Morieth's page

Forgive the blunt question, but I'm looking for any kind of material regarding this topic.
A half-fiend character has been captured, and will be subjected to Detect Thoughts and Mark of Justice; she can try to resist with her Spell Resistance, but will the caster somehow "know" the spell failed (and why)?

To expand the topic: how about a successful Will save? Of course the caster does not get any information with spells such as "Detect THoughts", but what about Charm Person or the like? I once remember reading something like the -target- gets the feeling of something forcing his or her mind when allowed a save (so no spell spamming from hiding), but does the caster get any feedback from purely mental spells?

I'm not familiar with how CR translates in monster-vs-monster context. Is that supposed to mean a 50% chance of victory for either side?

The Player's Guide is not exactly clear on the functioning of animated ships.
They can certanly move on their own as creatures, sailing and flying by their own Fly and Swim speed (and checks); in this case, "sailig" through the eye is pure madness. On the other hand, the player's guide implies that they can work as standard ships, moving with the caster acting as pilot with normal sailing checks and needing no crew. It also states that "An animated ship’s statistics, such as its hit points, do not change." (which kinda negates its standard animated object stats, leaving its only use for sailing without a crew).

We kinda drew a parallel between a horse moving on its own and a horse with a rider performing Ride checks, but I'm looking for different opinions -expecially considering different movement modes :)

"Targets one Small object per caster level; see text. An animated object can be of any non-magical material. You may animate one Small or smaller object or a corresponding number of larger objects as follows: A Medium object counts as two Small or smaller objects, a Large object as four, a Huge object as eight, a Gargantuan object as 16, and a Colossal object as 32. You can change the designated target or targets as a move action, as if directing an active spell."

It was done through the Craft Construct feat (and no small amount of money, I must say).

No, I wasn't worried about players trying to sail through the Eye, one could argue that such a shortcut would invalidate the whole race. More about the ship's ability to basically evade any kind of nautical hazard such as monsters, other ships and doldrums.

I'm surprised nobody mentioned flying ships (Animated Objects). I have a PC Witch heavily focused on crafting items, and currently the ship is an animated object with flying and swim speed. We had to fill the gaps in the Player's Guide entry for Animate Object (which is quite vague)

How would that affect the regatta? Any thoughts on the matter?

I'd like to share with the board my experience with what I'd define "an entitled player".
The problem player starts with a character concept of "dashing pirate" that could very well be a divine caster of a maritime deity such as Valkur or Besmara, but adamantly refuses to play any of those because of real-life issues with religion. Problem player opts for melee class; group is now formed by a caster and two melee characters.

That same night, after 1 year and a half, the campaign ends in a TPK due to not having a healer at level 11.

So this is how I'd define "entitled": an out of game problem in behaving like a reliable, level-headed human.

I hate to be "that guy", but either some detail was omitted or I'd say you are being too sensitive. It might be my poor knowledge of the English language, but I'd also say "violated" would be too strong as a word for such a situation.

Peace

Hello James!
A couple of questions regarding the crafting of magical items.
1) The cost of magic supplies for the item is half of the base price cost.
The word "magical" added to "supplies" makes me think that the gold is spent on rare reagents, incenses and the such -am I right in assuming a character cannot convert (given enough time) raw, mundane materials of equal value into a magic item? Or could a caster, marooned on an island, obtain some raw material through Profession (Woodlogger), refine them through Craft (Woodworking) and use the value of whatever goods he manages to produce to use as supplies for his magic item?

2) This is a very strange question: how much "freedom" does the caster need in relation to the item he's crafting? Does he need to manipulate it? Touch it? See it?
Could a caster, held captive for several days and bound to a wall by masterwork manacles, use components smuggled into the cell to make his manacles a magic item? Could he make his own (masterwork) clothes a magic vest? A masterwork sword someone forgot in a corner of the room?

Thanks in advance for your answers :)

My vote goes to twelve.

What about the Positive and Negative energy planes being overgods? Immortal, eternal and ultimately uncaring

Technically, Creation, Stasis and Entropy are true neutral. Being spirits, they do not and cannot have a different agenda than being what they are.

But the Old World of Darkness has an interesting take on this: Stasis, perhaps influenced by humans, starts to adopt their worldview and to see itself as the weakest of the three concepts -who are supposed to work in balanced cycle.
It goes mad: angry at Destruction for being what it is and ending all form and function, Stasis traps it -preventing it from performing it's metaphysical duty.
Creation becomes a one-way production line of Creation/Stasis, in which anything is never destroyed, recycled or changed. Destruction feels the imbalance from its prison but cannot act directly, and as a result it goes mad too, like a wild beast in a cage: in pain, it cannot focus its powers and lashes out blindly, destroying and corrupting anything it can.

