Remco Sommeling's page

Rynjin wrote:

Imbicatus wrote:

Omnitricks wrote:

The only reason I played PFS a few years back is because I can't play anything with my friends otherwise.

If I had any other choice I wouldn't even play PFS. Its needlessly restrictive and some of the restrictions don't even make sense.

I find PFS is far more permissive in player options than any home game I've seen.

How often do you see no monk/samurai/ninjas because I don't want Asian crap in my game? No gunslingers? No advanced class guide?

With very few exceptions you can play most of Paizo published content, which is seldom the case with home games.

I've never played a game where this is the case.

I've seen "no UC Gunslingers" because Paizo was sloppy in writing the gun rules, and the 3.5 gun rules work much better. Also, Paizo's gun rules interact really badly with my house rules on critical hits, which I wrote years before Pathfinder came out.

No ACG is a rule I currently enforce....
of course I run 3.5 and don't allow any Paizo products with the exception of Ultimate Campaign (I do use Interjection and DSP stuff though).

I've honestly never heard of someone banning stuff because they "don't want Asian crap" outside of the Paizo.com forums.

I think it is fairly common to have options or classes banned, CRB is usually allowed and other sources are on a case by case basis, often dependent on the books the GM has available.

I think the rules for PFS are quite understandable and fair to attract a wide range of players, expectations of the game simply vary too wildly to put random players at the same table without extensive guidelines.

Just keep in mind that while people might not mind that their character gets killed it is another thing to have your character get killed by another player. It might just start more trouble than it's worth.

Other than that, the most obvious way but also the most crappy for the other player is killing him in his sleep. If I'd steer to be the antagonist in the campaign I'd not try too hard to kill my fellow players but build a difficult but possible way for them to fight back.

Desecrate his holy temple, raise the priests from the dead and use them to exact your vengeance in a carefully planned ambush. That will help making you your preferred status of antagonist and much more fun for the other player.

Avh wrote:

Which leads to what I wrote in my first post : "taking the spellbook of a wizard isn't a very good reason."

While I don't like the way I said it, it is still valid. The end of your sentence needs to say "for me". You cannot say what is or isn't a good reason for someone else's character.

Let's not get up in semantics, obviously he was giving his opinion.

Now in my opinion, the OP was pretty much playing the stupid dumb evil that deserves to die horribly. That is before the time the OP's character found out he had a clone or was a '16th lvl wizard'. (DM was probably running his mouth on that).

Then maybe the OP's group has a different play style and is fine with it. As to killing the wizard, it can happen, not everyone lives daily life being prepared for a psycho murderer to jump out off the bushes. He might simply not have had a contingency spell, or several other counter measures in place a high level wizard is capable of. Much like a high level fighter isn't always wearing fullplate.

I am willing to try 5th edition, the system has some good selling points for me:

- it runs smoother and is less complicated, but still captures the feeling of playing D&D, speeding up combat significantly despite taking more rounds.

- the pcs are less superhero-like and low cr creatures have a better spread in which they can be used in the game.

- stacking effects have been diminished greatly by the advantage/disadvantage system and greatly diminished buffing potential.

- spellcasters are not as overpowering as in 3.x/pathfinder/AD&D edition but are nice to play since spells are not lost from memory after they are cast and have an innate augmentation system built in many spells.

- They have an archetype-like system built into every class which has the potential for much variety.

- More emphasis on roleplaying, though combat is still the core of the system it's actually getting some attention and has a role in character development.

- Multi-classing spellcasters offers some interesting options, it seems quite an elegant solution.

- preparation time for GM went don significantly with less complex characters and monsters.

- Move and full attack, or move attack and move attack is an option

Less appealing :

- Multi-class is a bit more complicated than most parts of the system and needs to be read properly first once or twice.

- I feel the system is still a bit wonky in some parts or no thoughts through well enough, I dont expect to not houserule anything though.

- It needs some adjusting, it feels simple and a bit more dumbed down in some regards at first glance. Until you realize that having rules for everything doesnt add to realism or play experience and is actually quite liberating. (AC rules, skill system)

- I don't feel the involvement with the game as much as I do at paizo, the developers feel much more approachable. Though they do try their 'sagely advice' to solve game issues D&DN falls short on that for the moment.

I'd say you can use it as an improvised weapon but you would not be wielding it as a longspear then. In effect it would be a free action to shift grips, so you can't make both 5' and 10' reach AoO, the GM might limit the number of free actions in a round further.

clff rice wrote:

Lolth

Name CR 27
XP 3276800
CE Medium Outsider (chaotic, demon, evil, extraplanar)
Init +9; Senses Dark Vision, low light vision; detect good, detect law, detect magic Perception +59...

hp 640 (31d10+465 )...

If lolth is going to have 600+ hp, you may as well make it 666 to echo the old 66 hp. You're only 26 off from it after all. Just a thought.

I agree, make her 36HD with a constitution of 36, which gives her an average of 666.

