Niztael's page

A little thread necromancy (maybe not too much) but I would be interested in anyone who could convince Privateer Press to let them do a conversion for Iron Kingsdoms. Their Monsternomicon had interesting monsters along with great lore for each of them. As far as bestiaries and new races, I feel they're completely unnecessary for my needs. Legendary Games covers any class needs I have along with Drop Dead Studios. I'm enjoying what's happening with Lost Spheres Publishing the most right now because it's not just a bestiary/new class/new race book. Best of luck to any who endeavor in this market and I hope someone creates something wonderful.

This looks like a decent place to ask this question. Has anyone used veils to make magic items? Just wondering what you might have come up with.

I am adding an automatic AC boost to the characters that I'm still working with scale on. I may use the full progression from an old SRD article or some fraction thereof. If it's low magic it will be low magic all around. There won't be a ton of creatures that have high DC magical abilities, so the world will tailor a bit. The AC bonus will be untyped as it is low magic, not no magic. The saves I can live with being dangerous whilst avoiding save or die effects laden that would only punish the players unduly. I still think ABP goes too far, but I am considerate of the lack of defense and will address that.

Cryos I am on a similar quest and I found "The Black Company" by Green Ronin to be helful with mundane items. They have an interesting take on mastercraft which I'll be using in my campaign. I would also suggest making money hard to come by, perhaps switching to a silver standard and using the lifestyle costs with penalties below a certain level. Characters never feel the crunch of having to pay to live which is what most people spend their money on. Only ever having excess wealth is what complicates dealing with character wealth. Just my two cents...

So far, thank you for the replies. This advice is reiterated on many other forum posts dealing with a similar issue. I currently use SoP and it is "lower" magic when you consider versatility. Yes it can do game breaking things but I'm ok with magic being magical. APB is in contrast to the concept of magic being magical for the purposes of this idea. It just builds the magic into the character. I don't have an interest in keeping the existence of the current "balance" vs. CR nor anything having to do with WBL. Again I appreciate your comments and understand fully this might not want to be a game you play in... fair. The game I'll be running will be hard but it won't be an AP considering the changes I'm making would make many of those almost impossible in certain scenarios. NPC's will be playing by the same rules as the PC's, but monsters will be terrifying.

So so far, APB is not the workaround I'm looking for... again thank you, it's just not the suggestion I need.

Enhancement bonuses are a nerf to all characters when you consider Int/Wis/Cha enhancing bonuses for spellcasters. I'm not that worried about flying characters.

I appreciate everyone that offered their advice but I'm not looking to change my idea, I'm looking to dig deeper into it. Let me say that I've already gone over those options and they can't meet the narrative I'm looking for, no disservice to any of the advice offered.

I'm seeking constructive help on polishing the combination of homebrew rules I plan to use on an upcoming campaign that is still a ways off. If you flat out just don't like the idea, I completely understand, so please no need to tell me. You may still feel the need so enjoy.
I'll be using a set of basic feats everyone has access to, basically the trade off feats that replace attack with another bonus and Spheres of Power as the magic system. I'm not looking to completely eradicate magic items in the game but I would like to mitigate the straight "+" items that usually float around and seem less than magical. That idea will mostly be replaced by some master crafting rules I'm lifting from a 3.5 supplement for "The Black Company". I want to multiply the items that have a "+" value but I can't decide if 5 or 10 would be adequate. Money will also not be overly abundant but I'm suspecting high level characters will eventually want to create.
The rules for item creation won't require feats but a mix of research and the Pathfinder Unchained rules for dynamic crafting. It will be gritty but not E6. I know CR and WBL are considered staples by many but I'm not aiming for the current style of play. I'm also up to discuss other elements and any help is much appreciated.

Leave it in, take it out. All the rules are ultimately optional. I've taken it out of my game and we're having a great time without it, maybe the same wouldn't hold true for everyone. I'm sure I could accomplish the same thing with PF2 with very little effort. Paladins have to pay more attention to their "code" than any alignment restrictions and devils are still "evil". Steal souls and people will think you're evil and your characters soul is still going to the bad place.

If human skin gave any real perk, I'm sure players would try to BS their way into wearing some.

Not represented: Many of the characters from Tales of the Malazan, Book of the Fallen. Admittedly the characters are rather epic in nature. Specifically D'ivers.

Master Planner/Strategist isn't a set of character rules but how one plays a character and I would find it sad to try to make into a character "class".

Pathfinder Incarnum style magic was made by Dreamscarred Press with their Akashic line.

I'd rather see best/"best parts of" 3rd party materials.

I use a hero point variant that is similar to the one provided by Paizo with a little house ruling. It allows everyone to die once, and perhaps even twice. I do prefer death to mean something and raise/rez is very rare in the game I'm running. I do however make this very clear before anyone joins the campaign to avoid unnecessary confrontations.

Red Box, it was '87, I was 9. I had to fight for it (throw a tantrum) but it was worth it.... I got better.

My only two cents is about the rust monster. Gold doesn't rust, real life should trump rules on that. Maybe not in PFS, but everywhere else.

Since you're just asking our opinions, I'm not going to say my opinion is right or wrong. I will say that I have fun DMing for players who enjoy role-playing, so I don't enforce it, I just don't play with people who don't want to. There are players at the game who are there to have fun, and the DM is one of the those players. He has a slightly different role, but his feelings and desires are not invalid just because he's the DM.

It's not wrong of you to not want to role-play unless you keep joining groups that say they all really enjoy role-playing and you expect that to change based on your feelings alone.

Leave the group, go out and find a new one. If you're not happy playing that is really the only option. People are trying to give you advice and you gave a list of excuses why you have to stay in that game. There Meetup, where you can find a live gaming group. Society play, not my cup of tea. Roll20, which is a bit more fun for the "face guy" in that you can probably use voice through some sort of communication. Lastly there PbP which I find less than desirable for someone who craves the interaction.

There are a lot of poeple on here who say their group no longer supports the "fun" of their hobby but won't leave. Don't be a battered play mate, but it will take work of some sort to find what you're looking for. It would be nice if your friends would become the group you want to play with, but I've learned wishing for it won't make it so.

Wow, really got caught up on Monopoly there. That was not the point. It may be a cooperative game, but the point was to give an opinion. There is no "period" in Pathfinder, D&D, AD&D, AD&D 2nd., D&D 3rd, Vampire, Shadowrun, etc. My feelings about the whole situation are similar to awards for 20th place in a 20 man race. Everyone wants to feel equal in some fashion. Everyone is not.

As far as an equal playing field, it's when you start the campaign. Don't like being in a long story where death has a setback, play modules or one-shots. Should the GM adjust the story for some setbacks sure. If death or TPK just means reload the game and try a different tactic, I have video games that mimic that style of play better.

Yes, yes I do, it's called losing in a game. It's alright to lose and deal with loss. You don't change the rules of Monopoly because someone might lose. You play with grown ups who can handle losing and continue to play/play another round.