Mortals may see both Destruction and Stasis' actions as "evil", when the truth is that a fundamental, cosmological balance has been broken.

+1 on the three overgods being creation/dynamism, stasis and destruction/entropy.

I have a (hopefully) rather interesting hook regarding a possible future development between gods and mortals.
Would it be ok to post it now even though we are still at the creation myth?

EDIT: In the meantime, I'll just throw in an idea. I'm not really good at writing flavour, so I'll be brief.
Two cosmological principles:
-Gods are not "ascended": they are raw cosmological forces such as death, chaos, nature and such. Godhood is forever beyond a mortal's grasp, even in legends.
-Such forces, though monolithyc, are shaped and gain different aspects depending on how they are worshiped (i.e. there is ONE god of death, but worshiping "her" as an aloof and uncaring force gives different domains than worshiping "him" as a sadistic, cruel reaper)

And their consequences:
-Such aspects never wage war directly against each other (being as "limbs" of the same deity), though their power waxes and wanes with those of their worshipers (so you could have a very weak sadistic and cruel aspect of a death good, and a very strong aloof and uncaring aspect).
-Since no amount of worship can "create" a god from nothing, a god's overall strength is split between all of its aspects; this is the reason why lawful churches are wary of cults and heresies (which end up creating different little aspects, weakening the "official" one).

I'd be willing to expand on this should it be deemed interesting.

So I'm about to play in a Skull & Shackles campaign. My character concept is an elf arcane caster with a focus on creating magic items, weapons and constructs. Since I still don't know if we're going to play gestalt, I'm focusing on the Magus. Bladebound, to be exact.

Then I take a look at the Soulforger, and I'm not quite sure I'm reading it right. It seems almost self-limiting and contradictory: I'll try to address the issues one by one.

1) The Soulforger is focused on the creation of "armaments of surpassing power": while he *can* craft himself a very good weapon, by class features it will almost certainly be the only weapon he will ever wield, thanks to his Spell Combat and Spellstrike limited to his Bonded Object only.
I find this somewhat contradictory to the theme of "magical weapon artisan", "a-magical-weapon-for-every-circumstance" character; but I could be wrong. At this point, however, even considering that he will always fight with his Bonded Object, the Soulforger is only one feat ahead of a standard Magus.

2) Since he gains his ability to "craft" a magical weapon through his Bonded Object ability, by class features the Soulforger is completely unable to craft magical weapons for his allies. Even stranger, he is also unable to craft himself a magical armor.
This is where things start to fall apart in my head. The archetype still retains the full Magus armor proficiency, but can't craft himself a magical one even if his life depended on it. He's focused on magical weapons. Can he craft magical weapons? No, he can craft -one- magical weapon. He could do everything better by using a feat, so why am I going to choose this archetype over a feat for my Magus crafter?

3) The Soulforger adds his Magus level to all Craft checks to manufacture weapons, armors and shields -as well as skill checks for crafting Magic Arms and Armors.
Now, this is when I think either the archetype is trolling me, or I am not reading it right. Soulforgers get a -huge- bonus on mundane Craft rolls, enough to make me gasp, and can use that to probably create a dozen or so masterwork weapons, armor and shields per day. This is good, very good. At the same time, they get that same bonus on their Spellcraft check -hooray! Get magical items fast, and get them early. But wait... what can they craft? Hint hint: bonded object. Nothing more. Unless they take the feat, of course, in which case they can craft whatever they want but still be unable to use it.

So let me get it straight: all of this archetype's features are focused on crafting his weapon and that weapon only. The archetype is so nerfed while not wielding his weapon (no spellstrike and spell combat, spellcasting is impaired) that he becomes, combat-wise, a rogue with no sneak attack (a disadvantage; situational, but a disadvantage nonetheless).
Once he maxes out his bonded weapon (something he gains 5/6 level earlier, but he could've gotten anyway) a Soulforger is left with a massive bonus on Crafting that he will probably never use because
a) he cannot craft other magical weapons, for himself and his allies;
b) even if he could, you still would not be able to use them.

Soulforger baffles me. A character without this archetype can do everything it can, only slower.
It is designed for the "casual" crafter who has a single weapon in mind, does not want to waste a feat and wants access to his custom weapon as early as possible?; is it designed for the "hardcore" crafter looking for the titanic skill bonus, but nerfing him on his battle prowess and imposing upon him a dreaded "feat tax"?

