Muse.'s page

ok - let's stand this on it's head a bit...

Picture a starting band of PCs - all 1st level, organizing to go on their first adventure, and "an adventuring band (of halflings) pass through town"...

"Yeah kid, we picked this stuff off some orc bandits that jumped us. You can have your pick of it, to heavy for us to be dragging around and way to big - it'd fit you though I'm guessing. If you've got access to the spell Prestidigitation you might need it to get this stuff in shape to use, what with the blood stains and orc sweat..."

And after the "real adventurers" head out on their "quest to save the world" the PCs discover a map in the lining on a wooden shield that once belonged to the bandit leader...

so...
If a Cleric/Wizard/Medium were to have Light as each of her three classes...

it sounds like posters are saying that if she has cast the Divine version of the spell (as a Cleric), and has it active, she can't cast the Arcane or Psychic versions

...

You know what? I think I would allow it.- but that is just IMHO

to this leads to the question...

If she were to cast the spell from a Spell Completion item (a scroll) would she be able to cast it again, from another scroll? How about one Arcane and once from a Divine scroll?

How about from a Spell Trigger item (a wand)? does she count as the caster (and thus limited to just one active at a time) or does the wand (which supplies the CL and the Save DC)?

Old story - from long ago, and actually, we didn't roleplay out of the combat... but it's kind of along this line...

My bard/linguist - used to communicate with the intelligent creatures summoned by someone else...

PC #1 to newly summoned earth elemental: "so, Rocky, we meet again?!"

Rocky: "Ha! You again?! What is dis, like 2 times this week?" Takes swing, misses...

PC #1: "Yeah, we've been busy lately." Uses a wand to cast Prot. Evil, "And how's your lady? and the little one... Chip isn't it?"

Rocky: "You still got dat wand t'ing? T'aught iddud be use't up by now... Chip's doing ok, starting up his own Rock Band!" moves on to attack another PC.

PC #1: "Hay! that's great! always good to have an artist in the family." glances down at wand in hand, and following Rocky to the next PC to tap him with the wand, "Well, it does come with 50 charges - and I don't get much use out of it any more, what with moving on to Year of the Serpent and not so much World Wound stuff..."

PC #2: "Dang it! Would you stop chatting up everything we meet?! That's the problem with having a Exchange Linguist Bard in the group... changing every good fight into a 'diplomacy encounter'... "

Rocky: "sheesh, w'at's wid dis guy? 'E's way to serious!"

Neither the text nor the effect line says that you get 1 raft + 1 every 2 levels....

"The smallest raft created by the spell is roughly 5 feet square, increasing by an additional 5 feet square for every 2 caster levels you possess."

IMHO, that says the caster would get a raft at CL1, plus "an additional 5 feet square for every 2 caster levels you possess." or 1+1 at CL2, and 1+2 at CL4...

I mean, I would write that as 1 + 1 for every 2 caster levels or 1 + 1/2CL

But I guess I just don't understand it...

SO... yeah, "...reading the full description of the spell, this thing is a hot mess..." thank you! I agree...

then there is also the option of

Number of 5' sections = 1 section plus an additional section per 2 caster levels

Section Compacity = each section can carry 2 medium persons/300 lbs of stuff -

this means that if you get a heavy dude with lots of stuff, maybe he needs a section by himself (maybe more than one? 200 lb. half orc carrying 150 lbs of stuff would need more than one section...), but if you get a couple of wizard types (98lbs each, straining under the 20 lbs of adventuring gear they each carry) they can both ride on one...

It also means that a 4th level caster can likely create a raft able to transport the adventuring party (total of 900 lbs? up to 6 PCs?)

NOW - who can guide the raft? does the caster need to be on it at all times? or can you cast it, set it on it's way and let someone else drive? even if you get off?

The idea is, it's always big enough for the caster. That is where the base 1 5' square comes in. For every 2 levels, you get space for one more passenger - so you add one more 5' square. I don't understand what your player is arguing for or why, really. They want less space on their raft?

Let's see if I can walk you thru the issue the player had.

The party of 6 adventurers need to cross a large body of water. They have a 7th level Ranger (who has a Caster Level of 4) and a 7th level Cleric (CL 7).

Each 5' section of a raft can carry 2 persons (or 300 lbs of cargo)...

Does the Ranger create 3 sections or only 2? Can the Rangers raft carry all 6 party members (3 sections) or only 4 (2 sections)?

The answer to the above question determines if the Cleric needs to instead use a 2nd level spell to create the raft, as her Caster Level is large enough that she is able to create one more section than the ranger, but at a cost of a higher level spell (that could be used later).

There are other complications in this situation (as there always are) but I think that is the core of the Issue. Do they need to use the Clerics 2nd level casting or can they get by with the Rangers 1st level version of the spell?

(yeah, and more than one of the players were trying to remember the riddle with the farmer, the chicken and the bag of corn trying to cross a stream with only enough room for... and then the barbarian states that the farmer should kill the chicken for dinner, make whisky from the corn and take up adventuring! ARRRG! - clearly, this is a Pathfinder game alright. Can't stay on topic...)

Wait... the last two posters have pointed out an error on my part (maybe).

how many creatures can be carried on the raft created by a caster? the write up says "Each 5-foot section of the raft can carry two Medium passengers or 300 pounds of cargo".

I think that seems to be saying that each of the raft sections could carry two Medium creatures... so, if you have a party of 4 medium adventurers, you will need a raft of at least 2 squares.

but it looks like Ian Bell and bbangerter are saying that a raft of 2 squares could only carry 3 creatures (The Caster plus 2 passengers)
... is that correct?

