PiccoloBard's page

Also, the fact that souls and an afterlife demonstrably exist in Pathfinder-world would tend to make the concept of death differ somewhat from ours.

Gridworld. Every surface has a 5-foot square grid superimposed on everything.

There is an ancient prophecy that the world will be washed clean of its grid. Some work to hasten the impending arrival of the Great Flood whilst others fight to stave off the impending doom of All That We Know.

Most folk just want to keep on taking their 5-foot steps.

Also, everyone is really confused about how far they can jump.

Vidmaster7 wrote:

I just thought of a weird dungeon idea. So you have 6 doors behind one of them is a land shark. You and one other keep choosing doors til one of you are eaten by the bullete.

Suppose you had three doors. The GM tells you that behind one of them is a bulette. You pick a door. Before opening it, the GM opens one of the two doors you didn't pick, revealing an empty room. You now have two closed doors and one open, safe door.

The GM then tells you that you can either open the door you originally picked, or you can switch doors and open the other closed one.

Assuming you want to fight a bulette (hey, everybody needs XP), what should you do?

In that case, you probably have a Monty Hall GM. ;)

Do you factor in the rest of the group, or do you think its better to invent your own character independently?

For the same reason that someone else suggested starting out with an archetypical sort of character, I like the idea of creating characters together, especially for new players. My first campaigns were of the "we all just make our own characters and start from there" type, and it was actually kind of intimidating because I wasn't sure of how to interact with the other characters. (That is, my character's relationship with each of the others was "hey, person I just met!" and I found it hard to get past that.)

If we'd worked out beforehand how some of the characters might know each other, that would have made it easier: if you know that your character and Alice's character are sisters, and your character works for the same guild as Bob's character, then you have something to go on, beyond the general objective of "interact among yourselves!". You can think of something like an archetype for a relationship between siblings, childhood friends, two guys whose families have hated each other for generations, etc. and that's something to start with.

I think some people have the idea that "Session 0" is a crutch and their group is so "good" at RPGs that they don't need it. But (1) if you're adding a new player to the group, they are by definition not too experienced for Session 0, even if there were such a thing as being too experienced for it and (2) Session 0 can only help you -- help you understand the expectations for the campaign, and help you make characters that fit the campaign (and each other).

Having to declare your intended action before anyone's moved in the round just sounds so inefficient. By the time your turn actually comes up, the state of the combat may have changed such that your original plan isn't even valid anymore. If anything, I suspect I'd be *more* confused about what to do on my turn in this system than I am with normal initiative (like if my turn rolls around and the obvious thing to do is cast a certain spell, but I previously declared a melee attack and can't cast a spell unless I delay further -- with regular initiative I could just cast the spell). I feel like it would get very frustrating very fast. I'm not a Divination specialist, I just play one in this game! ;)

What surprises me most, though, is that as far as I can tell, the "anti-metagaming" faction isn't up in arms about this system encouraging discussion between players during combat (which I'm not against, but I have seen some people be).

Frogsplosion wrote:

So I built an orc bloodrager recently, my DM allowed me to have a badger familiar and I've basically used to to bust up the character. I gave it the valet archetype, took Amplified Rage so I could hit 30 strength while raging (The badger holds a permanent readied action to cut himself upon combat starting). I also took ranks in ride, so my badger is intelligent, also gets my ranks in ride, and rides me, so he can use the ride skill to negate hits (lol).

I don't get how the badger gets rage, even with an injury. He isn't a bloodrager, and valet doesn't share class features. What am I missing?

The badger in the bestiary has bloodrage, but animal companion badgers just have regular barbarian-style rage. Not sure which of those a "badger familiar" would be.

I'm wondering how much a caster oracle should be investing in melee abilities, e.g. in terms of feats. The guide mentions that most casters will have to spend at least a little time in melee (close-range spells, plus you have medium armor proficiency and a 3/4 BAB), which all makes sense, but doesn't go into much detail.

I was thinking of using a longspear and reach cleric-style tactics on a controller (because nothing says control like a reach weapon), but I'm not sure how feasible this actually turns out to be in terms of stats. If you wanted to use Combat Reflexes like the classic reach cleric, you'd have to have a pretty high dex in addition to strength to really make use of it. Maybe if you dumped intelligence *and* wisdom? But this would really put a dent in your out-of-combat utility (my precious skills!). I guess this is also sort of true for the reach cleric, but charisma is somewhat less important to them than wisdom is to oracles.