Am I ignoring something? Something about this archetype, the Magus, the item creation rules... an errata somwehere?

You cannot stack Mot4W and Tetori, they both replace Timeless Body.

True. One more reason that makes this build invalid.

I think there is an error in understanding archetypes here.

They are not a prestige class that you apply to each level as you gain it. They are a package deal that modifies the class starting at 1st level..

This leaves me more confused than ever. Does it mean that a Quigong monk -must- chose which of his class features he's going to trade at 1st level?

you cannot justify the "legality" of any combination based on sleight-of-hand with class abilities at specific levels. It needs to be a legal combination from 1st level onward, or it is a no-go.

Now this is what I meant when I said "confused".

However, there are some archetypes that do not literally come into play until 4th level (I think Monk of the Healing Hand does), so that begs the question whether one should declare such archetype at 1st or 4th level.
Quigong Monk could also be considered a bit of an headache here, since it has been listed as an archetype but lets you chose whether to keep or trade any abilities at all, so that means that either a Quigong-er is required to declare all of his choices at 1st level (or at whathever level he is required to make his first choice), or that anyone wishing to play a standard Monk is better served by declaring to be a Quigong and chosing his style at each level (possibly even not trading any ability at all).

The first option seems a little... artificial, and does open up discussions such as the possibility of weird archetype hybriding, so, yes, it seems that the Quigong monk is more like a patch to the standard Monk than an archetype.

[Edit: wrong section, this should go into Rules Question... my bad :( ]
Hi everyone!
I will be playing a Legacy of Fire campaign, modified from 3.5 to Pathfinder, in a couple of days, and I came up with an interesting character concept that would require both the Tetori and Monk of the Four Winds archetypes.

Alas, upon further inspection, the two archetypes are not compatible for they both require giving up the Abundan Step class feature. But then I took a closer look at the Quigong Monk, and it seems almost to good, so please tell me if I am wrong.

1) Quigong Monk is a normal monk archetype and can stack with other archetypes.
2) Differently from other archetypes, Quigong Monk does not force you to switch every class feature, but lets you pick and chose wich ones to keep and wich ones to trade in. While the text says "A qinggong monk can select a ki power (see below) for which she qualifies in place of the following monk class abilities", some tables seem to contradict this (I am looking at you, Abundant Step) so I'm not quite sure here.
3) "Even if a qinggong monk selects a different ki power in place of a standard monk ability, she can select that monk ability later as one of her ki powers." This means that a character can trade Abundant Step at 12th level for, say, Shadow Walk, and then later trade Quivering Palm at 15th for Abundant Step.

So, question: is it possible/legal to:
a) combine Quigong, Tetori and Four Winds, not trading a single monk ability for Quigong powers until level 15;
b) reach 12th level and trade standard monk's Abundant Step with the Tetori's class ability;
c) proceed levelling till 15th, trade standard monk's Quivering Palm with the lower-level Quigong's Abundant Step
d) trade that Abundant Step for the Four Winds ability that requires Abundant Step

End Result: A full Tetori/Monk of the Four Winds hybrid that gains Abundat Step "two times", one at 12th level and the other at 15th, both traded for different abilities from the two archetypes.
Is this legal? Overall, it seems slightly less powerful than either normal build, since it gives up a 15th level ability for a 12th level one -and yet I can't shake the feeling that this is horribly munchkin-y and not the way Quigong is supposed to be used...

Does that "instead of making a normal rage she may.." mean that she can also enter a normal rage? Or does she gain controlled rage in place of the standard barbarian rage?

If, on a scale of 1 to 10, I'd rank Golarion (and some other worlds) as follows:

1) Earth
3) Westeros
4) Middle Earth
5) Greyhawk
6) Golarion
8) Forgotten Realms
10) Eberron

Tank you very much James. :)

Weird discussion I had with a GM I'm not going to play with.
He's relatively new to the GM role, and in his first campaign he's probably going to house rule a lot (not the brightest idea, if you ask me)... all rules based on the premise that "Golarion has less magic than the average fantasy world".

This quickly became an ugly argument filled with passive-aggressive one-upmanship regarding rules lawyering and general Golarion knowledge. Whathever, I'm going to decline their offer to play so no problem.

But the question still stands, just how magical Golarion is compared to other "standard" fantasy settings? Just to be sure I haven't lost something written in some obscure manual.

for the fast healing part.

there is a creature with imaginary 500 hp
so swallow whole would need 50 damage to cut out.
the creature also has fast healing 20 and damage reduction 10/-

im inside and try to cut myself out
i deal 40 points of damage with my [/i]+5 swallow whole bane, i want to get out of here Dagger[/i]
damage reduction aplies.

damage redtuction aplies. i cut myself out for 30/50 and also deal the damage to the creature 470/500

feast healing comes.
does the creature now have 490/500hp and i cut myself out for 10/50

or does it have 490/500 hp and im still cut out 30/50

or does fast healing apply in teh 1/10 fraction and i'm cut out 32/50

?