Way back in the day, the party or people seeking someone to be raised from the dead in any fashion required more than just money. From Raise Dead to Resurrection, a service was required to be performed for the church or entity using such magic. At the 3.0 and on is when it only became a matter of money.

You just have to create a minimum bar. Take the example that all characters are currently 3rd level and if one of them were to die they would make a 2nd level character. The bar would have been brought up to 2nd level, were he unfortunate enough to die a second time, he would still come back as 2nd level.

Now the party consists of all 3rd level characters and one 2nd level character and everyone gains two levels without a character death. Everyone is now 5th level and perhaps one is still 4th level, though it's possible that character is now 5th level as well. The bar would be set at 3rd, unless the character who died previously made it to 5th, raising the bar to 4th.

With a minimum bar, there is no downward spiral.

There's a lot of the word "game" and "story" being used, and it depends on how you see this. There is a story, but it's also a game, one that doesn't have a save file. Of course it's just my perspective, but I prefer the idea of a real consequence. Everyone makes it seem like the GM can't adjust the story at all for changes in level or disparity. No one here is locked in by what they've written or the AP they're running.

Easier, that is probably the best reason not to incur a penalty. Though I'm just probably getting old and don't like awards for participation.

I prefer to have them come back as 1 level lower, starting experience for that level. The minimum being 1 level lower than the lowest member, but keep a minimum level or that could downward spiral as someone said. Adjust the difficulty and you don't have to worry about AP or modules.

I agree it does harm the party to see a character die, which I think lends to the team mentality. If it matters to the whole party, perhaps they should work together to avoid character death.

I've enjoyed Pathfinder, but I've found death to mean less in my opinion.

It's in the cost formula as Fuzzy-Wuzzy stated, so you would create a wand at 1st level to save in cost. Considering you're only getting 4 more points of healing per charge for 1500 g.

I think there's space for both rolling before and after. For "after" is when the roll is going to expedite a scene that you've already played a number of times or has no real significance that adds fun, i.e. gathering information in a broad sense, relationships with multiple vendors. In these examples it will almost replace the roleplay for the most part.

For "before" it can give cues as you roleplay instead of directly influencing the outcome. If you can't think of a social cue, it could boil down to a feeling that the subject shouldn't be broached or that you should change your tack. It does lack the immediate satisfaction of a good roll, but it depends on what you want social rolls to mean in your game.

I'm wondering if anyone familiar with Steven Erikson's Malazan world has done any work in making the magic of that world compatible with Spheres of Power by Drop Dead Studios? I think it's rather possible, though I'm still questioning how to handle warrens and Warp sphere. I'm just looking for anyone's who has already come up with some house rules for suggestions.

Thank you for getting back to me on that Rob.

What is the purpose of the heightened quality of the enlarge person and to what level was it heightened? Are we to assume it's been heightened to 9th level? Although there are a few instances I could imagine using it offensively, they wouldn't be worth the value poured into it here. It just seems to be a waste of 8 levels of metamagic, assuming it's even heightened to 9th level which remains unclear. I've only read the first part of the AP, and I thought the heightened might matter later but I would like to know so I can plan to change it if it's of mild consequence.

Heightened affects neither duration or the possibility of dispel being effective or not. Globe of Invulnerability would almost apply, but it's not an offensive spell. It just seems to be a waste of 8 levels of metamagic, assuming it's even heightened to 9th level which remains unclear.

I'm just curious about Agrimmosh and I thought this would be a good place to ask. What is the purpose of the heightened quality of the enlarge person and to what level was it heightened? Are we to assume it's been heightened to 9th level? I've only read the first part of the AP, and I thought the heightened might matter later but I would like to know so I can plan to change it.

It was still changed, just differently. As to thoughts of balance, D&D hasn't had that... ever. Neither does Pathfinder, everything is based on situation. I'm interested to see what Paizo does with Pathfinder Unleashed. It's a sign they too see some things that don't work as intended.

Excaliburproxy:

I may create a separate resource pool, as that seems to strengthen their spellcasting power. Thank you for the long walk to that.

Thelemic Noun:

I may even up the distance of the hex, while creating a separate pool. This will make it a little more caster friendly I hope. A separate pool, mixed with the ability to try more than once a day on a given subject, and increased range may meet what I want.

Ciaran Barnes:

I'm not taking any sense of control out of the player's hands, just the one that makes magic items. Perhaps I'm a bit retro in my belief that the control does not rest in player's hands and I'm not worried about that. Players can work together to make magic items, sharing their skills to reach the goal. I don't find making each player capable of what the other player can do any more enriching.

To all those taking a look at our rules, thank you. I've changed the replenishment since there was an oversight. Something my group was taking for granted as we had discussed it, but I forgot to write in. There is no way to magically heal any of the detriments from Exigent Magic Replenishment. "Withouthisfoot", I almost didn't understand your post until I went back and read through the rule and realized I had forgotten that important detail. I'd appreciate your feedback with the change.

Excaliburproxy:

I don't want to completely roll back to the witch being able to affect every person on the planet 1/day. I like the idea of multiple attempts against the same opponent, or the healing of an ally. Magic, except in small doses, generally has a limit and this is reiterated throughout fantasy and mythology. A Druid only has 1 animal companion, and though I don't hunt someone's mount/companion/cohort on a regular basis, they can be killed. Ending that resource for a time, especially if they're not used wisely. I'd appreciate any insight into how you might change it without going back to the original version.

And to Goth Guru... I would like to have a discussion here, and you would not. My apologies and happy gaming.

Excaliburproxy:

1. It does call the Caster's Limit, a daily limit, but I'm kind of breaking that rule. Though the idea of running away and resting is something I still see in a lot of groups as a standard tactic. Though that may just be from my reading the boards.

2. Stated under the "Armor as Damage Reduction", the negative is to the attack roll. This matter greatly in the face of enemies who can parry as they only have to beat your modified attack roll to parry. It does not matter whether the attacker has rolled a critical or not. This is more indicative of a master sparring his pupil when the gap in skill is vast. Against Dex builds, maneuvers are a better choice, which I feel is more accurate of real combat. (I know it's a game, but we try.)

3. I don't feel the witch is only up against wizards & sorcerers. They have the ability to be healers as well. They cross both classes and the ability to drop the same hex on an individual, I feel balances the limited resource.

Bardarok:

The reason I limited the magi, bards, rangers, paladins, etc. is because their limited spell list would end up entirely with metamagic. Also the lowering of some spells to fit on their list may have unforeseen consequences. I'm am listening to what you have to say and may edit my response in the future. I just don't have any characters at the level where I can cite an example as of yet.

I will try to address individual responses and thank you for the feedback.

Excaliburproxy, the armor rules already work as the "bypass" system. The Tarrasque is still going to hit and tear you apart, but you have the chance of lessening some of the damage. "Bypass" in these rules also creates a negative for the attacker, not just a different DC. This can be stacked with other effects and used to some advantage. I also use bypass as an act of intelligence or a style a particular creature may use. You do cite some specific circumstances I should address, such as clustered shot. I do feel the need to explain shortly that I don't expect monks and rogues to be on par with fighters, and I don't think of balance the way many here on the boards do. It's about flavor, and rogues should use a host of tricks to win, and monks should use maneuvers.

