elevated position, to determine if a person could actually see an object half a day away, or if it would go over the horizon and be impossible to see.

So yeah, they really are that OCD about distances.

This is sort of a weird question, but I have weird players. They are heading to a large city where a big battle is going to take a place. I doubt they will ask many plot related questions, wont talk to many of the npcs but they are definitely going to ask, "How long does it take to walk across the city? How wide is it in feet?" Normally I just guess at this sort of thing, and I might be like well it is a huge city so it take an hour to walk across it? But if it seems too large or small they start freaking out and stuff, and there is a chance that I may then have to break down how many feet are in an hours walk. Then they are going to start trying to break down how many feet there are compared to the population and stuff like that which is really irrelevant to the game.

I don't know, maybe they are OCD when it comes to distances. I know the answer is, it depends on the city and that I can make it as large or small as I want. I am hoping someone can give me a real rough guess on what is "typical" for a city though, because I honestly have no idea at all.

It is roughly a square shaped metropolis sized walled city, with a population of 30,000. It is a Golarion style city, typical for the general pathfinder universe. Just a quick ballpark, rough guess, how many feet across?

Then the deity should have better aim. Either at the forces arrayed against them or at them & any allies, depending. Just my 2 cp.

Pin point accuracy against hundreds of people at once, where the attack will hit individual people fighting in a battle but none of the enemy doesn't really fit with the flavor of how the spell works though. A big area effect attack makes more sense than a God appearing and sniping at people, at least in my opinion. Plus there are a lot of gods who probably wouldn't care if they accidentally hit a couple of people on the wrong side.

I was thinking about it, and the other option I thought of was just make fires every where. That gives an interesting terrain I think. Could even have the fires spread around, and go out as rounds go by. That would make it much easier to react too.

I'm mostly wondering why "giant balls of fire." Is there a deity involved? A volcano? A caster, or rather, opposing casters?

It is from a deity working through someone calling on a miracle. The players are not high enough level to do something like that them self, but they are involved in a large battle with an army, where it happens.

Some general advice, if you are doing a prewritten campaign it helps to read the entire campaign all the way through before running it, so you know fully what is going on. Though you can change things if you want. If you make everything up from scratch you want to get the general framework of things down as well but are more free to make it up as you go without having to worry about accidentally doing stuff that might go against what is written in a written campaign.

So I was thinking of an epic battle for an upcoming game that I am DMing and it involves giant balls of fire falling from the sky and blowing up everything around the battlefield. So here is my question, if random stuff falls from the sky and hits stuff at random, potentially hitting people and damaging them, is that cool or annoying?

I think it is pretty cool, though I can see getting struck by something random would be annoying, since it is totally out of your control. It wouldn't be a lot of damage, because obviously it isn't meant to kill people but to create a chaotic and dangerous situation. Maybe even only 1d6 or something. I was also considering maybe 1d6 and you are knocked prone. I suppose a reflex save might be valid to give people a chance of leaping out of the way too.

Any way, I was just curious of people's opinion on this sort of stuff.

On the bright side, normal human undead can't get through a stone wall. If you can kill the really big ones, crazy crawling or flying ones, and the wizards you are good to go. Oh and the ghost ones. If it is just zombies and skeletons you are pretty safe in a walled city.

A handy Haversack fixes the problem of provoking when you get the item out. It is a pretty cheap and common item to find.

This is such a weird question, that if you are going to ask it you might as well go for it. Obviously the rules are not meant for this sort of thing, so as GM do what you think is cool.

I would make it into a flesh golem like lich. Flesh golems is a construct not an undead, so I am sure there is a construct version of a lich that is equally messed up.

Well visually, let me put it like this. What if I was carrying around a single great sword? Without juggling I can attack with the sword two handed, free action to release my hand, then when someone shoots at me deflect the arrow because I have a free hand. If I 'juggle' my sword, then I take a -2 penalty and lose the ability to two hand my weapon.

In fact, now that I read it I realize something else. Originally I thought that juggling a shield wouldn't work. Well I thought it might work as written but it didn't seem to make sense. However reading the abilities closely, it never says you have to have two hands free to juggle, all the items in your hand just have to be one handed.

You could have a shield strapped on your left arm and juggle two weapons in your right hand, and since you are juggling your right hand is considered free for the purposes of deflecting arrows and drawing weapons and stuff.

Which really sounds weird at first but then makes sense when you think about a guy with a shield in one hand and a sword in the other. In this case 'juggling' would allow you to throw your sword up in the air, quick draw a dagger, throw the dagger then catch your sword again. Or you have a shield and sword out and fighting, someone shoots an arrow at you, you throw your sword up, and knock the arrow away then catch your sword again.