Ooh, good one. Never thought about it. It's probably the only situation where the concept of abstract HP becomes a nuisance.

A ghost wouldn't be upset if it was normal to destroy the body. They probably have a rite for that too.

Yeah, I was reverse engineering the context. Like, "there are graveyards" so there must be a reason for it.

Actually, there is a very sound reason: Hallow.

Perhaps it's due to the fact that undeads are evil and also necromancy does not have that good reputation. It's bad, it's evil, it's against the law: no necromancer is going to prance around graveyards undisturbed looking for body parts to create undeads.
I mean: I certainly get your point in case of an undead plague, where -every- body rises as one of the vengeful deads... but in any other case, from the big metropolis to the quiet village, a graveyard does not seem that illogical. You also have to consider that perhaps a ghost could arise if a dead one is not honored with an appropriate rite.

Try "ye olde" 3.5 Forgotten Realms manual "Magic of Faerun", it has a whole section on how to make spellbooks fire- and waterproof, resistant against small vermins, and so on.

EDIT: The "whole section" is rather small, but interesting.

Incidentally, great way to improve mechanical inequality if you'd rather work around the problem: get a spring-loaded boxing glove. Every time someone picks a trap option, cry "YOU JUST ACTIVATED MY TRAP CARD!" and use the glove.

When I run for my group I let them roll a Reflex save first, for realism.

You see, that could work in certain games.

The funny thins is that, quoting Monte, this particular game design philosophy that "rewards mastery of the game" just ends up with a lot of stuff thrown into the garbage. If mechanical equality is not a goal worth pursuing (either because of limited resources or a deliberate decision), then those options that are not deemed competitive will just be forgotten by the competent player or GM (the so-called "trap option").

This is a waste of company resources, space and man-hours -but that's a waste Paizo is allowed to make, given that Pathfinder is theirs and theirs alone. Obviously, while not every feat is going to work for every build (and that's perfectly fine), the very act of designing a feat or spell or class feature in a deliberately "imperfect" way ("We could've make it work better") baffles the buyer & reader, and leaves him frustrated.

Why?
Because, to be blunt, mechanically weak choices that encourage "mastery of the game" will achieve nothing, save to be deemed garbage by the skilled player. There is no escape, no alternative: since game designing material does not fall from the heavens, it really makes no sense for a company to -deliberately- provide trap options. None at all.

It really seems a cheap way to not admit mistakes, though.

Morieth wrote:

Ability scores of "-" are supposed to have an ability modifier of "0" should it come into play, as in the case of an undead barbarian Con's modifer to rage rounds.

Undead barbarians use their Charisma for Rage rounds.

pfsrd wrote:

No Constitution score. Undead use their Charisma score in place of their Constitution score when calculating hit points, Fortitude saves, and any special ability that relies on Constitution(such as when calculating a breath weapon’s DC).

Hope your barb didn't dump his charisma before getting turned into a mummy.

Yes, I'm quite adept at posting wrong rules lately. Oh, well...

Here, I found this: http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/SRD:Ability_Scores#Nonabilities

It's the old SRD, perhaps in Pathfinder things changed.
EDIT: Ninja'd.

I am away from the books, now, but I *think* you could find it either in the Core Rulebook under the Ability Score section OR in the Bestiary, somewhere.

Some undeads or constructs, perhaps, could be "reverse engineered" to calculate the modifier.

Ability scores of "-" are supposed to have an ability modifier of "0" should it come into play, as in the case of an undead barbarian Con's modifer to rage rounds.

I don't think you get to add your finesse bonus (or strenght, or whatever) on top of your CMB. You add your weapon bonus, sure, like a magic weapon or weapon focus.

Agile Manouver lets you use Dexterity instead of Strenght when calculating your CMB.

Every player wants to feel a badass. Some would cackle with glee at the idea of using an extremely optimized grapple-focused monk against casters. Others would have wet dreams at the idea of grappling a t-rex or an iron golem on equal grounds.

Some players get to "feel badass" by defeating enemies that they percieve as "strong", others do by bullying enemies that they percieve as "weak".

Umbral Reaver wrote:

Next up, clerics of Norgorber with the Sun domain! They believe Norgorber's not really secretive. He's just shy and is really pretty and glowing bright but afraid to show it!