I understand your opinion on the witch edit and understand Paizo's intention, and completely disagree with it. Wizards & Sorcerers only get unlimited cantrips, but Witches get unlimited hexes. It just didn't work for me, but I did lift the once per 24 hour limit usually applied. So this seems more of a taste issue.

Spell replenishment is almost nuts until you watch your group try to rest for the 3rd time in a day. There's only so many times I can ambush them while they're resting before I destroy their suspension of disbelief. I'd truly appreciate any comments on how you would try to fix any of your above concerns, as I'm looking to better the system and not discard it. (Though I'm sticking to the Witches limit.)

Bardarok, the choices for the Metamagic Mana Pool were conceived in theory and are just beginning to be tested now. I'd appreciate if you could extrapolate on how you think the current numbers will go wrong.

Thank you Amir, but I'm asking for your comments on what you think. It's not a scientific document and your opinions are appreciated.

WithoutHisFoot, thank you very much for your input. I sometimes forget how many of my house rules I haven't written yet when I hear these questions.

Regarding Armor as Damage Reduction:

1. I didn't want an automatic bypass built into the ADR system such as a material or an alignment. Taking a negative covers the only bypass I foresaw as a plausible way around it (not to mention brilliant energy weapons).

2. The reason I made it a negative for the attacker and not a bonus to the defender comes into play during the Parry rules. When I tried to do it the other way (as a bonus for the defender), I ran into a few problems that had undesirable results (from spells, feats, abilities).

Dodge & Parry Rules

1. Armor generally gives a bonus twice, once as an enhancement to the ADR and again as a Dodge bonus. So when not moving, you only get the enhancement once (yes magic armor is cool).

2. I will clarify that, thank you.

3. Taking a double move would only leave the defender with the immediate action parry, albeit with the bonuses from a shield, enhancements, feats, etc.

4. Again thank you, clarification will probably help there.

5. Absorb is when you don't want to waste a Dodge or Parry on what you consider an insignificant attack. This does not mean you'll be right, it is just a choice to represent no effort to avoid the incoming attack. You won't see it's use that often, granted, though future rules make put it to more specific use. (It solved an issue one of my players was asking about)

Balance

This should really be on the page and soon will be... I don't multiply damage on the back end. (players/enemies alike) I end up with a generally lower damage game. This has lead to more drawn out, but dynamic battles (so far).

I really do appreciate your input, and will work on many of your suggestions. These are my answers to some of the things you mentioned as of now. Thank you for taking the time to help.

First suggestion, Pupsocket, thank you and I'll get working on that.

Second... Master Craftsman is a way around coming up with an interesting answer to create magic items by non-magical characters. Pygmalion's statue comes to life due to his love for his wife and the respect of the gods. The Dwarves of Norse mythology are more than just characters with a feat and 5 ranks of skill. I am adding feats that allow greater forms of Masterwork from an older Sword & Sorcery supplement, as well as runes from the Midgard Campaign Setting. There is also no reason incantations from Midgard can't be used to create magic items as well. I just think Master Craftsman is, well, boring.

Our group has a set of house rules that work for us, but I believe getting some fresh eyes on them can't hurt either. Please take a look, if you care and comment away...

http://pathfinderhomebrewrules.wordpress.com/about/

The magic of the Fighter is supposed to be feats, but the Ranger is only 2 behind by 10th level. In our home game we greatly expanded the number of feats a Fighter ends up with but with certain limitations. If you want to check it, see here

http://pathfinderhomebrewrules.wordpress.com/about/

Note: Specifically Changes to the Fighter

This only seems potentially offensive to a few. It's lovely that Lord Snow has an opinion. On an interesting note most people have opinions... kind of the definition of... opinion. It both is and is not offensive only in regards to its subjective matter. This is really a non-issue, vote your beliefs where you lay down your money. If its too offensive, don't buy it. That will send a message. If enough people agree with you, the company will take notice. If not, then you are part of an infinitesimal minority (not even small)and I desperately hope they don't cater to you just because you're a squeaky wheel.

Wrath of the Righteous 5 Like what I've seen so far.

Mummy's Mask 4 Waiting to see what's done with it.

Iron Gods 0 Couldn't care less, and am happy to save 6 months worth of AP buying. If this genre continues though I have enough of Pathfinder to be happy for some time. Let the sales decide.

What if you just say a rogue never loses trapfinding, even if he takes an archetype. Also a rogue who doesnt take an aechetype can select any one archetype's skill that would have replaced his trap finding skill from any of of the archetypes. Consider it mostly a flavor buff, and revalidating the archetypes so the rogue does not lose his niche so to speak.

After you compile all the feats from just the core rulebooks (Core, APG, UM, UC) you get upwards of 20 pages of feats. This gets bad as I'm trying to make a reference document that you can always see what is needed before or after a particular feat. Wazat's answer about a feat tree style similar to the ranger, answer's a question that I had. Why can a ranger do what a fighter can't. Take feats without prereqs.... and a 10th level ranger only has 2 less feats than a 10th level fighter. I'm using a scale for feat tree's (of which there are 14 valid trees when you look at the compiled list) that is almost like the weapon training or the rangers favored enemy. Letting fighters pick up one of the trees and beginning new ones as he goes along.

2nd edition also had an example in the beluth (an eleven item, I know) that had a higher charge cost for one of the spells. It was still incapable of being recharged, if it's really about saving that "change wands action" and flavor, just talk your DM. If its for PFS, there's plenty of other ways to "break" the system and they're posted all over the forums.

Im trying to find a way to Get into the beta, the style of play you are promoting looks like my cup o'tea. I may have to wait, but should I still sign up before I have a chance to play?

Just saw the empyrean order, people on that already

Is there any way to begin the process now? A nation or settlement name that people can start to rally around. I imagine there will be some seperartion to begin with, but with some fast consolidation, it could become big quickly.

We know that we kill people in this game right? (yes, I know, they're all bad ;) Then we loot their bodies and homes. Then we find their friends and family and do the same (yes they're all bad, I know). I'm fascinated by the focus on language. Maybe the "bad" guy didn't come from a loving home.

Check out Torn Asunder that is a 3rd party book. It's mostly about critical hits, but it has a large section on rather more mundane forms of healing. Natural healing that would go up along with the "Heal" skill. Crazy, a skill like heal being useful over leveling.

Many people didn't like the experience component of a few of these "breaker" spells, but it was a limitation that people thought about twice compared to the monetary expense. You can also add story elements that detract from over-use of certain elements of spellcasting. Aeons seem to be made as an equalizer to these perceived abuses (and use enough that it really is a threat if the group is very high level). Teleportation creates holes in space could be your argument. Pharasma isn't a fan of you taking what she has already judged, etc., etc. All systems that do not take into all the algorithms that are what we call life will appear broken upon too close an inspection. Fix it how you like, use the right story for your group and hopefully they'll like it.