I'd probably give her 8 clones with 66 hitpoints each though, just to screw with my players.

Why do people take this subject so serious ?

Art represents that which people find beautiful, a shapely or well muscled body is very much a part of that. Most men enjoy tasteful art with a hint of sexuality, and in my experience most women do as well though arguably to a lesser extent based on what I read.

There is a lot of art I like, some isn't quite my taste but I accept that other people do enjoy different things. Some women are uppity, some men are perverts and most are just being men and women. I do trust Paizo to strike a balance, which in my opinion they have done very well so far. For my part I accept that Paizo has a wide audience and not all people are the same, a bit more censorship won't hurt me much, but I enjoy seeing the occasional lightly erotic depiction where it is appropriate or as semi-comical relieve.

If art stops invoking a reaction, maybe then everyone is happy ?

I think the paladin is perfectly justified to complain if you do not ping on his evil radar.

Don't forget the 66 ht points. Count 'em.

That was 2nd editon, if only it was 3rd edition I'd make it 666 out off principle.

I think human bodies are pleasant to the eye but the art has to make some sense, I am not bothered by bare chested men or scantily clad women. A seductive sorceress is fine a fighter in chain mail bikini is not, unless maybe it is a gladiator slave pit fight.

I do not think there is a problem with depicting a character's sexuality, only when it makes the characters appear shallow and non-sensical do I have an issue.

Captain Golarion.. ?

FAQ'ed though I would simply turn the dice to equivalent number of d10 dice for the mythic versions.

When an arcane caster such as a wizard or sorcerer wears armor, subtract the AC bonus from the Difficulty Class of the spells they cast and include it as a penalty on caster checks.

For example: A sorcerer with an 18 CHA wearing scale mail casts fireball. Add the sorcerer's CHA bonus (+4) to the spell's level (+3) as normal to figure the DC of the spell, then subtract the armor bonus (5). The DC for the spell is now Reflex 12.

Using this mechanic, an arcane caster never needs to worry or roll to see if they lost a spell. Their spells are just easier to resist due to the armor hindrance.

It is too selective in picking spells to penalize, so fireball is hampered but evard's black tentacles isn't ?

If it reduces actual caster level, thus also concentration checks it would be a little more fair across the range of spells.

I'm absolutely fine if arcane armor mastery feats reduce that by 3 each feat instead without use of swift actions.

Remco Sommeling wrote:

What makes you believe that it is a minority, offended people are more vocal by default. I think the feat is too much and while there might be a problem with monks I do not think this feat is the way to fix them.

I'm not saying not to nerf it. Was there some in the community who wanted it change. Yes. Did they have to make it no longer worth taking anymore imo no. When a change screws over a lot of existing characters well don't expect members of the community to be happy. That it came about because of PFS well it makes me less happy. I respect and have sometimes played in PFS. I don't want them dictating what can or can't be in the game.

I still think it is worth taking personally though I find the mechanics awkward, reminds me of the 3.5 dodge feat.

I don't like them making decisions based on PFS either unless they make it clear it is specifically for PFS, I do not care for the cheesy early entry exploits into PrCs for example.

I am not sure what could be done to make it worthwhile again, neither do I think many people that liked the first feat will be any less offended by any power trimming done. We in our home game simply banned the feat and went on to look at a few hundred other feats.

Defintely never going to be using errata. At all. Not even if you payed me alot of money. One of the things that bothered me towards the end of 3.5. was a very vocal minority demanding that anything they deemed "unbalanced" and Wotc for the most part complied.

What makes you believe that it is a minority, offended people are more vocal by default. I think the feat is too much and while there might be a problem with monks I do not think this feat is the way to fix them.

My problem with the feat is that PCs are much more versatile than their opoonents in general while there are ways to bypass a feat I do not want to mold encounters to take care of the PC with this particular feat.

What annoys me about the feat is that a big hulking creature with a single attack, no matter his AB or how powerful can never ever hit this character. That feat was badly designed and saw much more use than just poor monks.

I used this feat as a GM and had my players call it BS, I think most of the people that are upset have a character that use the feat and now see their character 'ruined', hardly an objective measure of the feat's worth.

To me it doesn't seem it was doing much for martials, move - attack - automatic miss is hardly fun if you are on the side facing the feat, it actually makes casters and archers better dealing with these characters having this feat.

The feat as is now still offers good use in normal mode or total defense, people are just upset how dramatically their character is downgraded imo.

At first I considered adding harsher prerequisites, such as CL 10th perhaps, but I'm hesitant to do so since its meant to compete with another very powerful (some would say "must have") feat, Augment Summoning.

Interesting feats, Remco, just don't do enough if you ask me. If a wizard still can't hit after polymorphing and taking the feats,they clearly aren't doing their job.

I just think taking a feat to ignore the wizards lack of BAB is the wrong way to go. Next we take a feat to ignore the fighter's lack of 6th or 9th level spell casting ?

I think there should be an option for wizards to make a shifting type 'warrior' but it better cost him a considerable amount of his resources/feats. It is already deemed the most powerful class in the game, I don't see a point in giving it freebies.