So here might be an unusual question. I am working on a new character and I noticed the totally awesome, if a bit absurd and silly, combo of titan mauler(barbarian archtype) and juggler(bard archtype) which allows you to wield two handed weapons in one hand, and then juggle three at once.

Now I am pretty certain that I can in fact juggle two handed weapons. My question comes from the fact that the rules say you only have to be able to hold a weapon in one hand to juggle it. In fact it says:

"a juggler can hold and wield (in other words, “juggle”) up to three items or weapons in his hands. The juggler must be able to hold and wield an object in one hand in order to juggle it."

As a titan mauler I am able to hold and wield a two handed weapon in one hand so I can juggle it. It doesn't say I have to wield juggle items in one hand though. And you are considered to have a free hand while juggling.

So here my question, can you attack someone with a juggled two handed weapon, using both hands?

If you have to make the wish right away and can't save them, get gold(25k seems reasonable as that is the cost of casting the spell), the bonus stats, if you can save them, saving them is good.

Looking at your mount, it doesn't have armor does it? Asking for magic armor that it can wear is reasonable. It isn't unbalance and something you can get anyway but is probably a pain to find in town, so you save yourself a lot of trouble and an argument with trying to convince a shop keeper to make allosaurus armor.

Could also have greater magic fang casted permanently on your mount, so it would be like having a magic weapon when it goes around biting people. Something like telepathic bond would be interesting as well, then you can freely talk to your mount as much as you want and fully understand each other. Though these might not be worth it if you have an actual wizard in the party, since they could just cast these spells.

He made decisions based off what he knew. The problem is that he didn't know how fast they were, or how tenacious they were until the round in which he ran at full speed to try to get away. At which point he probably couldn't get back to the party.

He probably didn't realize that hiding in the snow was an option, or that it provided cover, so he hide in a tree instead. Also if all the pixies fired at him because he was slightly in front of the party, then it is pretty reasonable to think if he was further away from the pixies than the rest of the party, the pixies(at least some of them) would go after the party instead of all on him. How would he know that the pixies couldn't see anyone but him?

His mistakes is all based off stuff he didn't know. So I wouldn't say he was making horrible choices, he just didn't have all the information.

I love cutthroat games. If you make stupid decisions, you can get isolated and killed very easily, and honestly, you'd have no one to blame but yourself.

That is entirely fair. It really is just a preference thing, and some times players have different ideas. If he doesn't like cut throat games and he didn't realize it was that deadly, that might be why he left. And honestly people shouldn't stay in games if they are unhappy. So leaving might be the best for him, and for the party.

So I wouldn't say that leaving is a bad outcome. Staying and being disruptive because you are not having fun is a far far worse outcome.

For the most part, the enemies were relatively unaware of the other PCs right up until a bomb seemed to fly out of the snow and blow one of them out of the sky.

That is why I don't want to be to harsh on his judgement. Because he was probably totally unaware of that.

There is basically two approaches to not dying. The first is being something like a paladin, which has high saves, high ac, pretty good health and can even heal. Their immune to diseases and stuff at higher levels too. For what you are asking, some sort of paladin is a good way to go.

The second, slightly more overlooked option is being something like a wizard and hiding in the back of the party. Perhaps even better, a cleric hiding in the back of the party.

Could combine them, an archer paladin. A paladin who is in the back line in full plate, high saves and health who never goes into close combat. That is a character unlikely to die. I recall a paladin build that went into stalwart defender, and threw javelins that seem pretty sturdy for a second line fighter.

The problem is the Paladin made himself a prey animal separated from the flock. There were other players such as the Alchemist who was enough of a threat to make their enemies retreat. So if the Paladin had run back to the party, there was a good chance the Alchemist might have done enough damage to discourage the fey again.

ROW's encounters are TOUGH. You either succeed as a group or you leave your frozen corpses as a memorial to bad decisions. Outrunning a threat is not an option when you only have half the movement speed of your pursuer.

If all the evil pixies were together, it is unlikely they would of fled just from one getting knocked out. Also, he clearly didn't know how fast they moved, since he stopped trying to run once he realized they were fasting. You can't really judge a decision based off stuff the person doesn't know.

(1) Encounters are designed for the party, not the individual. Knowing that there were 4 players, he flew off away from the party. That alone puts anyone on notice that they are in a 1v4 situation.