The kingdom building rules were well clarified. The downtime activities are great for players who usually can't think of what to do in downtime, and great inspiration for those who do. The big loss IMO are the mass combat rules which would really be integral to any actual kingdom building. The part that I feel is just really missing are any rules having to do with recruiting, what you can recruit, both race and levels of said recruits. Also that their might be a limit on said recruits. In kingmaker I didn't mind as that was an addendum system at the time, but with a core book being added with these rules, I think it falls a bit flat.

Looking for a loophole in the ability of the Paladin to lie without being hit by the double-edged sword of his convictions is more of a game mechanic. Paladins take theses codes upon themselves because they believe in them, and being a paladin wouldn't search for ways to circumvent their own convictions. More than breaking down what is lying or even worse "what is truth?" is irrelevant if you are in the characters' head. Put yourself in the mindset that lying is abhorrent, a damnable act, and you can play out the reaction of your character from his perspective. Whom the paladin is interacting with is not as important as to his view of what he is doing. If lying would save his friends but cost him a part of his soul, then ask yourself is he willing to pay either price. The lawful goodness of the paladin is supposed to be a burden he has chosen, not one he constantly seeks to escape.

A reasonable solution but the person I was referring to has maintained his percentage of going first wins of 55% for over 4000 professional matches of magic.

Sure, and like you say this is perfectly reasonable in the realm of statistics.

However, assuming a causal link from past randomly generated data is, while very human, a statistical fallacy. It's certainly possible to be 'lucky' -- the man who wins the lottery is 'lucky', but his odds of winning the lottery in the future do not change because of that past 'luck'.

Similarly, the player may have a fantastic streak of dice rolls and that is perfectly resonable, but that does not predict how he will continue to roll in the future.

Undone almost has it but not quite.

It's not always confirmation bias, magic, or whatever. Stats state that a small number of people will deviate 1 SD from the norm and a tiny amount 2 SD's. He just happens to be rare.

While this is true, the mistake is to assume that past results are an indicator of future random luck. It's perfectly believeable for a player to have a strong set of very lucky rolls --- but assuming no other factors e.g. dice weighting are involved this player is no more likely to continue this streak than anybody else.

The correct response is to do nothing or, at most, swap his dice.

Wait, does this mean thrax doesn't think I can wield a small greatsword as a one-handed weapon in my off hand? How is wielding something in your off-hand not 'as a one-handed weapon'? Hell, even the rules use the same language as the feat: "For example, a Small creature would wield a Medium one-handed weapon as a two-handed weapon"

Wait wait, how does any of thrax's argument make sense? I seems to boil down to:

"You can wield it as a one handed weapon except not in these arbitrary circumstances"

*edit*

A more thorough reading of the thread makes me think that Thrax has invested so much into the argument that he isn't willing to back down. Instead he throws out the same already refuted arguments and quotes sections of rules that actually reinforce the opposite viewpoint.

I think it's important just to say to everyone that sometimes when arguing with people who are too invested, the real objective changes from convincing them to convincing onlookers that the invested person is no longer being reasonable. I reckon the thread has managed that pretty well by this point, so don't feel too frustrated Chess/fret and others!

No, they are not necessarily more damaging than archers, but as far as ranged tanking and DPR is concerned, archers are kind of borked too.

Doesn't this admission make your original post somewhat disingenuous? It seems to me like you could replace 'gunslinger' with 'archer ranger', 'archer fighter', 'archer slayer', 'eldritch archer', 'archer inquisitor' etc and still have exactly the same post. Why single out the gunslinger? Shouldn't the thread be called 'Are ranged PCs balanced in combat?'

Now that NN has gone from 100% of an argument to 100% funposting, I will now also have some fun, posting. This thread is now 100% about taking class fluff as rules!

Known as barbarians, these warmongers know little of training, preparation, or the rules of warfare; for them, only the moment exists, with the foes that stand before them and the knowledge that the next moment might hold their death.

Sorry, you're a barb, you made a battleplan so I have to strip you of your power.

Regardless, sorcerers live and breathe that which other spellcasters devote their lives to mastering, and for them magic is more than a boon or a field of study; it is life itself.

It appears your sorcerer has just walked into an antimagic zone! Let me look up the suffocation rules for you....

While many warriors strive to perfect their art, spending all of their time honing their skill at martial arms, others spend as much effort dedicating themselves to a cause.

You spent too long time training as a Cavalier, so i'm going to have you lose your powers.

my favourite:

Arcanists are the shapers and tinkers of the arcane world, and no magic can resist their control.

The arcanist takes control of your summons, no save! What? It's written right in the rulebook!

Never knowing what to expect, they prepare for everything, becoming masters of a wide variety of skills, training themselves to be adept manipulators, agile acrobats, shadowy stalkers, or masters of any of dozens of other professions or talents.

Wow guys, rogues are actually the greatest class in the rulebook! We missed this line all along! Any situation, just pull an item, spell or ability out of your hat and refer to this line -- because you are prepared for everything!

The GM's role is to run the game, guide the players, and create a fun experience.

Just coming in from left field to say: it's everyone's role to create a fun experience.... and, while the GM guides the players, the players also have a duty to guide the GM, especially if they lack experience.

A failure to adapt to criticism is a big cause of terrible GMs. We've all experienced some bad ones. Nothing wrong with a player going 'Hey, that information is not useful. Perhaps something about their saves? That'd make me feel more like my skill check is contributing'.

Kingmaker would suit a technic league member just fine.

Impressive necromancy.

I can't find any mention of take 10 only being applicable to rolls you make, only that it is applicable to skill checks you make. Regardless of who is rolling the dice, the player's character is making the skill check.

Thus, disguise is perfectly valid option for take-10. The counterargument has no basis in the actual rules and so is (terrible) houserule material. It's also nonsensical: why would a completely metagame component (who is rolling the dice) determine a completely in-character decision?

Or to put it another way: I have DMed for a visually impaired player before, who wasn't interested in rolling the dice. I rolled his dice for him. Does that mean he can't take 10 anymore?

So, 'fighters can't have nice things' is in full effect again?

A) this seems to rely more on self-transmutation and other indirect spells rather than save spells - again, save spells seem to be pretty much avoided by min-maxers

Where did you get his idea from? It is not correct. If you have a look at, for example, treeantmonk's wizard guide, you will see he recommends a great deal of spells with saves. Conjuration crowd-control specialists are usually considered the most optimised wizards to be.

It is important to have some spells in your arsenal that don't allow saves for those baddies with inflated defenses, but save DCs are not difficult to pull off with persistent metamagic and other boosters.

Finally, your assumption that save DCs scale worse than saves is actually incorrect as well. Look at the good and bad save progressions in a character advancement chart: you will see that save DCs actually scale almost perfectly in-between good and bad save progressions. It is important as you continue to level to intelligently choose spells to target poor saves as the gap becomes larger as levels increase, but if you focus on keeping your INT in the stratosphere and picking up DC increases, high level opponents are still easy to overcome.