Sun domain isn't so outrageous for Norgorber. Probably not common, but by no means unreasonable. Light can blind as well as it can illuminate.

Since Norgorber is the god of assassination, why couldn't a sect of his church focus on the assassination of undead individuals? I can easily these clerics being granted the sun domain. Along the same lines, what about a sun-domain cleric of Norgorber that works as an exorcist? Banishing ghosts and haunts to ensure that the dead never share their secrets with the living. Sounds pretty Norgorbery to me.

Now that I think about it, Norgorber's holy symbol even includes a sort of sunburst shape over the left eye.

There was a feat in 3.5, "Heretic of the Faith", which granted you the same ability as the Separatist.

Only that you had to somehow justify your choice with the GM.
Oh, and if you died your soul was condemned to oblivion.
With those two restrictions, that was probably one of the best feats I ever laid eyes on.

I think nobody ever said that spellbooks should always be targeted but, yes, this pretty much sums it up for me.

Morieth wrote:

1- Scrolls. Evil one wants a spell, he handles the scroll to the wizard and says "cast". He obviously does not gives away offensive or potentially harmful spells.

2- Wands. As above.
3- Staves. as above, with the added bonus of a possible higher caster level.
4- Generic magic object. "I want to use this crystal ball to spy on my enemies, but cannot do so myself. Wizard, do it!"
4- A different spellbook (things are getting interesting): the evil guy handles the wizard another spellbook with, say, a few selected spells necessary for the work to be done (no flesh to stone). I don't know if this is possible in Pathfinder, but under 3.5 I remember there were rules for a wizard "attuning" and being able to prepare spells from spellbok he did not wrote.
4b- (alternatively) Evil guy handles wizard scrolls and a blank book. "Scribe them, prepare them and cast them when I say so"
Bonus- Wizard is surrounded by enemies while casting, one funny move and he's dead.

Oh, yes.

The enemy has some scrolls, wands or staffs of the spells he needs, and the only possibility to use them is to ask to his enemy. Because the character is the only wizard in the world. But the Rogue knows how magic works nonetheless. That makes sense.

Or the rogue has a spellbook with exactly the spells he need and nothing more, but he doesn't know any wizard - it's just a spellbook he found by chance, and which happens to contains exactly the spells he needs. That makes sense.

Memorizing a spell from a different spellbook require a roll. "Sorry Mr Rogue, I failed to memorize the spells from this book; can i have my spellbook?". The same can be said if the rogue gives a scroll and a blank book: "Sorry Mr Rogue, I failed to comprehend this spell. but i'm sure if I kill each of your minions, I'll gain a level and will be able to try again". And the same can be said for crafting item: "oh, it's a cursed item? Maybe it's because I didn't meet the prerequisites..."

Again you are taking my general examples and making them specific, inverting cause/effect and filling the blanks with lots of arbitrary assumptions such as "the rogue", "ask his enemy", "the spell he needs" in a "spellbook found by chance" and the like.

It's cool, it's cool. You clearly can't see what I was trying to say (especially the part about playing NPCs efficiently), it's probably due to some differences between our gaming style. No point in arguing any further.

Rogue: I have stolen your spellbook! cast a spell for me!
Wizard: OK, but I need my spellbook to prepare the spell.
Rogue: OK, I give your spellbook back.
Wizard: flesh to stone.

Rogue: I have stolen your spellbook! Construct a magical item for me.
Wizard: OK, but I need my spellbook to craft an item; look, a spell is in the requirements.
Rogue: OK, I give your spellbook back.
Wizard: flesh to stone.

Rogue: I have stolen your spellbook! Go on a quest for me.
Wizard: OK, but I need my spellbook to accomplish the quest, because without it, I'm just a commoner.
Rogue: OK, I give your spellbook back.
Wizard: flesh to stone.

Please.

(And, if I remember correctly, in PF rules you are no longer required to know or having prepared a spell listed as "prerequisite" to create a magic item, it just raises the Craft DC.)

Mind you, all of these are pretty specific scenarios and unlikely to ever happen in a standard campaign.
But, when they happen, please try to think from the NPC's point of view and be more efficient as possible, instead of trying to prove something does not work by making it not working.

Quote:

Closely related to the "blackmail" scenario is the situation in which one character (or the whole party) falls on his knees and begs for mercy instead of being killed. Sure, maybe goblins are so dumb and cruel to either accept with glee their new 6th level wizard slave or slay him outright, but perhaps a balor or a red great wyrm can be far more cunning than that, and ask for a "token of submission".