Quote:

The smallest raft created by the spell is roughly 5 feet square,

The smallest size is always 5'.

Quote:

...increasing by an additional 5 feet square for every 2 caster levels you possess.

For every two caster levels increase the size by another 5'.

What Diego is referring to as a base is that some spells says something like "For every 2 levels beyond 7th do something". Caster level 7 in this example would be the base. So the formula for additional effects would be (Current_Caster_Level - 7) / 2

The flotsam vessel spell you are asking about does not have that wording, so its "base" is effectively 0. So the above formula becomes (Current_Caster_Level - 0) / 2. Which simplifies to Current_Caster_Level / 2.

But the spell also tells us you get 1 square. Additional squares beyond the first are added dependent on caster level.

So answer A in your last post. Or in other words, the exact formula (given the wording on this spell) is 1 + (Current_Caster_Level / 2).

First of all, thanks for taking the time to walk me thru this...

now - I need to say that in the past your explanation above is what I have ruled as the GM, and is what my current ruling is... but in my last game this came up again with one player sticking to what they understood the Effect line as saying... that is "raft large enough for caster and one passenger/2 levels", which seems to indicate that the number of squares created would be CL/2, with no starting square that the additional squares are added to. in other words "CL/2" and not "1+CL/2).

is this a conflict in the spell write-up? where the Description gives one formula (1+CL/2) and the Effect line gives a different one (CL/2)? and in most cases of conflict between the Parameter lines and the Description, we normally go with the Effect Line. That's at the core of the players issue...

ok - I understood your response all the way up to the last line - which seems to be in conflict with the rest of the reply.

"In this instance there is no base,..." does this mean there is no first square? and thus the calculation is CL/2 instead of 1 + CL/2?

so, does the two example casters calculations work like this?

Fourth Caster Level caster

a) "...5 feet square, increasing by an additional 5 feet square for every 2 caster levels..." thus 1+2 squares

b) "raft large enough for caster and one passenger/2 levels" thus 2 squares

And what do we do when the Caster Level is an odd number, thus giving a ".5" result? Normally I would think this would be rounded down, but in the case of a Caster Level of 1 (which a 4th level Ranger would be) that would result in zero squares... is this a problem?

Again, thanks for your help - and as often happens when someone solves a problem, they get more problems to solve!

SO, here's another question on Hanspur's Flotsam Vessel.

the Effect line says: "raft large enough for caster and one passenger/2 levels"
but the description says: "The smallest raft created by the spell is roughly 5 feet square, increasing by an additional 5 feet square for every 2 caster levels you possess."

now... how big is the raft created from the following casters?

a 4th level Cleric (CL4)- 3 squares? or 2 squares?
a 4th level Ranger (CL1)- 1 square? or 1/2 square?

and I thank you!

a 30 foot move it is then.

the spell (Hanspur's Flotsam Vessel) write up says it "is always considered to be traveling downstream for purpose of calculating travel speed, regardless of its actual direction."

CRB gives the speed of a raft as 1/2 mile per hour, plus "If going downsteam add the speed of the current (typically 3 miles per hour) to the speed of the vehicle."

SO - would this give a Flotsam Vessel a speed of 3.5 miles per hour? What does that translate to on a tactical grid map?

Has anyone actually figured this out before?

yeah - maybe 3 digits would be enough... looks like there were only about a hundred cells anyway...

I would actually consider the need to track each prisoner uniquely, so that when someone showed up and said "The Grand Duke wants the man in the Iron Mask... is he still alive?" - the Warden would be able to turn to the Clerk and say "Prisoner #643?" and have the Clerk respond "Died thirteen years ago sir! Buried in an unmarked grave in area B-14." and not have to worry if there is a Different Prisoner #643. Kind of like serial numbers for soldiers. Don't reuse them just because someone died/retired...

and maybe the Prisoner Numbers would contain coded information, like :
the year they arrived,
their "rank" (Major Crime, Political Crime, Possible to be Released)
their release date if they are on a time sentence
or other info.

But yeah...

As to numbers of brands... just use a set of movable type like an old style printer. Change out the numbers between prisoners... they'd need a few "irons" to heat up, and it would take a wait between sets of prisoners, but that would add to the horror of the moment right? Having to wait around while the Iron is "set", then heated...

I actually made a modification on the scars from the Branding Room, and I'd like other persons opinion on the creepy factor.

If examined closely, a person can just make out a number in the brand - each of the scars gives a different number (Last time I did a 3 digit number, but when I do it again, I think I'll make it a 4 digit - more prisoners).

Research using the records from The Offices (S3) turns up the Prisoner numbers/names associated with those numbers, and the last time I ran this I just used random numbers, but this time I think I am either going to use numbers for the Big Five prisoners, or else have the PCs discover their own names in the Prison Records... I'm not sure which...

I second Sandal Fury's suggestions...

First time I ran this AP I had a player who ran a Paladin of Iomedai who decided that Nodachi was the best weapon - even after I pointed out that Iomedai weapon was a longsword... sigh. He had such problems improving his primary weapon...

In my current campaign, the primary fighter type has decided that he wants to go with an Estoc... Weapon Focus as one of his starting feats and all that. Sigh... yeah. I can foresee many of the same issues ahead in this run of the AP...