For example:

Level 20 wizard with 20 base, +5 levels, +5 inherent, +6 item = 36 INT, and spell focus conjuration/greater spell focus, has a 10+spell level+16 DC. He could boost this higher with spell perfection etc if he was min-maxing, but this is a good baseline.

Balor's poor save (reflex) is +17.

Against a 9th level spell, the balor needs an 18 to pass his save. Even against a 1st level spell, the balor still fails 50% of the time.

Of course, the Balor's best save (fortitude) is +29 and he passes against the wizard most of the time even against level 9 spells. By level 20 the wizard should have enough in knowledges or general experience to realise targetting fort is a bad idea on a big bruiser balor. His middle save is +25, which passes against a level 9 spell about half the time. A persistent 7th level spell gives him only a 30% chance of passing but has a slightly weaker 7th level effect. Actually works out almost perfectly.

At lower levels this relationship exists but is not as extreme.

As for your other idea: lower level spells having a save dropoff is a deliberate design decision to reduce the number of effective spells a wizard has against high level encounters, to encourage utility spell choices, and to prevent choice paralysis. However, free metamagic heighten is a not too powerful option that increases the viability of those lower level spells a little.

For more extreme houserules, from least to most potentially disrupting:
a) If you want lower level spells to be harder to resist as they are heightened, you could give heighten a 'good' progression non-linear scaling DC. That is, have a houserule that for every 3 (or 2.5 rounded down) levels you heighten a spell by, you increase the save DC by an additional +1. This is enough to keep lower levels a bit more competitive, but you may find people focus excessively on strong low level spells like glitterdust this way -- although perhaps that is what you want?.

b) You can give free heighten when any spell is metamagic'd - but be aware this is very powerful when combined with dazing or persistent metamagics..

c) Finally, you could simply have the save DC as the highest spell level castable instead of the spell's specific spell level, but this is drastically overpowered and I do not recommend it without adjusting caster balance elsewhere.

*Edit*

I do not recommend 10+ 1/2 CL + attribute. Caster level is extremely easy to boost compared to attribute or spell level. If you have cunning players you will find this results in unbeatable save DCs. I guess if your players are unlikely to exploit a power boost (as with Deathmvp) then it doesn't really matter.

The whole debate on caster vs. martial... You know what, each class is designed to deal with encounters differently. If your characters only see one fight in a day yes the caster wins hands down, now if you play a running battle over the course of a day the casters are done before second breakfast leaving the martial builds on their own. If stealth is the priority you average martial and average caster are both screwed to the rogue types.

Not every game needs to be about damage per round, if that's what you want find an xbox or something. Sit down, enjoy the company of friends, and socialize.

Sorry for the angry rant.

This has been shown to be completely incorrect so many times I think the record has been worn right through. To summarise:

Fighters have HP as a hard limiter, and casters are not limited by spells/day after the first few levels.

Rogues actually have a pretty abysmal stealth given that it is one of their primary draws. At level 3 a wizard with invisibility, a decent DEX and ranks in stealth has a check more than 20 points higher than the rogue.

It's funny that you then make the comparison between casters and damage per round... given that full casters generally have poor DPR and many interesting/flavourful options available to them, while martial characters are the ones that rely on damage/combat as their primary draw. People complain about low tier classes generally because they are ineffective out of combat most especially (except the base rogue, which is not really effective anywhere). It's not fun to sit down in the company of your friends and contribute nothing or little effective to the social game except maybe damage, - a situation which does happen at higher levels of play (yes, 'it doesn't happen in my games', of course it isn't a constant).

Anyway, should probably take this to one of the many 'caster vs martial' threads now if you want to continue, not that there is much point. This is all old ground.

10 + spell level seems very doable, actually. Great Fortitude, improved great fortitude, a trait, a CON of 16 and a familiar is +8. Play a human with heart of the fields and you get two free get-out-of-jail cards, making it extremely unlikely you'll ever fail. Your Fort will rise higher than the DC as long as you are mindful of it so that'll eventually be fail only on a 1 with two free avoidances - plus fatigue isn't that bad of an effect anyway for a caster.

I would not be angry at him for instigating this rule if it is clearly spelled out before the campaign begins. However, if someone plays a caster and manages to optimise fort as they should to trivialise the houserule, and then he proceeds to make the check more difficult mid-game, it is time to get angry and/or leave.

Or just play a cleric.

I feel like people have trouble understanding the idea of asymmetric balancing in this thread. Balanced does not mean identical or homogenous.

My favourite part of the thread is when paladins somehow became totally top-tier super broken with an alignment restriction/code to keep them balanced. It's like we're all the way back in ad&d again!

My second favourite part is how therefore everyone who disagrees and would like a CG paladin is a powergamer.

I don't see why not. Their hand is free after the dagger has been thrown.

Although, is there any advantage to this over simply dropping the dagger as a free action and then full attacking with the longbow?

I believe you could not, however, use a dagger and a longbow to TWF via this strategy.

This is in the wrong forum - I'll flag it to be moved.

In answer to your question:

Yes, these rules are absolutely used in PFS.

There's an expectation that the player will correctly account for encumbrance and ACP - usually GMs do not audit sheets, although they are well within their rights to if they suspect one might not be applying them properly.

In Verin's quote above neither statement was untrue, inaccurate or wrong. It is still misleading.

When Verin is interrogating Aes Sedai prisoners and the prisoner asks why she fainted. Verin says "It is hot outside" and then "several times today I've felt faint". Both these statements are factually true. Verin felt faint from handling so much of the power. Neither statement is a lie. However when put together it misleads the prisoner into thinking she fainted from being hot."

Oddly enough, this is a really bad example, because Verin is lying by both definitions. She didn't answer the question that was directly asked to her but instead gave an answer that was wrong.

By Verin's logic if you asked me 'have you eaten today' I could say 'I have not eaten' but actually I was making an unconnected statement about about whether I had eaten in the last 5 minutes instead of today so I 'technically haven't lied'. Even worse, I could just say an unconnected 'no' using this logic. This is nonsense as my answer in context is false and thus I have outright lied (and so has Verin). Blame a bit of poor writing there.

I can't claim to be an expert, but I would be inclined to leaving the Charisma in, because then you have the option to get a bit of face skill proficiency AND Use Magic Device out of it, particularly if you go with Dangerously Curious, which makes UMD a class skill. Pragmatic Activator, of course, would be the way to go for somebody who dumps charisma, but it doesn't give you the skill in class, so your Intelligence modifier needs to be 3 higher than your Charisma modifier to break even with this compared to Dangerously Curious -- and again, actually having the decent Charisma score opens up other uses without needing to spend another trait (or more expensive, a whole feat) to convert Charisma skills over to Intelligence. Of course, if you are not building a Thassilonian (Sin Magic) Specialist (which completely prohibits 2 whole Arcane Schools instead of just making them Opposition Schools) like I was when researching this, UMD will be less important to you.