He didn't really fly away from the party though. By the sounds of it, he was just a little ahead of them, until he ran away. In which case he was running away, so you expect most people to run away from the enemy.

(2) It was snowing heavily, limiting the movement of everyone else. He FLEW ahead at full speed. This puts him on notice that nobody can come to his aid.

Him being a little ahead and scouting stuff out is a pretty reasonable action. Because he can move the fastest, it makes sense for him to be the one scouting. He had a fly speed of 20, while everyone else was moving 5 feet. A 15 foot distance isn't flying off on your own. Even if he was like 30 feet ahead of them, that isn't flying off alone. That is well within the standards of what is normally considered near by.

30 feet, the distance clerics can heal people with their channel is considered very close. It is common in a normal fight for people to get even further away than that from party members. I would be hard press to say he flew away from everyone until he is at over 60 feet away.

It didn't sound like he flew that far away, until he was retreating, which he was running at full speed to save his life.

(3) When, surprise surprise, he gets attacked, he doesn't bring word to the party. He tries to get into a shootout, 1v3, with a paladin. Flying around without cover. Surprise surprise, he loses the shootout.

He said that the paladin's first action was to fly into the tree, which is getting cover. So he had cover. Also between flying into the tree and flying to the party which is out in the open, the tree makes more sense. Why would you fly into the open? How is that safer?

If he wanted cover with the party, he would have had to dive into the snow. Which while possible, most people wouldn't have thought of. Even if you make the snow very high for the purpose of cover, most players are not going to think of diving into it for cover. It seems more like an obstacle than anything else. So flying for cover, means going to the tree not standing out in the open.

(4) His attempt at flight was...

This is what most people would do. You have someone who can fly and you put them in extreme difficult terrain, and they are going to fly over it. If they get shot, they will go for the nearest cover(the tree, not the snow which appears as an harmful obstacle to the player). And if your dying you try to get out of the enemies range. These weren't unreasonable actions.

I wouldn't say it was unfair, but you were definitely playing a cut throat, no mercy type game. If you want to play a super deadly game, then that is fine, but maybe that wasn't his thing. They were evil pixies so hunting down and murdering the guy makes sense from a roleplaying perspective.

You chased down and murdered a player who was trying his best to flee the encounter, when there was more dangerous targets, and higher priority targets around, that you could have easily switched target to. So you could of definitely went easier on him. If it was me, I would of switch some of the pixies to the other targets but it is what it is.

I also disagree when people say the paladin made a bunch of bad choices. He actually made the choices you would expect smart players to make. When he was attacked, he went and hid behind cover and when wounded he retreated. Which is better than most people who often don't use cover very much, and many people do not retreat when wounded.

You say he should of ran to the party, but from the sounds of it he just ran the in the direction away from the threat, which is the safest direction to run. The party didn't have a cleric by the sounds of it, so what does running to the party do? They couldn't have saved him. They couldn't coup de grace him, but they could of just shot a few arrows into his unconscious body and he would of died all the same.

All these negative views. There is one pretty sweet thing about it though. In pathfinder everyone is basically immortal. Even if you die the gods are 100% proven and real, and so are afterlives. If you die you just go to heaven and hang out, and if you got friends they can just bring you back. Also magic is pretty cool and anyone can do it with a bit of practice. Even if your a complete moron you can buy items to boost your intelligence and then learn magic. Get high enough level and you can basically do anything you want. Heck in pathfinder people can even become gods them self.

You can survive without healing, you just need to go at a slower pace and be more cautious. Now if it is impossible to rest because your also in a dangerous area, then your screwed.

I hate rolling for stats and health. However I have never played in the game where people were so strict they wouldn't show mercy if you roll badly enough.

I have some situations like that, where the rules were set in stone and we had to play with them, but after rolling 1,1,2,1 for my health the DM was like, "Just reroll that." This was as we were playing, and I suffered the first three bad rolls and I didn't get to change that but when we leveled up that last time it was obviously getting silly so he gave me a free reroll that level.

Another time we were rolling for stats and I got like 10,10,11,8,12,9 and I was like, "Umm I wanted to play a cleric but I can't with these stats." So they let me go point buy.

Some specialization is good, but you can't get too hyper focused. In the game I am currently playing in one player has this rogue build where he disarms the enemy's weapon which makes them flatfooted then he sneaks attack them. And in those situation he is pretty cool. However his damage is similar to a normal rogue, though he gets the benefit of also disarming the person as part of the combo, so normal damage plus disarm. That is cool and useful.