In this kind of situation, I can as well be killed; therefore I will use my resources to prevent this kind of situation from happening instead of protecting my spellbook, because I'd rather prevent situation that get me killed.

Anyway, this kind of situation is a practical TPK. As in "you weren't strong enough to escape from the opponents with your stuff, do you think you'll be able to escape without it?"

Yes, absolutely. As before, this are not things likely to happen in 7 out of 10 campaigns -but TPK do happen, and I've had my share of players willing to switch sides and surrender instead of seing their characters killed and ending the campaign. I even remember it was in a book, somewhere, as an advice for GMs to have enemies offer surrenders in case of a TPK. Not only it can be an interesting RP opportunity, but it rewards player who plan for certain situations (defeat) with cunning.

What I'm saying is: if the GM goes out of his way to enforce ANY of these scenarios on the PC, then yes, he is being a dick.
But, if and when such situations arise by their own, let them be.

We're still not talking about some random pickpocket

This.

A wizard's spellbook can be targeted for theft for a number of different reason. Granted, "to sell it for cash" is clearly the least profitable.

It can be used for blackmail, for example: steal it to force the wizard to comply with some strange request (craft me a golem, go slay my rival, enchant my weapon, cast some spells for me). And, before you even mention it: yes, this angers the wizard and no, this does not mean that he will sudden mobilize half of his resources and friends to lay certain death on who stole the spellbook. That's revenge, and not all characters are keen to go such lengths: perhaps the wizard is a traveling adventurer with no time to lose, perhaps he is famous for being a NG pacifist-wussy, perhaps he is an enchanter blackmailed by undeads, perhaps the "evil guy" is a reasonable person far more powerful than the wizard. Call it "kindapping", evil guys do it most of the time -only that instead of kidnapping a disciple, a son or an old friend you are kidnapping an object.

Another way a wizard might lose his spellbook is if it's "checked at the door" while entering some dangerous area. Going to jail? Entering the demiplane of a powerful lich asking for "parley"? Travelling through a big, xenophobic metropolis who hates tieflings (and you are one)? Being part of a neutral-aligned adventuring party and asking for permission to enter some LG outer plane? A fighter will be "asked" to part with his weapons, a cleric with his holy symbol and a wizard with his spellbook. Pretty simple. Not all characters will comply, sure, but in those situations such a request is not a "dick move"

Closely related to the "blakmail" scenario is the situation in which one character (or the whole party) falls on his knees and begs for mercy instead of being killed. Sure, maybe goblins are so dumb and cruel to either accept with glee their new 6th level wizard slave or slay him outright, but perhaps a balor or a red great wyrm can be far more cunning than that, and ask for a "token of submission".
Fighter? Hand over that weapon (all the weapons, on second though).
Cleric? Hand me that holy symbol.
Wizard? Give me your spellbook.

If there is a sound, in-game/in-character reason for some NPC to -try- to go after a wizard's spellbook (or a fighter's +10 weapon or a cleric's holy symbol), I don't get why an GM shouldn't let that NPC -try- to get it.
Of course, whether the NPC actually -succeeds- or not depends on the PC and his plans for such an occasion.

Then it is agreed that in a simulationist game, targeting a spellbook is not a dick move -since it requires a sound reason on the GM's part, and the player can have plans, contingencies and protections that could thwart the attempt?

This, good sir Ciretose, is pure gold -it should be assumed to be "adventuring standard" and included in both the gamemastery guide and the core rulebook.

Considering the option to play a cleric of a philosophy or other off-base religion [...] why would anyone ever player a cleric of the Separatist archetype?

Roleplaying, perhaps?

Oh boy, here we go again.

ciretose wrote:

Open Steppe is a ranged combat player's wet dream. That is hardly neutral, and considering the CR is set up assuming you find the Dragon in his environment and the dragon is ambushing,

Says you.

Oh, come on.

Thank you very much. A great part of my confusion was cause by the grappling rules making a difference between the grappler-attacker and the grappler-defender, despite the rules using the same term "grappled" for both, and having a whole paragraph named "if you are grappled".

So: the attacker can let the defender go at any time, gets a +5 bonus on the CMB roll and can only perform one attack, while the defender can perform a full attack action? Is this right?

Happened in a gaming session: a Pit Fiend has a tail attack with Grab. That means he can start a grapple manouver after a successful tail attack.

Now: what I can't find anywhere is IF the pit fiend can still perform a full attack action while grapped. The rules say that grappling itself is a standard action, and that mantaining the grapple can also inflict damage with a natural attack -so I'd say no.
But, at the same time, I've read in an errata that "a monk may flurry while grappling", and also the Pathfinder SRD says "A grappled creature can still make a full attack". Does that refer to the defender (grappled) instead of the attacker (grapling), and the flurry thing is a special monk bonus?