By getting a 20 via dumping the 14 CHA, he absolutely gets his intelligence modifier +3 higher than his CHA modifier.

On top of that, as he gains levels he can put all of his level-up and mental stat items into INT, meaning that by choosing the 20 INT over the 14 CHA he is likely to have *higher* CHA based skills in the long run. It also boosts the large variety of INT skills that the wizard actually has as class skills.

Dumping CHA and taking Clever wordplay/Pragmatic activator really is a better choice even in your position as a thassilonian. Really only enchanters, diabolists and would-be liches should have a CHA score above minimum.

As I said, of course, a single extra modifier point is not the end of the world --- but if we are giving build advice, there's no real 'mechanical' reason to have above minimum CHA on a wizard other than a personal arbitrary preference.

So while I'm not new to pathfinder. I have never seen this argument where you NEED 20 Int, I don't think that this is true. whats the difference 1 extra spell and slightly higher DCs. Doesn't seem SUPER worth it to me.

The 14 cha is to help with social skills at early levels, may lower it to 12 Cha with my stats now looking like this.

There's no NEED to have INT at 20 - but it's also not a bad idea by any stretch and is definitely preferrable to higher CHA.

Think of it this way.

- As a summoner you will likely be a conjuration specialist. Conjuration has a lot of very useful spells that use saves (glitterdust, stinking cloud, create pit etc) so the extra DC isn't wasted

- A +1 to spell DCs is worth about a feat (Spell focus) - except a universal +1 is worth a bit more than spell focus which applies only to one school. There's also the +1 to Skills and the extra spell, so you could even argue the +1 INT modifier is worth about two feats.

- A +1 to +3 increase to a social skill (depending on how hard you dump CHA) can be more than covered by clever wordplay, bruising intellect or another trait that grants as class skill. A trait is about half a feat (you get two from the extra traits feat).

Therefore, if you are talking purely about whether the extra INT is 'worth it', you can see that in terms of how much build resources each are worth, the extra INT is worth more than a single feat (indeed probably about two feats) while the extra bonus to social skills is worth about half a feat to a feat. In the long run you are better off taking the extra INT and then using a trait to pick up clever wordplay or bruising intellect. This even synergises because the extra INT will then in turn boost your social skill!

The extra INT is definitely 'worth it' over extra CHA, which unless you are an enchanter or plan on using planar binding a lot, is mostly worthless. In terms of your character concept, taking a social trait to move a skill to intelligence can still give you a 'charismatic wizard' archetype, so there's not really a character reason to pump CHA.

Of course, it is always absolutely your choice and having one less INT is in no way going to cripple you by any metric, so the decision is mostly arbitrary. However, the term 'should' in your title implies you are interested in optimisation: in which case, a wizard 'should' have an INT as high as he can comfortably make it. You can comfortably achieve 20 with your build.

I think you have missed some words out of the Cambridge Dictionary definition Blakmane. The Cambridge English dictionary says...

lie verb (SPEAK FALSELY)
B1 [I] (present participle lying, past tense lied, past participle lied) to say or write something that is not ​true in ​order to ​deceive someone.

Key words "not true", and "in order to deceive". A lie by omission may fulfill the second part but not the first.

I may say "I haven't placed a trap on that door", someone else might have done but you would not call the statement a lie if they had. A lie by omission is not a lie by the definition. That's why is has to be qualified with the figure of speech "lie by omission". Aes Sedai tell the truth - therefore they cannot lie. (Unless Black Ajah). That is supported by multiple quotes in the book and the dictionary but we can agree to disagree on it if you like.

In court you swear to well "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.." Hence misleading the court by omissions being a problem.

As I said the Discern Lies and Zone of Truth spells explain sufficiently for me what qualifies and what doesn't.

Back to the original question, I try and avoid dice rolls based on morality if possible. These are better left to roleplay. However if a person made a case for a character that would try and twist a person in circles with logic to deceive them a bluff check using Int seems reasonable to me. Though I do accept that swapping skill stats is not RAW.

By bad, I put cambridge in the wrong brackets. However:

Collins dictionary:

Verb:

2. (intransitive) to convey a false impression or practise deception

Noun:

3. an untrue or deceptive statement deliberately used to mislead

Mirriam Webster dictionary:

Intransitive verb:

2: to create a false or misleading impression

Noun:
1a : an assertion of something known or believed by the speaker to be untrue with intent to deceive
1b : an untrue or inaccurate statement that may or may not be believed true by the speaker
2: something that misleads or deceives

What Aes Sedai do can 100% correctly be called lying, regardless of how Robert Jordan would like to sell it to you. Similarly, it is perfectly reasonable to expect a lie by omission to still require a bluff check.

What you are talking about is misleading people. A lie by omission is not a lie it is a figure of speech. It is a method of deceiving someone but is not an outright lie. The description of the Discern Lies spell explains this.

Depending on your source, a lie by omission is most definitely a form of lie.

Oddly enough, there is no consistent definition of lie. Some dictionaries (e.g. oxford) define it only as deliberately telling a falsehood. Other dictionaries (e.g. cambridge, collins) define it also as conveying information with intent to deceive.

So, it is perfectly reasonable to say an Aes Sedai is still lying when they omit the truth to deceive, quote be damned.

"Technically" telling the truth will not save you in IRL court, either.

I think the build itself is totally fine.

However.

Cohorts are built using NPC wealth, not PC wealth. We know this because:"The cohort should be equipped with gear appropriate for its level (see Creating NPCs). " Directs us to the NPC gear section of the CRB. Even with a heroic (rather than NPC) array class this gives us 12,750 gp to build this character.

Your player has created his NPC with player WBL, not NPC WBL. His armour alone is worth ~20k GP.

If your going for a casting cleric. With a few monk levels. Wisdom.

If you've taken a few monk levels (or even one), you aren't a casting cleric anymore. Nothing the monk gives is worth the loss of caster levels to a casting cleric.

Reread what was said. That seems to be an issue about...

I just reread it, and all I saw was a bunch of hairs and a lumber axe?

The issue is though, that it's unclear if "restricted" means by outside circumstances or by action economy limitations.

So, in your example, if you took a Standard Action to Ready a Charge, (giving you only a Standard Action action later on), you technically are limited to a Standard Action, and should be able to charge.

This is not true. From the FAQ:

"Ready: Can you ready an action to charge?

No. The rules for a charge state that you can take a charge action as a standard action if you are "restricted to taking only a standard action on your turn". Although the ready action text states that you can take a standard action, it does not meet the requirements of the text in the charge action. (See Core Rulebook pages 198 and 203)"

Wait, time out.

Did someone seriously just say time stop is a bad spell?

I think we all need to take 1d4 + 1 rounds to collect our thoughts.

PFS's rules focus is mostly around keeping a stable environment where players and/or GMs can change but the game remains playable and enjoyable regardless. These rules aren't really necessary in home games where you might expect players and GMs to remain mostly static and packaging them as core would be jarring.