Somewhat ironically, being a pseudo-reach cleric "for battlefield control!" might be easier on someone like an enabler, who doesn't have to keep their charisma quite as high and thus has a few more points to play with for the physical stats.

There are real-world examples of "secret" languages, e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damin.

According to Wikipedia, this one was not actually "secret", since they didn't actively prevent the uninitiated from learning it -- except for teaching it in private to those who were considered eligible. Still, this contrasts with the situation of certain other ritual languages -- e.g. in non-Hebrew-speaking Jewish communities, where Hebrew is used as a ritual language, but by the entire community rather than a small subset of initiates.

On a side note. What do you guys think about having your players make a character without knowing what the other players are? I've noticed most people tend to play "what's missing" instead of just what they would like.

No, as a player I tend to need something to narrow it down for me. There are so many different things that I would in principle like to play that just asking me "what do you want to play?" won't get very far. Knowing about the campaign you're going to be playing can do some of this, of course (e.g. if it's an underground campaign, or a pirate campaign, or whatever, then you can rule out character concepts that you don't think would fit that). But I also find being the only "class X" in the party more fun than being one of two, for most X. So what I'd like to play really does depend somewhat on what other people do.

I have a noob question about the whole strength/medium armor issue. Though I haven't done the math (nor do I really know what math to do, in fact), I suspect that the guide's strategy generally wins out over the alternative of building a weak but dexy oracle (i.e. more like a sorcerer). However, I worry about armor check penalties -- especially at low levels, since the penalties will be reduced once you can get your hands on mithral and/or magic armor (and you'll have put skill ranks into these skills anyway by that point). Would one start out with light armor and then switch to medium armor later?

Divine hunter is a good idea. Even as a vanilla hunter, you'd get to be proficient with all martial weapons, have an animal companion, and (spontaneously) cast druid spells; you could flavor all that in a variety of ways.

You do from level 4 on: Improved Empathic Link

…Though animal companions aren't as intelligent as familiars, which probably has some effect on the link.

The game is far more than just a set of numbers you rolled.

At least it is if you roleplay instead of rollplay.

Doesn't roleplaying the BMX Bandit get a bit samey after a while?

If people's point buy characters are any indication, the average charisma on Golarion is less than 10.

Well, among PCs anyway. Maybe that's why they became adventurers.

Isn't this what happened with the interaction of Rapid Reload and the nauseated condition? If you have Rapid Reload (crossbow), you reload as a free action, so you can't do it while nauseated. If you don't have the feat, you can reload your crossbow fine, because it's a move action.

Personally, I think this is absurd, and I think it would be logical to let someone decide to perform a given action "the normal-person way for once" if there's some reason not to reload faster, cast a spell faster, or whatever. These feats (which apply to individual instances of an action you can take repeatedly) contrast with something like Necromantic Affinity, which instead induces a state of being (and I'd agree that you shouldn't be able to just decide to stop "benefiting" from that whenever it suits you). But this is the rules forum…

Oh man, Up from Darkness looks fascinating! Definitely another one to check out.

Thanks, guys! Stoneheart Valley in particular sounds like it could be a nice fit.

I'm still fairly new to pencil-and-paper RPGs -- I started playing Pathfinder about a year and a half ago (after nearly 20 years of playing computer RPGs) -- but I've been thinking it would be fun to give GMing a try. That is, I'd like to be in the position to offer to run a one-shot sometime for some friends of mine, who are the ones who got me into this in the first place.

Does anyone have any thoughts on stuff that's out there that would be "first-time GM friendly" while still having the potential to be fun for experienced players, and could be run as a one (or maybe two)-shot? (These particular experienced players definitely appreciate a good combat, but are also not averse to stuff like social encounters -- and some are quite into that, in fact.)

Sorry if that's a stupid question -- I've looked around the boards and found a lot of discussion of published adventures that are good for introducing new players to the game, for instance, and others that are particularly hard for inexperienced GMs to run, but I haven't yet seen anything about this sort of situation. Any ideas?