Best run I had was the player whose marshal character didn't settle on a weapon selection until level 7 or 8, and then did like you are here and asked the GM (me) for suggestions... For his first 7 levels he used whatever good weapon he could salvage during the adventure - switching off as they advanced in level - once in the middle of a fight.

Ryze Kuja wrote:

Yeah, Language barriers become moot as soon as you get your first Wand of Comprehend Languages /shrug.

Ugh, Don't remind me lol, that's a big pet peeve of mine. Ancient forgotten language of past era that would involve a quest around figuring a way to translate it? Nope, we can't have those. Any 1st level adept can literally translate anything.

Sure there's way around it, but still. Anyway /rant.

Easy to understand someone else, hard to BE understood.

NPC "What business does an Elf, a Man, and a Dwarf have in the Riddermark? Speak quickly!"

PC#1 "Fine, this guy wants to know why we are on his land - so we just tell him that we're chasing the Orcs..."

PC#2 "Ah - anyone here speak his language?"

PC#3 "I got Black Speech and... Orc, Dwarf and Common."

PC#2 "I can add Elf and Troll... "

PC#1 Eyeing ring of lance tips - "I think we should skip most of those.... anyone good with hand jesters? Gimli, don't say anything!"

Comp. Lang works fine for reading old inscriptions, and maybe even for eavesdropping on the orcs, but ... not so good for actual two way communication.

PC#2 "No problemo! I got this, I'll just cast Share Language on this dude, so he can speak Common too... "

PC#1 Still eyeing the ring of lance tips - "Eh - maybe not. I'm not sure how kindly his friends will take you casting a spell on him and he suddenly develops the ability to speak something he couldn't just a few minutes ago..."

Languages in the real world are - different than in a PFS.

I have a friend who has two (adopted) Chinese daughters - neither of them speak Chinese (one only speaks English, the other maybe some Spanish?). Most people can tell at a glance what their ethnicity is (at least they can tell they are east Asian), but no one speaks to them in Chinese (at least not more than once or twice).

I have worked with a man who was half Russian and half Polish.... and could speak English and a little Spanish - but no Russian or Polish.

My wife speaks fluent Brazilian Portuguese (and American English) - but her parents are from Colorado and Mississippi. (She grew up in Brazil though...) Fluent in Portuguese means she can often understand someone who speaks Spanish...

I could easily see a PC who is a Qadiran half-orc who speaks Common and Kellish and not a word of Orc.... for that matter I could believe in a Talden Half-Elf that spoke only Common and nothing else....

Joke time!
What do you call a PC who speaks three languages?

answer:

What do you all a PC who speaks two languages?

answer:

What do you call a PC who speaks only one language?
answer:

...

I expect there are bits of bag to bear the spell in the burst remains of the T-bag.

this poses an interesting question then...

What part of a object is the spell thrown on? When an object (in this case a tanglefoot bag) "comes apart" - counting as destroyed - does a spell (silence in the original example) cast on it effect one or more of the component parts that result from destruction? What determines which part of the original object is the spells Target?

If we cast light on a stick, and then brake the stick in two, does one or both of the resulting "stick parts" have the light spell still active on it?

I guess this is the wrong area of the boards to ask this question, and that it should be referred to "Rules"... so I guess I'm not really looking for an answer here. Sorry.

What I would normally rule as the GM in this case would be to have the spell in question end when the Target it is cast on is destroyed (in the case of the tanglefoot bag that would be when it is thrown and "comes apart"). It is just simpler to end it rather than have progressively smaller and smaller component parts of the original target carrying the original spell.

(Though I do like the image of some Alchemist dissolving an everburning torch in acid, then distilling the Acid away, in order to create a free-floating Continual Flame spell that is cast on a "bit" of the original torch. Say a single hydrogen atom... that sheds light in a 20 foot radius...)

Hugo Rune wrote:

Light cast on someone's eyes to blind them.

IIRC, that was explicitly allowed in a previous edition of D&D, but it's not possible in Pathfinder.

I've seen silence cast on an arrow or crossbow bolt as a way of silencing a caster outside of the spell's range. Either shoot the caster (if you're confident about hitting, and want to do some damage at the same time) or at the caster's square.

encountered a BBE who cast it on a tanglefoot bag and then thru that at the caster...

these was some question about the fact that the T-bag actually still being an object that could have the spell cast on it after it hits and bursts - but it was in the scenario so we went with it...

Here are a dozen old spell "tricks"...

1) Mage Hand to double as detect magic

Player: "I use Mage Hand to pick up the items on the table..."
GM: "You can lift everything except the dagger..."
Player: "Got a magic dagger here people..."

2) Going to be fighting Harpies in your future? other sonic attacks? Buy a Potion of blindness/deafness, and Drink it. As the caster (drinker) you can dismiss the spell any time you want, and in the mean time you can't hear the Harpies (or anything else for that mater...).

3) Reduce Person to boost Stealth skills (+4 size bonus and +1 for the DX bump). The DX bump can also help with DX based skills (like Disable Device). if the target is small to begin with (Halfling or Gnome), use it to switch the skill "Climb" to a DX based skill, as Tiny creatures use DX to Climb

4) spider climb... to ride on the bottom of a flying carpet, while someone else uses the top.

5 Vanish... to let your prone friend stand up and get away from the monster without suffering AOOs.... works real well from a wand.

6. Light... used to signal timing on something. "Here's a light spell on a coin. Wait till the light goes out, then..." and when you are ready for her to do "it", cast the light again, and the first one goes out.