However, a big part of PFS is that those rules are centrally enforced, which is obviously not possible in a home game. If they were packaged in core it wouldn't make much difference in my opinion because people in home games would simply house-rule away the parts that were no longer applicable.

The rules that would clash the most would be the ones that require GM fiat or deal with game world continuity (crafting, items carrying over etc) but they would also be the most likely to be removed or adjusted in a home game anyway.

Now for the true bone of contenti: the tarrasque. So many immunities and things. Is it possible to Magic Jar it? Its will save isn't great and as far as I can tell it isn't immune to it, so am I able to swap my soul into the tarrasque?

Yes, AFAIK it is possible to magic jar the tarrasque. Note that you'll have to get through the SR 36 - not insurmountable.

The tarrasque is a huge weakling as written and there are multiple very easy ways to kill it.

Tell your DM that, instead of adding extra rules to spells that overcomplicates the system (IE making magic jar mind-affecting when it isn't), she should adjust where it creates the least disturbance.

In this case, making a tarrasque immune to magic jar (perhaps with a concession to you so that it isn't purely adversarial) is perfectly reasonable, although a tad boring. A better idea would be to just not use the tarrasque as it sucks... or just let you get away with it and run with it.

There's an absolutely huge post by SKR about halfway through this thread that indirectly answers your question.

The answer being: obviously, non-clerics use the class level of the class that gave them the feature.

Your players are incorrect. Knowledge: Arcana is an appropriate check, but they still need to cast detect magic. From the CRB under the skills section, page 101:

"Identify auras while using detect magic - Arcana - 15 + spell level"

Blakmane wrote:

I'm also doubly as confused because a great deal (almost all) of monsters listed by you have multiple natural attacks and most definitely do suffer from losing their full attack.... so.... huh?

If a winged opponent is using natural attacks, you have no need to pick up a bow or drink a Fly potion - it should be close enough to the ground that you can just hit it with your sword.

A flying wizard zapping you with ranged spells, or a dragon blasting you with acid from a distance, is the type of thing we're talking about.

(If you can fly up and charge the enemy, and it moves away each round to blast you, that's probably an AoO. So even if you can't full-attack you're able to melee attack twice per round.)

We're only talking about flying opponents with ranged attacks so I don't know what you're getting at here. A flying opponent with a ranged attack can still, and often ideally should, use natural attacks when you engage it in the sky (or to hover out of your reach and make full attacks on your squishies). If you are forcing the critter to back away, eating as you say a charge AND AOO every round, you're no worse off than against a critter on the ground with a ranged attack -- and at level 8 probably doing more total damage than a full attack to boot (both AOO and charge are at full BAB instead of +6/+1 on a full attack).

The point being, once you are in the sky, almost all of the monsters on the list are better off standing next to you and going for a full attack with their natural attack routine, or else back away and cast spells which they could have done on the ground anyway. This lets you contribute fully to the fight just as if it was grounded. The original poster's argument - that flying letting you stand next to an enemy is not a useful option because ranged flying attackers can kite - is not really supported by the evidence they presented.

RJGrady wrote:

Matthew Downie wrote:

wraithstrike wrote:

For DR(no clustered shots feat) take 10 from the weapon damage you will enter for each iterative attack. The final result will be the numbers you post here.

That doesn't really work for DR when DR is a real problem. If I'm doing 1d8 damage, my average damage is 4.5. If I'm attacking DR 5, what's my average damage per hit?

0.75 hp.

You are forgetting about STR. Since this whole thread is about a melee specialist using a bow as a backup he is going to have a decent STR. By the time flying creatures become a threat the player will be able to afford a bow with a STR bonus. Most melee focused characters have 18+ STR. That brings your average damage up to 8.5, or 3.5 after DR 5. Bow also have a x3 critical multiplier, so on a critical hit that brings the damage up to 25.5.

Compared to his normal damage this is not really all that much, but the point is it is better than nothing. The whole idea behind a backup is to use it when all else has failed. If you have to fall back to your backup you are already in a bad way. The idea is to prevent it from becoming worse. The best example is a company’s backup of their computer data. If they have to use the backup their hard drive has completely failed including the R.A.I.D., at this point the backup is their last shot at preventing total disaster.

The post above you takes the STR into account. It's still basically not worth pulling out a bow at higher levels. The melee fighter is not contributing enough to make any real difference, and if the rest of the party can't handle it, they should probably retreat or risk TPK.

In early levels yes definitely have a cheap ranged weapon around. By mid levels, 'Keep some potions of fly around' is a much better piece of advice.

Keep in mind, Aroden and Razmirare not one of the PFS allowed deities. So by default toucannot worship them.

Does that mean I can worship another god and then also take Aroden's and Razmir's traits? Because it isn't 'worship'? I could technically be a cleric of a totally different god and also be a razmiran priest or follower at the same time?

This seems somewhat counterintuitive to me.

I'm sorry you feel that way Blackmane. I've been playing Pathfinder since it was released; 3.5 since that was released; and 3.0 since I switched from AD&D as both a player and DM. I have my copy of the Expanded Psionics Handboox well thumbed on the shelf and while I was born at night, it wasn't last night.

In a reasonable group of players capable of showi self restraint I do not believe that spell casting is game breaking. Ultimately the DM sets the tone and challenge of an adventure and while dealing with spell casting certainly requires more thought it certainly is not a Herculean task.

I'm sorry if that has not been your experience.

The implication was not that you were born last night, and more that if you haven't realised by now that arguments like 'just enforce spell components' are now considered warning bells for an outdated and poor argumentative progression, there's probably no convincing to be had here on either side.

Considering that the follow-up was the rather infamous 'If you have good players' with the implict 'you must not have good players', a tired argument that tacitly concedes there is an problem as memorax points out, I feel my expression of sympathy to Rynjin was well placed.

It doesn't work for the reason Jeraa posted. Healing isn't 'positive energy damage' and you are making a leap of logic not supported in the rules by assuming it is. If you crit with a healing touch attack you are multiplying the damage, which is 0, for a total of 0 extra damage.

Note that you could definitely use CLW to coup-de-grace a helpless undead.

okay so people keep citing the FAQ, which is good and everything but i've been noticing nothing in the FAQ says for positive effects only for negative effects, hence the word prevent being used. so far the rules seem to either be confused or misunderstood with this, knowing how the creators and their apparent dislike of dex to damage it probably is a no with it working and all.

But as i'm seeing it currently this ruling with how it's worded doesn't say about positive effects only negative. and the first part basically says treat it as normal.

As of know there is no need to restate the FAQ as it's been beaten to death like a dead horse by now. if you have actual insight or something original to state fel free and please do.

Re-read it. It specifically talks about positive effects.

"However, any other effects that would increase the multiplier to your Strength bonus on damage rolls (such as the two-handed fighter archetype's overhand chop) do not affect your Dexterity bonus on damage rolls."