Ultimate Integrals
Rise of the Lune Lords
Cryptanalysis of the Everflame

this is the point, don't look behind the magic curtain, it's simply whatever happens to be behind the magic curtain, that's enough.

if people aren't getting the metaphor.

don't ask what manifestations are.

what do you identify with a spellcraft check, manifestations.

what are manifestations? they're definition is the thing/whatever you identify when using spellcraft.

that's the end of it.

Sanderson’s First Law of Magics: "An author’s ability to solve conflict with magic is directly proportional to how well the reader understands said magic."

I think that goes double if it's the audience *themselves* who are trying to solve conflict with magic.

Creators of non-interactive media can get away with magic working any which way, but the goal here is to roleplay as characters who actually live in this world of magic. In order to make decisions and solve problems, the players have to be able to know at least something about what the consequences of those decisions might be; otherwise the decisions are totally meaningless.

That's why someone might be further interested in what manifestations actually can and can't do (and why an FAQ about spell-like abilities spawned a thread about invisible casters in the first place).

The problem is the phrase in the description of Spellcraft: "you must be able to clearly see the spell as it is being cast".

Now, if it had been "…see the spell being cast", there would be no problem: this can be interpreted to mean the *event* of the spell being cast.

But (unfortunately, in my opinion), they said "…see the spell as it is being cast". The "event" interpretation isn't available for this sentence structure: now "as it is being cast" modifies the verb phrase "see the spell". That implies that the spell is something that you can "see"; and if that's so, then a spell is something that you can "see" even if you're not using Spellcraft.

(I think this is a real linguistic contrast: "I saw the note being played" is a way of saying "I saw someone play the note", albeit a slightly awkward one; "I saw the note as it was being played" is nonsense, precisely because the note isn't something you can see.)

I kind of hope that they actually meant "see the spell being cast" and the current wording is the result of a copy-editing error. But the FAQ makes that…unlikely.

I agree with the FAQ author that there has to be a way to stop psychics from walking all over martials in intrigue-type situations, but I'd always pictured the act of noticing that a spell has been cast in your vicinity as more of a "sixth sense" (and one that doesn't give away the caster's square, either). Admittedly, I'd never read the rule carefully until now, and I think the GM who first taught me how to play houseruled it differently.

It would also be nice to get a clarification on the interaction of visual spell manifestations with things like blind(ed)ness, darkvision, etc.

They remind me of the Vahnatai from the Exile/Avernum computer game series.

Mechanically, they seem a bit like elves except stronger (similar immunity to sleep effects, darkvision instead of low-light, same attribute bonuses but with no penalty). I'd give them a strength penalty for balance, to start with. (In my head it was a tossup between strength and con; elves get con, so…)

PiccoloBard wrote:

In practice, the utility of spending a lot of skill ranks to learn languages strikes me as limited, given how early you can get Tongues (not to mention that noted first-level spell Comprehend Languages can be enough in certain situations).

I've studied a lot of different languages IRL, and in principle I enjoy works in other (non-interactive) media that explore linguistic issues, but I personally don't find it that interesting to deal with language barriers in a game. So no, I don't have any particular interest in playing polyglot characters, though it can be kind of fun to pick out 4 or 5 languages for a character with high starting Int.

Nobody I've ever played with has ever bothered to memorize tongues. Or comprehend languages. It seems to most like a waste of a spell slot that could be sued for buffing, protection, or damage. But that may just be the people I've ended up playing with.

Clerics get Tongues starting at level 7, so it's a simple way from fairly early on of dealing with situations like "hey, we're going to parley with the Munavri tomorrow", "we've been captured by some strange species of creatures we've never seen before and none of them speak Common", etc.

Whether it's worth a spell known for arcane or spontaneous casters, who get the spell even earlier, is another question (though either a wizard or a sorcerer in my last campaign took it -- I forget which, maybe the wizard picked it up from a scroll?). But if you take it, it's probably for the same reason you take something like Rope Trick or Prestidigitation: yeah, it's not helping you fight things, but a spell like this allows you to navigate the world more easily in between. It's a way of solving a specific practical problem.

As for the other point the one thing I have never done is made analogs from human languages to made up ones.