7. Create Water - useful for cleaning, and can expose some otherwise hard-to-find secrets entries/pits easily. Also useful for locating Invisible creatures (like packets of powder - YMMV), and putting fires out. Cast it a bunch and flood a room - but come back the next day and it's all gone!

8. Detect spells used thru doors and walls less than 1' thick stone. Does the room on the other side of the door contain undead/magic/evil/marmots (ok, maybe not marmots...)

9. Ray of Frost - Frosted mugs in the local tavern. Ice in your drink... Need to move something heavy? Splash water on the floor and zap! some into an Ice slide to make it easier to slide.

10. Disrupt Undead - Is that body across the way a undead creature? Pling it from here and see.

11. message - order drinks from across a (loud!) tavern...

12. Prestidigitation - SO MANY USES! No one can ever call you, or your willing allies, dirty again. And, like many illusion spells, only limited by the user's imagination. Need to keep your friends from

My wife often runs arcane casters, and she's fond of unusual tactics with invisibility

Picture this:
A rogue in the front of the party listening at a door hears something, so my wife slides her Sorcerer forward and says "be sure to act surprised!" and casts invisibility on the door. Says to the judge "Our light shines into the room, while we look surprised, what do we see? do we have to make a bluff check?"

I'm hoping she does this sometime to a caster who drops a fireball on us... that blows up on the invisible door. She has had a Mook charge us... into the door. Her comment was "that's gonna leave a mark!" we never did find out if she meant on the door or the mook...

Not sure why, but this topic reminds me of this Monty Python skit...

"People called 'Romanes' they go the house..

Okay, Old Story time again.... (yeah, I'm bored at work again)...
One of the advantages of playing in PFS is the fact that you often play different players in the group - so you get to tell your jokes more than once and can polish them up so they sound great.

And I've pulled this scene several times now, with different PCs even...

In a scenario with a "local thug" encounter, where the PCs are confronted by "hired thugs" intended to warn them off of their research/drive them out of town/stop doing an investigation/ or whatever, we capture several of the thugs and are questioning them.

I'm not the kind of person who enjoys RPing Intimidate Checks, so I might do the Monty Python Spanish Inquisition "poke him with the sof cushion" for my Initiate skill, but if the judge has run several scenarios for some of me before, and knows how my PC deals with captured Mooks... he knows how my PC likes to handle the "Gather Information from the Thugs" checks (we often have several "new" Players in the group though). So the "interviews" go something like this....

Me in Character voice: "So Mook, we meet again!"
Judge in "Mook voice" as Mook #417: "Yeah, if'n I'd knowed it was yous, I might not've takkan dis job".
Me in PC voice: "and how's the wife? and the little mooks? three isn't it?"
Mook #417: "same oh-same oh, off visitin' her mum again in Durma, and the lil ones is growin' like weeds..."
Me: glancing at the other mooks - stabilized and waiting their turn "So, does the local Thugs Union have ok Medical benefits? Looks like you guys will need it. Wait, you're Rent-A-Thug aren't you?"
Mook #417: "Not w'at it used ta be I tell ya, w'at wit da cut backs and all. Eco'nam'c downturn day say... Had to switch over to Thugs-are-Us 'cause ah da co-pays and stuff."
Me: "Tell ya what Mook, I'll pop for a couple charges off my happy stick again when we're done here..."
Mook #417: "Hay, you're all ri't! T'anks!"
Me: "No problem! Least I can do. Now, about the guy who hired you..."

All this while the other players just watched. After all, I said when I sat down at the table that my guy was the "Face"...

Often, when I note to the judge that I was marking off a wand charge for each of the Mooks, one of the other players also offers to chip in on the healing... "heck, they put up a good fight for Mooks! I wouldn't mind working with them again!"

And another funny story... (and here's the set up...

My wife runs a Pregnant Cleric (she says she's about 6 months along and that explains the DEX of 8) - and at the start of a fight her first action is to cast bless. You see, we were trying to NOT start the fight, and had been practicing non-aggression etc. and it seemed like a non-threatening spell to her... but the BBE responds by casting a create pit spell on her. She rolled a nat 20 Reflex and avoided it (her Reflex was +2 or something).

The cleric responded by casting blindness on him, and someone else hit him with a 1 minute deafened effect (thunder stone) - and things went down hill from there for him... anyway, after the fight, the captured thug is trying to talk his way out of being captured, saying that we should remove the blindness and free him 'cause we had "started it all!". My PC responds that not only had one of his guards drawn the first weapon (and first blood) HE had tried to throw a pregnant lady in a PIT! This got the judge to respond in character "She was Pregnant? I thought she was just fat!"

0.0

My response..."wow dude, I think your chances of getting that blindness spell turned off just went down."

Muse. wrote:

In Pathfinder, it seems to me that magic is about as common as Electronics are in the real world... "At Will" use of zero level spells and so many "people" have spell casting levels.

So, when a group of adventurers walk down the street, what to the townsfolk notice?

PC 1: A Tiefling rogue dressed in eastern armor (a style mainly found half a world away on a different continent) with light weapons.

PC 2: A Gnome Druid, in armor of hides, riding a Tiger.

PC 3: A human Wizard, in robes - with an Ioun stone circling his head.

PC 4: A Dwarven Fighter, in shiny full plate with a glave in hand and a loaded crossbow on his back.

PC 5: A Half-Elven Bard, in flashy clothing and carrying a lute.

NOW... one of these persons stops in the middle of the street, raises his right hand, waves it around and says something in an unknown language...

Guard: "I'm afraid I'll have to ask you to accompany me to the station for questioning."