However the combo doesn't work unless the enemy is 'unarmed'. So monsters, animals, unarmed focused enemies all break his combo since they are always considered armed with natural attacks. And without the combo he does crappy damage and of course disarm doesn't do anything. It totally isn't worth specializing against enemies that use held weapons. It is too narrow of a focus.

On the other hand if you are like a fighter specialized in two handed weapons, you can kill most monsters with a two handed weapon. And for the rare occasion that isn't going to cut it, you can pull out a bow or something. Same like a rogue who focuses on sneak attack, super deadly in most cases, subpar in a few rare situations but you are still contributing in those fights.

You don't want to specialize to the point where your gimped for large part of the games. That is the danger of over specialization.

In the current group I play with, a lot of people have criticized me for taking toughness. Toughness is actually one of my go to feats when I have nothing else that I want to take. I find it amusing since we play with a house rule that lets player get extra health. Yeah, maybe they wouldn't need that house rule if they gave toughness a bit more respect.

That said, toughness isn't really all that great of a feat. Though ironically they all seem to think eschew materials is the greatest thing since slice bread, and their casters always take it. Me, I would never take that feat, unless I was playing maybe something like a sword mage or someone who requires holding stuff in their hands? They take it on like pure wizards and stuff.

One feat I would consider taking is skill focus, but I personally find that fairly weak. It is cool if you want to like maximize something and get it crazy high, but honestly in most situation you probably don't need any skill that high. Most of the skill feats are probably not all that great, but can be good for situational builds.

I just realized something else as well. If you drop one of the claw attacks, you could take a scimitar with dervish dance and make a dex build.

Every attack listed can use weapon finesse, and they all can be converted to dex damage instead of strength with dervish dance. Since dervish dance says all damages and not just damage done by the scimitar.

I am not sure that really helps this build very much, but it is an interesting, although cheesy way to abuse dervish dance. As I am pretty sure the intention wasn't to one hand a scimitar and then use off handed weapons in non-hand locations or combine it with a bunch of natural attacks.

I just had an idea. What if you were 4th level barbarian, and 1st level witch and you go with two claws, a bite, gore from the magic helmet, hit people with spiked armor, and kick them with your boot blade...And then you go all rogue for sneak attack.

Eventually at level 20 you would have 11 attacks, and damage wise they would all suck. However they would also all gain +8d6 damage if you flank someone.

Not overly familiar with witch, but can you get a hair attack while wearing a helmet? doesn't that cover/restrict hair movement?

Yeah, the hair attack doesn't list anything specific about where it came from, so no reason a helmet would block. I actually got that idea from someone who posted about making a dwarf with that white hair archetype, so that they could punch people with their beard.

Do you get to make your natural attacks when doing a flurry of blows? I thought of adding flurry of blows into the mix as well, but I am not actually sure if it works or not.

Well with the barbarian build they have a rage power that gives you pounce. So eventually you can charge at people and still do your full attacks. You make some good points though.

One thing to consider might be some kind of crit build, since with that many attacks you would be criting all the time.

You can actually use any two weapons, that don't use hands. Though you want one to be a light weapon so you don't get too big of a penalty. So you can ditch the helm for helm of the mammoth lord and get a gore attack. Then use like armor spikes and blade boot as your weapons. Which gets you back up to six attacks(seven if you keep the hair too!)

That is a good point about just dropping the weapons and power attacking though. Also, I think people might get slightly annoyed if you have to roll 7 attacks per turn at level 4.

Still that would be hilarious. Claw, claw, bite, slam into them with armor, gore, hair slap, kick.

Thinking about it, unless there is some reason to get intelligence it is probably better to just drop the hair attack from the combo. So instead of dipping witch, just go all in barbarian. Since one level of witch loses a point from BAB that would increase everything else by one, and you can start that build a level sooner. It would be 5 attacks, as the same numbers I listed above, at 4th level. Now that is pretty impressive.

I kind of want to try it out for real now.

I wouldn't skip armor for a single spell. Just go with the 25% failure rate.

Yeah which would mean at 5th level, the minimum to do this(assuming base 18 strength, +4 more while raging, and 10 intelligence just for the hair) you would be something like: +8/+8/+5/+5/+5/+5 with damage of 1d4+6/1d4+3/1d6+3/1d6+3/1d4+3/1d4.

Which actually, now that I looked at it and did the math, that is pretty impressive.

That is +4 BAB, +6 from strength(22 while raging), -2 on the two weapon fighting attacks with two weapon fighting feat, and -5 on the natural weapon attacks. Full strength for the primary weapon, and half strength on everything else but the hair attack which uses intelligence. That correct?