Long story short: can a Pit Fiend attack with its tail, grapple successfully and, on following rounds (or even the same), unleash a full attack on its grappled foe while at the same time rolling to mantain the grapple?

Morieth wrote:

You describe one of your melee attacks like: "I swing at the evil cleric -real- hard, raising my axe above my head, shifting my grip, muscles bulging, and using it's downward momentum to crush the heretic's skull ."

Your GM warns you that you cannot do that, because you didn't take Power Attack as a feat.

Is that a reasonable statement?

Your GM tells you that you cannot describe your actions in that manner. Unreasonable.

Your GM tells you that you cannot gain any mechanical advantage (say by sacrificing your bonus to attack to gain a greater bonus to damage) because you don't possess the feat. Very Reasonable.

Then we agree.

These are feats that I have used effectively (recently, in fact), but fall far short of what I would call "Optimal". Yes, I could just say, "I slip into the shadows at the edge of the cavern, as the distraction of my larger companions pulls the attention of the evil cleric." To which my GM may or may not respond, "No, he's seen you. He's aware of you despite being flat-footed." The Go Unnoticed feat sets or alters the game mechanics, just as Power Attack does.

And I agree again: one takes feats such as that -because- they alter the game mechanics. Not because they make for good RP, "allowing" you to describe your Stealth check in that way; you can already do that.

MicMan wrote:

ProfessorCirno wrote:

Protip: playing a bad character doesn't make you better at roleplaying.

qft - but you might use a sub optimal (non optimzed) character because you want your character to portray your roleplaying concept correctly - and there are many steps between bad (as in unusable) and optimized.

I would say that in the ideal "perfect" game, there is no such thing as a sub optimal concept so long as it lies within the system's capabilities.

Note however that I'm specific to say sub optimal concept, so as it lies beyond the system itself ;)

That is to say, "mobile duel wielder with some magic" should ideally not only be doable but that it would be possible to make an "optimal mobile dual wielder with some magic," (to a degree of "with some magic" admittingly) whereas "A fighter that uses wisdom to attack and wields two battle axes and casts wizard spells" is, perhaps, a bit too specific ;)

True, but then it gets circular in defining what doesn't lie "beyond the system itself" :)

As long as the concept itself does not require something incredibly silly or immersion-breaking, overpowered, or that goes against some of the system's established rules... I'm with you, that's one of the beautiful things about d20: so much content, you're going to find what you want eventually.

I'm not certain that your premise is sound.

Are the feats power attack, dodge, weapon finesse, [substitute any other benchmark feat], etc. "non-roleplaying" or "purely mechanical" feats merely because they are mechanically effective?

Vow of Poverty is a useful target because it is the extreme role-play-by-mechanical-inferiority-example. But, it might improve your argument to use examples outside of the "extremes".

To answer your question: no, they are not "non-roleplaying" feats -because- they are mechanically-effective feats. That's the opposite of what I was actually saying: two sides, game and roleplay; you do not need to suck at one to excel at the other, and most certainly excelling at one does not lead to a direct failure in the other area. VoP is a perfect example of -that- line of thinking, not mine, because it was deliberately made "mechanically-weak" option in order to be a "roleplaying-strong" option.

An example of my "two sides" theory:

You describe one of your melee attacks like: "I swing at the evil cleric -real- hard, raising my axe above my head, shifting my grip, muscles bulging, and using it's downward momentum to crush the heretic's skull ."
Your GM warns you that you cannot do that, because you didn't take Power Attack as a feat.

Is that a reasonable statement?

"Why not" to my question "Why would I want it"? Because, as far as I remember, it is a feat. If I'm wrong on this, then my whole argument in invalid and don't mind it.
There are lots of feats, and they are a limited resource to a player. I can ask "Why not?" to any feat I see from any book, but at the end of the day my character is going to have only a limited amount. So, back to my example: even given a monk that chooses to live a life of poverty, the player either weights his own decisions, trying to pick feats (which are a resource independent on roleplay) that "work", or he chooses them at random.

Edit: wow, my bad. Monk vows in Pathfinder do not require the expenditure of a feat. Dang, I was -so- sure of it... ok, leaving the feat expenditure aside, I have absolutely nothing against Vow of Poverty. I will doublecheck the next time, what a fool.

Yes, but I can make a poor monk without that feat.
Why would I need VoP? Why would I -want- it? I shouldn't need a feat to say "I'm poor".
This is basically the point I'm trying to make: you don't need a feat to carry on some vision you have of you character. Then why make feats (or archetypes) that only serve such purpose?