Me neither; I dislike when this happens in fantasy in general. The closest I've ever come was saying something to my animal companion in Welsh this one time (just to illustrate that I spent about 3 seconds or whatever talking to him, and nobody else could understand me).

In practice, the utility of spending a lot of skill ranks to learn languages strikes me as limited, given how early you can get Tongues (not to mention that noted first-level spell Comprehend Languages can be enough in certain situations).

I've studied a lot of different languages IRL, and in principle I enjoy works in other (non-interactive) media that explore linguistic issues, but I personally don't find it that interesting to deal with language barriers in a game. So no, I don't have any particular interest in playing polyglot characters, though it can be kind of fun to pick out 4 or 5 languages for a character with high starting Int.

So, in regards to "you don't need to have full ranks in a skill to be competant" what are the thoughts on half & 3/4 bab? Are such classes (assuming they target ac) competant at combat as the game progresses? Magi and druids tend to be, though by virtue of spell enhancements (shocking grasp / spellstrike / wildshape bonuses, etc).

I tried to be an archer as a hunter, and struggled with accuracy the entire time: at higher levels when I was getting 4 or 5 attacks per round (rapid shot, haste, etc.), usually one of them would hit. It was my first character ever, though, and I didn't figure out exactly what the problem was for a while. If I'd put it together sooner, I probably would have made less use of Deadly Aim and more use of things like Gravity Bow and special ammunition, to do more damage without giving up attack bonus.

Anyway, I hadn't heard of the background skill rules before, but I hope to try that out sometime. It seems to get at the heart of what the problem is: no more "Hey, Bob, you worked for your family's candle-making business before you became a paladin, right? This is a situation that calls for a good candle-making! … What do you mean you put all your skill points in perception, diplomacy, and sense motive?!" Getting rid of that particular bit of gameplay/story segregation sounds like a great idea.

Personally, I'm not a fan of the concept of fantasy counterpart cultures in general, no matter what the medium. (I'm new enough to the hobby that most of my experience with this issue comes from non-RPG media, but I have such an aversion to the phenomenon in novels that I've been turned off certain books for this reason alone.)

However, I think I'd feel more comfortable playing in a "medieval European" setting than something that's supposed to be a representation of some other real-world culture. Maybe because "medieval European fantasy" is a known thing in the pop culture I grew up with, while "ancient Egyptian fantasy" (or whatever) is not. Cultural appropriation considerations probably play a role as well.

My group plays in a kind of vague homebrew setting, so I've never played in Golarion, but I suspect I wouldn't like it so much, with its "Alain the cavalier from Totally Not France". (This may be an unfair characterization. I hope it is.)

I don't know what this all means about what established RPG settings I would like the most. Maybe Eberron? I don't know much about it, but I've always thought it sounds intriguing (and pretty different from everything else).

Also, the fact that these are my preferences doesn't mean that I'll refuse to play in a setting that doesn't satisfy them. My tastes are pretty idiosyncratic, after all. My group's last campaign ended up incorporating some sort of Planescape stuff (I think?), which contained my absolute least favorite thing to have in a fantasy setting (namely RL religion), but I still enjoyed the campaign because I like my group.

Makes sense!

Somewhat related: If you have a wizard archetype that modifies your familiar, can you also give your familiar an archetype of its own? A Pact Wizard with a School Familiar, for instance. Or Spirit Binder/Figment (which seems kind of cool concept-wise, but would it work?). Spirit Binder in particular does stuff to your familiar's stats…

Ah, it's the "base price" of the potion…which is just (minimum caster level)*(spell level)*50, meaning that the caster level at which it's crafted doesn't matter for these purposes?

So it looks like non-potion alchemical items are best taken care of over somewhat longer periods of downtime! :)

I've got one: I've been reading up on potion-making and Craft: Alchemy, since I'm thinking of playing an alchemist in the near future, but I'm having trouble wrapping my head around how these actually work. Is there a simple way of remembering what you can make in a day, or in some other specified amount of downtime? (Plus, if I understand it correctly, they're both actually pretty slow, or at least slower than what I expected.)

Also, it looks like your caster level affects the price of potions, and thus the amount of progress you have to make to finish them. (Or you could choose to make them at a lower caster level, but lower the duration or bonus accordingly.) Is that right?