Wizard: "Why are you picking on me? Why not him?"
Guard: "No law against being a tiefling, or wearing fancy armor."
Wizard: "Or him? He's got a loaded crossbow!"
Guard: "And the minute he starts firing it off in a public space, we'll take him in too."
Wizard: "Or the gnome with the tiger?"
Guard: "Anyone who can persuade a tiger to let him ride on its back is probably able to stop it eating people too."
Wizard: "It was a harmless spell!"
Guard: "Possibly, possibly. If you need to do your magic in town for some reason, you can do it in front of our local cleric. He's a spellcraft expert and will be able to identify whether you're casting a healing spell or a mind control spell. Or you can apply for a spellcasting licence, but those are hard to get unless you're already a respected citizen..."
Wizard: "But I'm a Wizard! It's my job! Would you arrest a Fighter for fighting people? Arrest a Thief for stealing stuff? Arrest an Assassin for murdering people?"
Guard: "Oh, and we'll be taking the Bard in too. We don't like luters around here."

just curious - why did you assume it was the Wizard who cast a spell?

"one of these persons stops in the middle of the street, raises his right hand, waves it around and says something in an unknown language..."

In PFS, could easily have been any of them...

Muse. wrote:

old guy wheels his chair back to his room to ponder the simpler days gone by...and wonder how long it will be before we can run Undead PCs...

I think if you phrase it like that it's not hard to see why people might consider letting traditional enemies into the PC Club.

thank you! you brought a smile to my old heart...

in the past 40+ years I have run games where some of the players ran Androids, Bugbears, Brown Bears (Reincarnated human), Cats (tigers & house cats), Cyborgs, Drow, Dragons, "Dirty Mutant Commies" (Paranoia), Ents, Ghosts, Houses (Haunted), (Cursed, and non-cursed) Intelligent magic items, Jermlaine, Kobolds, "Little People", Mutant Animals, Mutant Plants, Mutant humans (Metamorphosis Alpha and Gamma World), Nazis, Paladins, Trolls (RQ), Giants, Hivemind members (human and non-human based),... Clockwork Men (like Tik-Tok from Oz), Droids, Mushroom Men, ... ah... Republicans? and ... goodness... Minor gods?... and a bunch of other stuff that slips my mind right now. Oh! and "a synthetic intelligence (AI) in the Internet with Delusions of Reality" (TORG - it thought it was just a character an online Role Playing Simulation game...)...

LOL! no, not all at once - Though TORG came close to that as we had several of the stranger ones in it. Stone Age Lizardmen PCs run alongside Cybernetic Knights Templar... with a couple Comic Book Heroes thrown in for fun!

Running in a game with Monstrous Races? Heck, I could see a Pathfinder game based in Geb where the "Token Human" in the party had to register with the Authorities every week just to stay legal. Humans are after all the most monstrous of all creatures...

Claxon wrote:

I mean, were you told in advance that Animate Dead could be used in this setting to animate zombies that weren't evil and weren't trying to constantly eat the living?

Cause if not then in my opinion the DM was playing "gotcha!" and that's pretty uncool.

Otherwise you would assume due to the game mechanics, that the zombie is evil and going to eat the child.

Agreed. Even if I want settings where you can be a non-Evil zombie, players need to know it's a thing even if characters don't.

actually, that particular story was from way back when 1st Ed. AD&D was the game in town, and Zombies were neutral... from back before Piazo and... sigh.

"Long ago, before THAC0, when Druids were a monster (like orcs and goblins and gnolls and... other creatures) that worked with or where EVIL, and therefore where killed on sight. Anyone actually working with them was an EVIL creature and Paladins and Right Minded Persons would fight them... and the world was a simpler place.

"Then we let a few of them into polite society - after all the argument went, they are NEUTRAL (which was a "new" alignment then. There was GOOD and EVIL and suddenly NEUTRAL), so we let them into "civilization" and soon Players could actually create Druid PCs and all was Good with the world again and life was simpler... After all, we still have evil Orcs and Goblins and... stuff to fight!

"Then we let a few of them Half-Orcs into polite society, into 'civilization' and soon it came to pass that Players could actually create Half-Orc PCs, and joined the adventuring party...

"But that was OK, after all, Goblins and Gnolls were still EVIL and 'Paladins and Right Minded Persons would fight them... and the world was a simpler place....'.

"But you know I worry that the next thing you know, we'll be letting Players create Goblin PCs and we'll have to let them into polite society too, along with the Half-Orcs and Druids ... into 'civilization' and Players will actually create ... wait... wow...

Nevermind... I'll just move on now...

old guy wheels his chair back to his room to ponder the simpler days gone by...and wonder how long it will be before we can run Undead PCs...

I remember playing in a home game where there was a little mountain country (picture Tibet) where it was common practice to Animate Dead on your ancestors. A party of adventurers, on arriving in town found a Zombie chasing children is a fenced in yard. And did what adventurers do, only to be arrested for chopping up "Great Aunt Magrat". And then sued. They had to pay to have her put back together and pay for the trauma caused to the children who had been playing Zombie Tag with her. Real culture shock. Different cultures, different customs.

And everyone (mostly) was human - at least everyone in the little mountain country was.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ;>>>

My personal pet peeve is the way many players (and GMs) often react to the use of Magic in a World Setting.

I mean, if magic is common then it should excite almost no notice. In Pathfinder, it seems to me that magic is about as common as Electronics are in the real world... "At Will" use of zero level spells and so many "people" have spell casting levels.