Some game designers at Paizo have openly stated that they not want the game to be all about balance: that they want the player to be able to make "mechanically wrong" choices. One case, such as the Vow of Poverty, was openly stated to have been made deliberately "mechanically weak" for roleplaying reasons -for since it is a sacrifice, you shouldn't have something to gain from it.
I'd like to expand this concept a little. I'll try my best not to sound like a troll now (which I'm not or, at least, am not trying to be).

Pathfinder, or any other RPG, actually works on two different levels: the mechanic, and the flavor. The "mechanic" issue is inherent in the concept of a "game": players should be granted the ability to make choices; these choices should affect the outcome of the game; there should be good choices and bad choices, but the difference is not inherent and rather depending on the current and future game context, the player's previous and future strategy and his personal tastes.

The flavor level is a completely different matter, one more concerned with internal coherence, "dressing up" and narrating what happens on the mechanic level. For instance, a ray spell that hits but fails to overcome SR can be described as being dispelled by the enemy with a casual hand wave, a quick snarl or stare; it could be done in a dozen of different ways, which do not enter or even make contact with the game mechanic (and a good GM makes sure that his players do not misunderstand what he's narrating and go think the bad guy is counterspelling, which is an entirely different scenario).

The two levels -are- separate. The RPG experience treats them that way by it's own nature (roleplaying / game); in most games I know of, characters don't get to "do [something important]" by simply describing "I do [something important]": sometimes there's randomness involved, sometimes it's as simple as comparing two values and seeing which one is higher and sometimes it requires the GM to value the action a number of "story points" that the character can or can not spend. "I seduce the maid" might suffice if the game does not possess a detailed romance mechanic; "I kill the dragon" might work in a game more concerned with intrigue and politics, with incredibly detailed social combat rules. The concept is the same: RP choice > mechanical decision > mechanical outcome > RP consequence. There is no jump from RP choice to RP consequence for things that represent the core of the game.

When a game designer creates a generic mechanical element (feat or archetype) that is, by its own design, a bad mechanical choice but a great RP choice, he's making the mistake of mixing the two levels. On this matter, I preset you with this. The idea is interesting. It certainly is flavorful. It -will- open up many interesting roleplay scenarios. It's

Requiring the expenditure of a mechanical-level resource (feat slot, class levels, gold pieces) to make a good RP-level choice leaves a balanced player with only one side to pick: do I play the game, and make an inherently good game choice, or do I play the role, and make an inherently wrong game choice? Most RPGs are a collaborative effort, and other players may become frustrated at the roleplayer's Halfling Wizard with 20 points in Dexterity and an Intelligence of 3: an exaggeration, of course, but why not?

You see, that's a choice. You are entitled to make choices in a game. You are even entitled to make terrible choices in a game. Playing a Wizard that cannot cast spells, and that probably never will, is your right. It's part of the game.
But if you make a choice -that- bad, you are also deliberately choosing to fail at the "game": that does not make you a better roleplayer. That does not say anything about your skills at roleplaying at all; it just says that you either do not understand the game-level, or do not care.

If that's your choice.
What if it was a condition forced on you by a game design philosophy, "You must make a choice between the game and the roleplay, excelling in one will spell doom on the other"?

I am not preoccupied about using or not using certain troublesome classes, feats or archetypes; I am more concerned about their creation process: since game designing material does not spring forth from raw chaos, but it's rather a product of human intellect and attention, this makes me believe that Paizo really wants to keep the mechanical-level and the RP-level mutually exclusive.

I see this as a contradictory position, that can only lead to more RP feat-taxes and sub-par archetypes, much to balanced player's frustration. There are houserules, sure, but I really wonder where this company is going...

Merkatz wrote:

but actually really suck when you get a good look at them?

Explain to me how are you able to determine if something sucks by just looking at the stat block, instead than trying it in a actual game situation and not a theoretical one.

A feat that gives you a -10 penalty to all ability scores pretty much sucks.

No, seriously: probably the same way a game designer does. With a lot of experience, and mental experiments.

Well, figuring out the right tactics to use should be the player's job. Let him come up with how to play his own class. I still don't see the need of putting a disclaimer "THIS ARCHETYPE PLAYS DIFFERENTLY", followed by a short "how to" guide. Tips and strategies have their own places, namely, the Advice section of this very board.

It also helps to avoid those strange terms like "underpowered".

In relation to some player's expectations? Yes.
In relation to its intent as a sniper? Perhaps.