Heck, with the one level dip into witch for the hair attack you also have access to first level witch spells. Which mean you can enlarge person yourself!

Okay, so I was just playing around with ideas for a backup character for a game I am in, and I came across some interesting combos people were talking about, and it hit me. I got an absurd idea for a combo.

Okay, so you start off wanting to use two weapon fighting. You take a Dwarven boulder helmet as your main weapon, and a blade boot for your off hand weapon. This leaves your hands open, so you take the barbarian rage power lesser beast totem. This gives you two claw attacks. Animal fury as second rage power for a bite attack. One level dip in white hair witch for a hair attack.

So you full attack and you get two claws, a bite, a headbutt, boot kick and hair attack. 6 attacks not counting any BAB bonuses. They all stack right? The rules say you can take all your natural attacks along with your weapon attacks when you full attack. And the hair, bite, and claws are natural attacks.

The damage isn't very high for most of these attacks so I am not sure how practical it is, but the idea just seems hilarious. At later levels since you are going barbarian can take the greater beast totem for pounce, and possibly grab some feats from two weapon fighting tree for more attacks.

They obviously made the assumption that you are storing stuff in or on the backpack. This is just an example of a thing a GM should fix if someone tries to abuse it.

Well you can make up your own spells, with the spell research rules. Basically I would use those rules to find out what spell level it is. I would likely compare it to one of the pocket dimension abilities. Once you know what level spell it was just use the wonderous item chart. Which says for items that are always one or you can turn on and off: Spell level X caster level X 2,000 gold.

So, if you decide it is equal to Greater Create Mindscape then it would cost 132,000 gold.

Could probably get a discount because you want to make it a limited version of mindscape that always does the same thing. If you wanted to in a stationary area, just make the floor the magic item.

I would try roleplaying out trying to help him get some memories back. He doesn't need all his memories, just a hint. Like maybe looking at different colors and trying to remember his mother's favorite color, and then maybe she is wearing that color in the painting? Who knows. I assume he tried to remember what his parents looked liked and can't, but it might be easier to pick up side details that could be used as hints.

You know what is broken? If you are playing in a group where party levels is staggered slightly, so a cohort comes in as higher level than one of the other players. Now that would suck.

Personally I like leadership, but not for all characters. It makes the most sense when you are trying to build yourself up to be something more than an adventurer. Like if you get a castle, and you want to become the lord or something. Or you capture a tower and going to make it a wizard school or something.

We are all roughly the same level. The rogue is highest level at level 5, and I am level 4. So I can't blow up everyone yet. Pretty sure I could still kill the rogue though, if he isn't expecting it. Though I decided it is probably better to avoid that.

Instead I am going to suggest we outright ban all player vs player combat, or just go a straight evil campaign where the purpose is to kill people. If they don't want to do either of those things, then I will probably just quit the group. If they agree to go along with that, that should end the worst of the problems, then can work on the other problems overs time.

I am having second thoughts, though I wouldn't go so far as attacking them like some suggested. Maybe we really need to have a serious ooc conversation. I am not overly hopeful, since these type of conversations have not gone overly well in the past.

ICly my character might walk away from the group, but just disbanding a party is kind of like the worst possible thing you can do in game. One of the people in the group actually said they wanted to kick out another character, and then when he didn't want to leave, that character threaten to walk away. I could leave right now, and the party would split three ways, but that doesn't actually solve anything. Since I guess we would all just make new characters, and join the remaining people in the party and start again.

I think at the moment, the party is waiting for one of the two to die, to solve that problem. I thought they were going to have a duel to the death for a moment, but they didn't.

Our party is so bad at times. I know everyone always says I should quit any time I mention the stuff going on in the party, though I got a lot of free time and I am friends with them oocly, so I don't mind hanging out with them. Which is why I give them a lot more leeway that I probably should.

So here is the thing, I would say that most of them are not really good at roleplaying. They do try at times, they just suck at it. Out of game people smack talk a lot, and everyone seems to know it is in good fun and no one takes it too seriously. I don't feel bullied out of game, and I don't think that is anyone's intention or anything.

However, like I said, they suck at roleplaying. So that ooc table dynamic bleeds into the game with several serious repercussions. The most obvious is that it destroys any kind of group cohesion we have, the second is that most of the characters come across as total jerks. Then it feeds off it self, if everyone is a jerk to each other then they treat each other worse and worse, until we get to the point where we are now.

