Quorlox's page

Mantlets are cool, and should be part of Pathfinder.

Potion/Oil Rules in the CRB wrote:

Likewise, it takes a full-round action to apply an oil to an unconscious creature.

+1

I allow either to be made as long as the use thematically fits. In some ways, an oil of CLW makes more thematic sense than a potion since you could target toward the injuries.

I don't think so. Master Tinker states that they are treated as if they are proficient, and not that they are granted weapon proficiencies, while the latter says it works with granted weapon proficiencies.

Also throw in some lieutenants that are inbetween mooks and the boss. Like the mooks, add more as necessary.

I rarely use a single big boss, instead having a mooks and more to make sure I can let the characters be awesome while still challenging them.

As a houserule, we allow (caster level) identical items to be created per day as long as the sum of their values is less than the max valued allowed. This allow weaker potions to be created in batches with increasing level.

Are there any published rules for adding perks and quirks from the Dynamic Magic Item creation rules via more standard magical creation techniques? If not, any suggestions for the cost?

We created a list of Supporting Feats and allow characters to select one at level 1 and every even level after that beginning at level 2.

A magic item that provides that constantly could work really well.

I may extend Racial Heritage to include races that have access to the Mostly Human trait. Thematically it works for me, and mechanically I don't think it would be unbalanced.

Hadn't noticed that; glad I asked.

Why would the oread's Stony Step and the sylph's Airy Step not be allowed?

Detect Magic will not work through a thin sheet of lead so be sure to use that in any traps, etc. you don't want discovered.

You can trigger both at the same time. The clause is when you are reduced below 0 hit points. Though with Resiliency, you do have to have an immediate action saved up to activate it.

+1

We wanted to spread the wondrous items around so we assigned a number of wondrous items to other feats.

Item Creation Feat Changes:

Craft Arms and Armor: Head, Feet, Wrist, and Hand items because those slots include bracers, helms, and gauntlets.

Forge Ring: Neck slot items because they are basically jewelry

Scribe Scroll: Books, Manuals, Pages, and Tomes

Brew Potion: Bottles, Decanters, Elixirs, Ointments, Oils, Salves, Solvents, and Unguents

The mechanics of creating the reassigned items remains the same, i.e. follow the Craft Wondrous Item mechanics, just the required feat is different.

Some of them are not a perfect fit, but items like bracers, helms and gauntlets are closer to armor than regular items and for simplicity, it is easier to designate slots for certain feats than worry about considering each item.

In addition, we didn't like the limit of one inexpensive item per day so:

For items costing less than 1000sp, a character may create up to (caster level) identical items in a single day as long as the cost of the item multiplied by the number of items being created is less than 1000sp. For example a 3rd level cleric could create up to 3 cure light wound potions in a day.

To enable staves to recharge, I am thinking one could add a dedicated pearl of power to the staff. As long as the pearl was at least as high level as the highest level the spell could cast, the staff would recharge one spell per day. Because the pearl is dedicated to the staff, it would cost half the list price of a standard pearl.

Multiple pearls could be added to a staff if one wanted it to recharge faster.

Sound reasonable?

We have adapted Talismanic components for our games as well, use it as an additional type of treasure that can either be sold or used for item creation.

Instead of worrying about skewing WBL through crafting, we just alter the awarded XP to fit the actual difficulty of an encounter.

I think the publish system for magic item works pretty well assuming you take 10. The only change we have made is to allow (caster level) identical items be created per day as long as the total cost of the items is less than 1000gp. It shouldn't take an entire day for an experienced crafter to scribe a CLW scroll.

I was thinking of designing an Arcane Discovery for a Spell Sage that expands the number of classes whose list he can cast from using Spell Study. Would adding one additional class spell list to those available via Spell Study be too weak? Too strong? Just right?

Our group allows PCs to earn Teamwork feats as bonus feats through teamwork. It's storytelling based, but that's really what Teamwork feats should be IMO.

well then i have been doing it wrong for a really long time, is there a source for it one way or the other

I don't know of a source that supports your interpretation; do you have one? The text that states that a higher-level slot can be filled with a lower level spell does not include anything to suggest that the lower level spell becomes a higher level spell.

I'm also uncertain why this combo would break the game compared to other things.

There are two costs listed for creating animated object using the Craft Construct feat, one in UM and the other in Haunting of Harrowstone; is there any clarification as to which one is correct?

I'd probably allow it. Nobody wants to lose a character to bleeding after surviving a fight.

By RAW I think it's relatively clear that extradimensional space means anything limited by distance wouldn't work at all. An arm would be a really gray area.

...

I would like to know what scenario the character would want to be keeping their homunculus in their bag of holding. One option they could do is carry the homunculus in the bag with their head sticking out of the bag (or like Matthew Downie said, leave it open). This way the telepathic link would still work, although a GM might possibly rule that the homunulus would take full AoE damage though, although that's rather mean. I suppose that might be the purpose for putting it in the bag of holding? to protect it from area hazards?

I was thinking about it as a way to protect the homunculus.

And I don't see how anything limited by distance, which includes sight, sound, the reach of an arm etc., is automatically prevented by the interface between an extra-dimensional space (non-dimensional, etc.). What about the Create Pit spell that was mentioned previously? Can nobody hear or see somebody that's fallen into the pit created by that spell?

I would say that as long as there is a line of effect from the master to the homunculus it would be reasonable for the telepathic link to persist. Telepathic link makes no distinction about dimensions, so if the two points are within 1,500 ft it simply works. I personally would rule even less strict, but maintaining line of effect seems like a simple and clear restriction.

Simple. Makes sense. It works for me.

Here's a description of the homunculus, which includes its telepathic link.