So, when a group of adventurers walk down the street, what to the townsfolk notice?

PC 1: A Tiefling rogue dressed in eastern armor (a style mainly found half a world away on a different continent) with light weapons.

PC 2: A Gnome Druid, in armor of hides, riding a Tiger.

PC 3: A human Wizard, in robes - with an Ioun stone circling his head.

PC 4: A Dwarven Fighter, in shiny full plate with a glave in hand and a loaded crossbow on his back.

PC 5: A Half-Elven Bard, in flashy clothing and carrying a lute.

NOW... one of these persons stops in the middle of the street, raises his right hand, waves it around and says something in an unknown language...

What kind of a reaction does he get? it kind of depends on the person running the game... and right now has much less to do with the campaign, the setting, or even (it seems to me) the PC. Some judges have the townsfolk flee, returning with torches and pitchforks to punish the PC... screaming something about "burn the witch!". Up until they "cast a spell in public" they were only noticed as a potential customer, look like they are casting magic and ... "instant rioting mob".

Why? Why such a reaction to the use of spells in public?

AND NO REACTION to the Tiefling, the Tiger, or the Weapons (& Armor) carried in public? Heck, no reaction to the BARD....

I can recall playing in a game where the CULTURAL differences were bigger than the SPECIES differences.

I could understand what was motivating the Troll merchant I was cutting a Trade Deal with much better than I could understand why that crazy Praxian Nomad (a human) was trying to kill everyone.

I mean, the Troll wanted to make money just like me, that animal nomad? He was trying to do something religious...

" What would you mount on giant mantises? "

Realizing that a mantises eat anything moving?

One word. "Lunch."

Smoke & Mirrors wrote:

wait... "...anything it ate will not return to the summoned creature's plane..."

so... does it remain behind, partly digested? If the summoned monster swallows a creature, does the swallowed creature "pop-out" when the summoned monster disappears? could it then continue to attack something - picking up where it left off when it was swallowed?

Yes, and poison disappears from a poisoned target, but the damage done doesn't.

It is generally glossed over, but it is how it works.

Most of the rules for the long term summons can be found or inferred from the rules for eidolons.

so, I poison a summoned monster and it dies - does the used poison appear in a puddle on the floor where the creature fades out?

and the reverse, if a summoned viper bites my PC, does the poison that was injected by the viper disappear with the end of the summon spell? how abut the disease inflicted by being bitten by a summoned Rat?

After it's eaten and, in time, "passes on" to other forms - does it become sentient if an Otyugh is involved in some way?

Some thoughts on Reincarnation.

“Recognizing that you have a problem is the first step to solving it” - I heard that some place.

What (besides coming here for help) have you started doing to “fix this”? (Perhaps I shouldn’t assume you want to change it, but it sounds like you do).

Try coming up with something NICE to say about every game you play at the end of each play session. Then, before anyone else can chime in with a complaint, state what was GOOD abou the game (Even if it was the Cheetos somebody brought). Do this EVERY time. And pretty soon, you’ll find your games are getting better.

In your cartoon illustrating the problem, which of the players do you want to be? Start being that player... put some work into it.

“We live in a world of our own creation...” - some wise dude said once...

Aboleth - esp. because all the players are going to ASSUME that it is "lovecraftian" until suddenly it isn't. All the small clues will lead them to believe that the "cult" is a "horror from between the stars" group, when in fact the Skum encountered are ... PFS specific, and not Deep Ones.

Pathfinder: Here are rules governing the need to eat, drink, and sleep, and all the horrible things that happen if you fall behind on those.

Also Pathfinder: Here are a couple of level 0/1 spells that relegate those rules to the waste bin.

Frankly, it's a wonder anybody on Golarion ever eats, drinks, or sleeps.

Don’t forget endure elements....

Never mind, no need to sweat it...

How about an adventure hook?.

I can recall an old adventure starting in a Bar (No, really.).

The adventurers are all sitting at different tables in various stages of a meal/drink/whatever, when into the bar strides a hefty human. Just as this human crosses the center of the room, a crashing rumble is heard and the entire room pitches wildly. Ceiling beams fall, support pillars topple over, dust and darkness flood the room and ... as the sound settles down to silence the players realize the entire building has collapsed in on itself, sinking into a maze of old tunnels under the city.

Now... can you win free to the surface and escape the ruins of what used to be "Big Al's Bar and Grill"?

creating and playing a PC can be compared to a trip...

To some players it is all about the destination,
to others it is about the journey itself.

Ok, I told myself I wasn't going to come back into this thread - but it keeps sucking me in. Sorry - I really do have a low Will save...

Muse. wrote:

Deathwatch spell says: "Using the powers of necromancy, you can determine the condition of creatures near death within the spell's range. You instantly know whether each creature within the area is..."

- dead,
- fragile (alive and wounded, with 3 or fewer hit points left),
- fighting off death (alive with 4 or more hit points),
- healthy,
- undead, or
- neither alive nor dead (such as a construct).

Which is a creature with 3 HP when undamaged? Would it be BOTH "Fragile" and "Healthy"?

No, because to be Fragile you have to be 'alive and wounded' as well has having <=3 HP. The creature is not wounded, so the condition does not apply.

Thanks to this discussion, I have come to accept the interpretation that the <=3 HP means "...fragile (alive and wounded, with 3 or fewer hit points left)..", means the creature has 3 or fewer HP left before it is dead. Using this spell I "...can determine the condition of creatures near death... ". Does the creature have 3 or less HP left before it is dead? or does it have 4 or more HP left before it is dead? Using this spell I CANNOT determine how close the creature is to being unconscious.