I do not think they will change, and I do not have high hopes for them. However, we are friends oocly and they have all expressed interest in roleplaying and stuff. So I want to create an opportunity for roleplay. An opportunity where if they will question how they have acted icly up to this point, where they can reflect a bit. They might very well just find it funny and amusing that my character is suffering and make fun of her more. However, there is a chance they might have just been getting carried away, and passively reacting to events and it isn't their intention for their character to be an evil jerk.

I can't control any of the actions of any of the other players, all I can do is my own thing. I don't want any regrets. I want to be able to say I went in there, and gave 100%. I want to leave it all on the table, and if I do and no one takes me up on the roleplay opportunity, and they continue to act like jerks, then I can quit. Or make a wild rager barbarian designed to kill her own party, or something. I can do that and not have any regrets because I know I tried my best.

Because of the table environment, I don't feel like I have been able to ever really give 100%. It is hard to really get good roleplaying going when people bicker over stupid stuff, or constantly insulting each other and there is no cooperation. Even if it turns out no one appreciates my effort, I would still like to do this for my self.

So I can't recall any time I have ever played in a D&d or pathfinder game where a character has broken down and just cried like a baby. In other roleplaying games, in different settings it works better. Though you don't usually expect that an adventurer who is going around fighting hordes of zombies and slaying dragons is going to have a break down and cry in the middle of a dungeon, but adventurers are people too.

Just a bit of quick background. My party is basically filled with a bunch of jerks. They are mostly neutral aligned people who only care for them self, and are totally untrustworthy. If I was generous I would say they smack talk a lot, and insult each other easily and oocly I know it is just good natured ribbing and I don't take it too seriously. However in game, the stuff is out right verbal abuse.

They do it to each other, and everyone gets insulted but directed at me they make fun of how my character is weak(I am a low level wizard), and the fighter/barbarian type throw around their strength to bully and intimidate me. They are constantly saying I am a useless and worthless person. When I use spells that saves people's lives, like using father fall to catch someone falling 70 feet, they pretty much show zero appreciation but then when I don't have the spell they want ready(even if I used the slot to save someone's lift a minute ago) they say I am a fake useless wizard and stuff. And if I use something like force missile to conserve spells, then they make fun of how weak the spell is.

Any way, the point is the verbally abuse my character. They are also not above using other party members as meat shields and stuff, and even outright say they are only keeping some people around for that reason. ICly this has been going on for several weeks, and we are trapped in a dungeon. Several people have died and it is super stressful on top of all the abuse. My character doesn't really have anyone who would be considered a friend ic, so I have no one to confide in and so just been holding all these emotions back.

Then at the end of the last session, something really horrible happened. We ran into this evil wizard who had a bunch of orges as minions and the evil wizard was threatening the party and said she would kill everyone unless we killed a party member. So the rogue literally backstabs me and drops me to the ground with the intention of offering me up as a sacrifice to the evil wizard. As luck has it, in that exact moment, one party member tried to be a hero and rushed forward to attack the wizard(which he said oocly he wouldn't have done if he knew the rogue was going to kill me), but no one helped him. He got murdered and the party just sat around and watched as the orges ripped his limbs off and played with his dead body. The rogue still offered me up as a sacrifice but the evil wizard was satisfied with the other person dying, so I survived. Though afterwards one of the party members looked me straight in the eye and told me that he was okay with me dying.

So I was thinking of how my character was going to react and initially I thought I could talk to the npc cleric we have in our party and confide with her in private and my character would cry and I thought that would be a good touching scene to show my frustration ic. But it is an npc! If there was a player I could trust, it would make a really interesting and emotional bonding scene, but it is an npc. I don't trust any of the pcs though, and I am thinking my character is probably even afraid of some of them.

So I am now thinking, what if I have an emotional break down in front of everyone? So I am wondering if people have tips and suggestions on making my characters emotional break down as impactful as possible. I am pretty sure they are not going to care about my character, most of them icly don't have a compassionate bone in their body.

However, I want to make everyone at the table uncomfortable. I want them to know beyond any doubt that she feels utterly alone and scared, and that they are the reason for it. I want to see if any of the characters have even a shred of humanity within them, and if they do I want to make them feel guilty for what they did to my character, and their fallen and eaten party member they just let die.

I am not so good at acting that I can break down and actually cry in front of people at a game table, though I would really appreciate any other advise people have. Any suggestions that might make the scene more dramatic, depressing, sad, pathetic, anything to increase the emotional impact of it. Anything that might get my characters emotions across to everyone at the table.