No, the Eldritch Archer is broken because you get to play a God wizard and an archer at the same time without either of their weaknesses. The "first round advantage" is only a small part of it.

This seems like a hyperbole. Care to explain how you get to play a full progression, 9th level caster with utility and CC... which the magus doesn't have access to?

I still don't understand why people harp on about classes that sit well within or at most are at the upper limit of a respectable class balance whilst simultaneously ignoring the fact that multiple classes (all 9th level spellcasting classes, for a start) are far more capable classes. Magus is a damage-dealing class, first and foremost, and aside from the fact that damage is rarely 'broken', i'm still yet to see any proof that an eldritch archer's damage output is better than a standard magus especially given the loss of rapid shot, clustered shots and manyshot...

In fact, all I DO see is the typical knee-jerk.

Execution is not Murder. Execution is the enactment of Just Punishment, on a convicted individual. Murder is killing for the sake of killing or for personal gain. Just because you decide someone is evil, even if that decision is based on a paladins detect evil, doesn't automatically give you the right to stand as executioner.

So, you're saying that killing a helpless individual (assuming specific circumstances such as conviction), is not necessarily an evil act, then? This is mostly what I'm contesting. Clearly killing a helpless individual can definitely be an evil act, I would never contest otherwise, but this depends on both intent and circumstance. Even DnD morality, which is relatively simplistic, strains to be reduced to a level of dimensionality so flat as PDK seems to be reducing it to in this thread.

And the matter of fair fight depends on who you are asking. Would a paladin? In general terms yes. A paladin is not going to use a 'tactical nuke' vs. a guy armed with a club. Either he will step down in weaponry to match his opponent or offer them one of his to give them a fair chance.

Again, doesn't this still depend on circumstance? For example, what if the paladin had a 'tactical nuke' vs a guy with a club... who, if he wins, destroys the world? The Paladin doesn't necessarily have a god on his side, or one more powerful than his opponent - to throw away his nuke is to endanger an entire world of innocents, which I would probably describe as putting Law before Good.

Again, what I'm trying to say is (and from your post I think we aren't actually really in conflict), most things are a matter of degree. Is killing someone in their sleep evil? Well, if it is murder, sure, of course -- but if it is to better improve the chances of success for a legitimate and good cause, perhaps one should not be so quick to call for fall. Everyone is busy saying the paladin was too quick to judge while they are themselves busily judging rather quickly. We really don't have enough information to tell us whether this act was truly evil, neutral or good. However, it seems clear enough to me that the subject argument (Slaying enemies in their sleep evil?) is a pretty resounding 'depends' regardless of how we slice and dice the specific scenario. PDK, as far as I understand (maybe I haven't understood correctly, thus the question above), is trying to say the answer is 'yes, always'. Thus the argument.

Worth mentioning I actually believe killing of any kind of sapient life is a moral wrong that must be rigorously justified - but that Pathfinder requires a special type of morality to justify the wanton, basically murder that most scenarios/APs require of you or else paladins become mostly unplayable.

As for the actual original post: it's RD, probably never even happened (sorry RD!).

If you have to ask whether it's a bad idea or not, it's probably a bad idea.

If killing a helpless opponent is always evil, does that mean an executioner is always evil even if he performs capital punishment only on Balors?

Does that also mean you have to offer a fair fight even if that means you will almost certainly be responsible for the death of innocents?

Seems a bit odd.

The +1 is an enhancement to the armor bonus, so indeed it would not stack.

Sword - mark of rank
Spear - flagpole
Mace - molestation deterrent

Ifrit are outsiders and lack the dual nature required to become a lich. No soul to store and all that. While native outsiders can be raised, it is never stated that they have a dual nature.

Lich template requires only 'living creature', so they qualify just fine. Assuming they don't have a dual nature is also reading too far into the text, especially considering that the ability to be raised heavily implies as such.

Also, Ifrit don't have to be related to Efreeti, oddly enough.

Why would you mess with it? Why not work with your player to best integrate his wish into the narrative?

Honestly to me that seems like a perfectly reasonable wish, considering that it barely achieves more than a blood money + permanency anyway.

It has been stated plenty of times in thread already: the antipaladin's soul goes to the domain, not the plane. God domains do not have to perfectly match a plane in terms of alignment. There's no reason to believe a faithful antipaladin would go to the Abyss under any circumstances - it is clearly stated they go to the relevant domain of the god they worshipped and only unclaimed souls are left to go to the plane of their specific alignment.

It's not just an antipaladin issue here anyway. Any CE follower of Calistra is going to be suffering the same issue --- and the vast majority of calistra followers are CN, which is still a very poor fit for elysium if you think about it. Gorum also has exactly the same issue.

Groetus is mostly not relevant here. JJ was not saying in that thread that being one step away in alignment means you get groetus'd -- although they may be at greater risk. That is reserved for failing to faithfully follow your god's example, either by fundamentally misunderstanding their tenents or paying only lip-service to them. An antipaladin is not necessarily doing either.

An example of someone destined for the big ol' G would be a CE worshipper of Iomedae who kills innocents because he thinks all life is tainted (fundamental misunderstanding). You could even be the same alignment and fail - for example, LE worshipper of Zon Kuthon who enjoys torturing others but is too cowardly to face any pain himself, avoiding it where possible (IE lip-service only).

*edit*

A much more reasonable approach here that might reconcile people who have an issue with this, is that the souls of the faithful are likely to drift towards the underlying alignment and philosophies of the god's domain over time. Just like a LN soul cast to the hells will eventually be reforged into a LE devil, so will that antipaladin over the eons be recrafted into a CN petitioner more suitable for calistra's needs.

"You have served Vengeance well, young antipaladin - but that time is now over. Rest, and be free of the thirst for blood that ensured your survival in the mortal. You must.. think differently if you are to survive here."

I was recently running a table where someone had some multi-classed halfling melee type, that did nearly 50 points of damage per attack and had an armor class or 40 with a touch AC of 35. I don't know if this was legal or not but had I known this before I would have not allowed him to play that character. That character alone broke the scenario as he could essentially run it himself.

You aren't allowed to do this as a PFS DM unless the build actually isn't legal.

Given the halfling was multi-classed I'm guessing you were reasonably high leveled, in which case those kinds of numbers are not really unreasonable anyway.

As an unrelated player in your game, if I saw you ban another player's character for no reason other than because you didn't like the build, I would be vocally unhappy with you and probably attempt to report you up the PFS chain.

If the player was using that character to be actively disruptive, that's a player issue, not a character issue. Banning the character achieves nothing and makes one look petty.

There is no such thing as a Neutral act save for taking no action.

This is such a crazy, ridiculous assertion I'm not even sure where to begin refuting it.

Would a paladin fall for forgetting his friend's birthday? For zoning out in a conversation?

Does this mean neutral exemplars (outsiders made of neutrality) are literally incapable of taking actions? How do you explain a four-axis alignment system if all actions are good or evil?

I just...

Yeah.

I assume you're talking about the Pathfinder world, incidentally. Hopefully.