Muse. wrote:

What about a creature with 6 HP when undamaged? Would it be BOTH "Fighting Off Death" and "Healthy"?

What about a creature with 99 HP when undamaged? Would it be BOTH "Fighting off Death" and "Healthy"?

Taken literally, both would apply.

Creatures that are undamaged are not "Fighting Off Death". In fact, I would argue that creatures with a positive HP total are not "Fighting Off Death", and they can even tell me that. Well, I guess if they have a Bleed condition and are loosing HP each round, they could be considered "Dying" or "Fighting Off Death" but they could usually tell me that themselves. If they are in a pile of bodies mixed into the mud and blood and rubble, being able to distinguish which body is:

Since that's a silly result, a good way to fix it is to assume that if more than one situations apply, default to the last item in the list that is true. So 'healthy' takes precedence over 'fighting off death' but 'neither alive nor dead' takes precedence over 'healthy'.

Interpreted as:

resolves some of the silly results, and makes the spell more useful and actually ADDS TO THE DRAMA OF THE MOMENT.

Deathwatch spell says: "Using the powers of necromancy, you can determine the condition of creatures near death within the spell's range. You instantly know whether each creature within the area is..."

- dead,
- fragile (alive and wounded, with 3 or fewer hit points left),
- fighting off death (alive with 4 or more hit points),
- healthy,
- undead, or
- neither alive nor dead (such as a construct).

Which is a creature with 3 HP when undamaged? Would it be BOTH "Fragile" and "Healthy"?

What about a creature with 6 HP when undamaged? Would it be BOTH "Fighting Off Death" and "Healthy"?

What about a creature with 99 HP when undamaged? Would it be BOTH "Fighting off Death" and "Healthy"?

And if it gives more than one "current status", would deathwatch show the current "health" of Constructs or Undead? So if an Flesh Golem was undamaged would it show "Neither alive nor dead" & "healthy" & "fighting off death"? no, wait, it's not alive, so it wouldn't show "fighting off death (alive with 4 or more hit points)". So if the Flesh Golem had sustained a point of damage I would guess it would no longer show "healthy".

"Using the powers of necromancy, you can determine the condition of creatures near death within the spell's range. You instantly know whether each creature within the area is dead, fragile (alive and wounded, with 3 or fewer hit points left), fighting off death (alive with 4 or more hit points), healthy, undead, or neither alive nor dead (such as a construct). Deathwatch sees through any spell or ability that allows creatures to to feign death."

I do not agree with the statement "But there can be no differing opinion here."

I know judges, and have played for judges, that actually have a difference of opinion on the interpretation of this spell.

I do not agree with the statement "... it's the only possible way to run the spell in accord with the rules of math." as I have had other judges run it differently than the interpretation of the statement "... fighting off death ..." given in the posts above.

(CRB. pg 179, under the heading of Hit Points): "When your hit point total reaches 0, you're disabled. When it reaches -1 you're dying. When it gets to a negative amount equal to your Constitution score you're dead"

So... I can easily see the view that in order for a PC to be "fighting off death" the PC would have to have reached -1 (or more) in current health. Thus the statement "(alive with 4 or more hit points)" implies that the PC has passed 0 HP (the "Staggered" condition) and moved into the "Dying" condition, but still has 4 or more hit points of damage it can sustain before it reaches "Dead" condition (which is a an amount equal or greater than the PCs Constitution Score).

Thus, the spell Deathwatch becomes VERY useful in determining which PC with the "Dying" condition is going to die in less than 4 rounds.

When a PC goes down and the judge asks the player "how close are you to dead? How many HP do you have left?", if the player replies "I'm at -8 HP." this does not answer the question asked. "I'm within 3 of dead" or "I've got 4 HP till I'm dead." or even "I'm down 16 of my 30 CON" tells the judge if the PC is:
"...fragile (alive and wounded, with 3 or fewer hit points left), fighting off death (alive with 4 or more hit points)...".

"Yes, it could be a language problem. Yes, it could be them misreading the spell. It could even be an honest error because they didn't properly think about the spell." Clearly there is a difference in the reading of the spell - I just prefer to use the one that my current table judge is using without labeling one or the other in error. Of the two interpretations, as a player, I find the one which tells me how close a PC is to dying, that tells me which PCs I have less than 4 rounds to stabilize to be more useful. But if my current judge uses the other - I'll adapt. I know the guy still on his feet isn't dying - even if he is currently Staggered.

Cromwell's rule - named by statistician Dennis Lindley, states that the use of prior probabilities of 1 ("the event will definitely occur") or 0 ("the event will definitely not occur") should be avoided. The reference is to Oliver Cromwell, who wrote to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland on 5 August 1650, including a phrase that has become well known and frequently quoted..."I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken." Oliver Cromwell

Muse. wrote:

"(alive and wounded, with 3 or fewer hit point left)" might mean you have 3 HP above zero, or it might mean you have 3 HP before you are at Negative Con Death and are down and bleeding out.

Do you often have 10 year old judges? I don't know where you're from, but negative numbers should be learned at around 6th grade, and everyone who has learned about negative numbers in school has to know that "3 or fewer" does not mean "-11 HP or less". The "fighting off death" is even more clear, because it doesn't refer to hit points "left", but simply says "4 or more hit points", and any kind of negative number can't possibly be "4 or more".