I don't think the description of the closed door is a good one because it implies a person cannot see what's he has put into the bag of holding, all he can do is rummage around blindly hoping to find what he tossed in there. I think sensory information has to be able to pass between a bag of holding and the user's dimension.

A homunculus is Tiny sized so it can fit in a lot of places. What if the touch inside the bag of holding? I'd think that would be enough to link them again.

Assuming the homunculus could fit, what if the owner stuck his hand in the bag of holding so now they were both inside the bag, would the link work then?

If a homunculus is kept in a bag of holding and the bag is still within range of the telepathic link, does the link still work?

In my experience, if I develop a boss beforehand, I will want to use it, but the PCs may not be interested in going after that particular boss so then I end up "encouraging" them to go in that direction.

But when I let the players choose to go in the direction they want to go, any boss they encounter is an obstacle they want to overcome.

Does that make sense?

I see...I am creating the settings as well, but I also don't want to make up bosses on the spot (as it does take me some time to create bosses)

I've never had to make up a boss on the spot. For my campaigns, once the setting is in place, the players then decide what direction they want to go and the boss they should face is easier to develop for me.

When running campaigns, I spend more time defining the setting and less building bosses, monsters, or anything else. Those I make after the PCs start defining what direction they want to go. I've found that my best campaigns are the ones where the players are making most of the decisions.

never seen Scry and fry as an issue. In a setting where scrying magic exists, anyone who is worried about it uses lead in their walls. A thin shewet between the bricks and Scrying fails. Unless Magic is extreemly rare in your setting the mundane ways of countering things would be known, especially to those who have reason to worry about it.

+1 A little lead goes a long way in Pathfinder. :)

That makes sense, so it would be a house rule to allow Charm Animal to apply to Vermin.

I'm surprised it could be used against both since the feat only says that it affects them as if they were not mindless, but does not change their creature type.

Does Coaxing Spell allow Charm Animal to be used against Vermin? I wouldn't allow the combo to be used against Oozes, but Vermin are basically invertebrate animals.

We decided to add all Teamwork feats to the list since they require at least two people to be useful, and also Damnation feats since they should be easy to learn.

I have done it as well.

As our list has grown, most people have found things that they would like to take as much for thematics as mechanics.

Could this be repaired by Make Whole if the caster level was at least 6?

I don't know how often they should be granted either, but I agree that one at 1st level is a good idea. Would granting one at 1st and then one every even level be too many?

Here is a list of our current Supporting Feats:

Altitude Affinity
Arcane Sight
Believable Veils
Carrion Feeder
Catch-Off Guard
Charge of Righteousness
Childlike
Combat Medic
Conviction
Corsair
Craft Ooze
Curse of Vengeance
Cypher Magic
Cypher Script
Deadly Finish
Deep Drinker
Desert Dweller
Desperate Battler
Disposable Weapon
Esoteric Linguistics
Exotic Weapon Proficiency
Falconry, Andorean
Field Repair
Fiendish Heritage
Flag Bearer
Fleet
Focusing Blow
Groundling
Harmonic Sage
Helpless Prisoner
Hymn Singer
Imperial Conscript
Improved Stonecunning
Improvised Weapon Mastery
Intrepid Rescuer
Iron Guts
Martial Weapon Proficiency
Nimble Natural Summons
One Eye Open
Potent Holy Symbol
Pure Faith
Racial Heritage
Reject Poison
Robot's Bane
Rugged Northerner
Run
Scavenger's Luck
Schooled Reserve
Secret Language (Teamwork)
Secret Signs
Seige Commander
Seige Engineer
Seige Gunner
Slow Faller
Sly Draw
Spell Mastery
Stony Step
Storm Lashed
Taldan Duelist
Throw Anything
Torch Bearer
Trapper's Setup
Troth of the Forgotten Pharoah
Tunnel Rat
Undermining Exploit
Undersized Mount
Unfettered Familiar
Wand Dancer
Water Skinned
Weapon Focus
Witch Knife
Wrest Charge

Both of those grant a benefit at a cost of +1 spell level, but the increase in damage dice takes place 1 every two levels and I thought about granting an increase of one range category (e.g. touch to short) for every two levels as well. This would make the feats dedicated to those effects better, and still boost Heighten Spell to make it better reflect increasing the spell's level.

I am thinking about allowing Heighten Spell to increase the damage dice limit, and perhaps the range, of a spell based on the heightened level. Would this make it too powerful?

Thanks everyone for their suggestions. I like the idea of allowing it.

I was not thinking of eliminating Disable Device, but allowing Craft(traps) to disable traps, Profession(locksmith) to pick locks, etc. in addition to Disable Device.

I am thinking about allowing Craft(traps) to be used to disable traps, Profession(locksmith) to be used to pick locks, etc. Has anyone allowed something like this? I am wondering if it marginalized Rogues, or made them less useful.

Our campaign is using Automatic Bonus Progression from Unchained to reduce the need for upgrading items.

I have always liked the idea of requiring plans/recipes for making items, but have not used it as a rule. I think this is better than making caster level and the listed spells hard requirements because caster level and spells are not really related to the potency of the item. Plans also allow the GM control over what can and cannot be built without too much effort.

In the spirit of Background Skills, my group is toying with the idea I'm calling Supporting Feats. Some feats are weaker (Fleet, Heighten Spell), considered to be a feat tax (Combat Expertise), or highly situational (Eschew Materials, Bushwack). More often than not, these feats are not selected because there are better choices, but this could be changed by offering bonus feat selections that can only be chosen from a Supporting Feat list.

My thought is to allow a character to select a Supporting Feat at levels 2, 6, 10, 14, and 18.

I'm curious what others think, and what feats you think would be good Supporting Feats.

Thanks! These guidelines will help a lot!