So any judge/GM ruling Deathwatch in such an utterly nonsensical way a) is very young, b) dropped out of school at a very young age, c) has some mental disability, or d) is delibereately being an antagonistic jerk.

wow - do you often ridicule people with differing opinions from you?

While I actually do not care which way it is ruled, I can easily see both sides of this, and have played both ways. Knowing that the PC currently lying on the ground bleeding out is "fighting off death (alive with 4 or more hit points" until death, rather than "within 3 HP of death" would be more important to me as a healer than knowing that the guy yelling at me for healing has 6 positive HP (and a CON of something between 8 and 30) rather than 3 or even 1 (and a CON of something between 8 and 30)... So, for the purpose of playing Devil's Advocate let me go thru the spell...

ah...no. Sorry, I don't think I will bother. That would not be fun.

After all, your mind appears to be made up and if I ever play at your table I have no problem playing the spell (and the item Deathwatch Eyes etc.) with your interpretation. After all, you would be the Judge, the rules would run as you say they do no mater what I think they should be. And my interpretation of the rules (whatever that might be) is actually only secondary. I really try not to antagonize the person who is taking the time and effort to make sure that I am having a fun gaming session.

And I have at this point in my gaming decided that life is just to short for rules arguments.

"que sera sera"

If only there was a spell that would let you know how close something was to death.

I've seen different judges run deathwatch differently.

"(alive and wounded, with 3 or fewer hit point left)" might mean you have 3 HP above zero, or it might mean you have 3 HP before you are at Negative Con Death and are down and bleeding out. So be sure to ask when you cast the spell...

I rarely bother concerning myself with checking for life. Most of my casters that have access just prep stabilize and throw it on characters as the opportunity arises, unless they know it is not needed. (Status, deathwatch eyes, lifesense all help.)

Agreed, and I have most recently had my high level cleric cast Breath of Life on our Front Liner when he got hit with a Force Reincarnation hex and went down "dead" (for a short time) because, as far as my status spell could tell he had just died. So I figured something had hit him that I didn't see, and this was my best chance to avoid having to raise dead on him later. Did I (the player) think it would work? Nope. But my PC would not have recognized the Hex, and so tried the spell that has to be cast right as the creature dies.

Requiring a Heal check to see if a Creature is still alive will make the spell Stabilize much more valuable though. Realizing that the target is "one living creature" it means that only live creatures are target-able, so trying to cast it on a dead creature would tell you that the creature isn't a legal target. I guess you could use bleed much the same way to check enemies...

I guess I could also just use a charge from a wand of CLW. Cast the spell and wander among the bodies, touching each until the spell discharges (on a living creature), which would also stabilize it.

It does kind of make breath of life spells harder to cast, as they are going to get thrown on many more creatures that are in the "not dead yet" category. Go down in the last round of combat? Just as the Fighter drops the last Mook? Should the Cleric cast B.o.L. on you? Just in case you actually went negative CON? Or will a Cure Critical Wounds be enough?

DC 15. While starting first aid you determine it won't matter. There are spells that let others know if you are dead or dying. I inforce this, because too many metagame. I hate when someone falls unconcious and say, I have 7 rounds till dead.

I'm sorry, where is this rule from? are you counting "First Aid" as a "Check for Status"? If so, it is a Standard action (and a Heal DC 15?) to determine that a creature is dead, correct? and then I guess you are allowing this to be combined with making it stable? (Does Stabilizing the creature take a second Heal Check? or a second DC15 check?). Does failing the first check mean someone would think that a creature still bleeding out is dead? or that a dead creature is still alive? If a player fails their DC15 First Aid check, do they think they have stabilized a creature when in fact it is dead?

This is clearly a House Rule - and would be better enforced by just asking your players to please don't do it. That you "hate when someone falls unconcious and say, I have 7 rounds till dead". You want your players to play a certain way? Ask them to...

There is one rule I've ever heard of when it comes to this, and its kind of/sort of a different thing all together. If there are multiple creatures/PCs on the ground that are unconscious, the person with the potion can make a heal check to determine who's dead and who isn't. But, if they fail the check and there are multiple allies that need healing, then they heal the closest ally, dead or otherwise. Its a pretty painful ruling if your party is getting curb stomped and needs one of their guys up, but it kind of makes sense.

this might be a "house rule" - but it is simply not a rule I have ever heard of. I know it's not in the RAW...

What's the DC of the "...heal check to determine who's dead and who isn't..."? Would it be modified by how much damage the "dead" guys took? if the 1st level Rogue took 87 HP from a crit with a Great Ax, does he look "more dead" than the guy who is 1 HP into his CON and still bleeding out?

At least we didn't miss 2018 - setting a reminder for '19..

Q: so... is this thread going to be necro'd next year too?

A: I'm not sure, I don't have 20/20 vision... yet

PC casts invisibility on herself. She then picks up a coin from the table and places it in her Handy Haversack. It (the coin) becomes invisible.

Now she takes her Haversack off and puts it down (it becomes visible), and realizing her mistake, she casts invisibility on the Haversack. And puts another coin in the pack. Is the second coin visible?

to qoute Dorian Grey: "We'll be at this all day..." - the invisibility rules ... are complicated...

On the other hand, if you make an object like a blanket invisible and wrap it around a visible object, that object stays visible.

really? I would think it would become invisible.

if I take that blanket and tuck it in my collar and call it a cape, then pick up a visible object (say a dagger) and tuck it into folds in my cape (the blanket), I believe that it would become invisible. It is "tucked into the clothing" right?