Let's say you take the Arcane strike option and get a similar boost to hit, at 15th lvl you are at +4/+4 for arane strike, assuming you invest in physical scores and an amulet of mighty fists. You will be about 8 BAB + 3 WT compared to a fighter behind -4 for this feat, 7 behind on a fighter. But you do have 8th lvl spells, the fighter does not, a transformation spell gets you up to speed, a quickened spell and you are ready to stand side by side with the warriors.

Lets not make it too easy, it is part of the challenge.

Eldritch knight is an acceptable way to do the things you want to do at the cost of 2 levels of casting, don't forget the fighter gives up 20 levels of casting.

I think most people will assume that once a person dies he went on to his final reward/punishment, while it is possible to get have the Gods give a person another chance at great sacrifice/expense few people would go against the natural order unless there is a very good reason for it.

What happens if a person got raised and fails to live up to divine expectations given another chance?

In response to Set,

Yes I agree, Prisoners are slaves. That is why I am opposed to prisons and a justice system that has prisons. Since liberty is more valued that life. And freedom more valuable than slavery. I support the death penalty for all criminals that are so dangerous that others would think them needing imprisonment. Basically, I would send criminals to counseling and/or pay property damages, and if that couldn't solve the problem I would put them to death since slavery is worse than death and I believe cruel.

I am sure the criminals put to death will be celebrating your humanitarian nature for saving them from cruel slavery.

"Petrified

A petrified character has been turned to stone and is considered unconscious. If a petrified character cracks or breaks, but the broken pieces are joined with the body as he returns to flesh, he is unharmed. If the character's petrified body is incomplete when it returns to flesh, the body is likewise incomplete and there is some amount of permanent hit point loss and/or debilitation."

No, petrification in itself would not end the profane gift imo, though I'd say being dead does.

Pretty sure the SNA also only last 1 round per level if you are allowed to also have your eidolon out.

It's only a standard action because SLA are a standard action unless noted otherwise.

Depends on how you interpret this line:

"A spell-like ability has a casting time of 1 standard action unless noted otherwise in the ability or spell description"

In my opinion it simply conforms to the spell, if it doesn't duplicate a spell it will be a standard action unless noted otherwise.

Personally I feel like you have to work to maintain a good alignment, and sure it wasn't the paladin's fault, but the lack of compassion could be enough to lose good alignment not the act itself.

Imagine a person driving a car and a kid trips and falls on the street, the kid dies.. it wasn't the driver's fault but anyone would feel bad, well anyone except for the paladin driving the car....

I am not sure stripping his powers will make the game more enjoyable though, you could just talk to him about it, possibly change to an inquisitor instead.

Technically i dont think Mystra died during the time of troubles, her death is pretty much what caused it. Tossed magic all out of whack, and what are gods any way, then magical beings? Her death shattered the weave, which is to say, all the order that makes up magic. But, yes, Forgotten realms should definatly have stuff on it.

Time of troubles is the time that gods were banished to the Faerun in mortal forms. Mystra died at the hands of a guardian deity guarding the stairway to 'heaven', one of the few deities that wasn't banished.

The magic going out off wack was caused by mystra not being there to tend the weave. All in all a fun time.

Dukal wrote:

I would probably not have my players find a group of goblin babies after killing all of the combative adults because it puts the group in a situation that is almost impossible to resolve due to the alignment system.

Another very good reason to throw out the alignment system.

That is a terrible reason to throw out the alignment system, you just made all your PCs Chaotic Neutral..

I think you would end up more balanced if you could have two scores dictate your save bonuses.

str/con for fortitude bonus on saves
dex/int for reflex saves
wis/cha for will saves

You add the ability modifiers for the save categories together and divide by 2, and change all the saves to 1/2 character level/HD with a +2 bonus if it is a good save for one of his classes.

- I'd give the paladin a static increase in save at 2nd, 6th, 10th, 14th, 18th, for a bonus of +1, +2, +3, +4 and +5 respectively.

- I'd give the monk a bonus on saves every 4 levels, as an added benefit to his defense bonus to armor class.

I don't see a problem with any other classes to implement this.

Ultimately this will increase poor saves a bit and lower high saves by a small margin of 1 to 3, closing the gap by about 2 to 6 points, roughly estimated.

As an added benefit it will make stat dumping less appealing.

EDIT: I shamelessly liked my own post

Ok, I want to make a villain out off a fallen high priest.

He led many of his faithful followers to their death's and got cursed with lichdom, being tricked by a devil into unwittingly completing an unholy ritual.

Now I want to bring this former priest back to make an appropriate challenge for a 12th lvl party. The lich's levels are undefined, but assume he was able to cast 9th lvl cleric spells before his fall from grace.

It seemed like a fun idea but now I have no idea how to stat him up or what to use or do to make it a challenging foe. I definitely do not want to give him clerical spells, but might give him up to 3 other class levels. Which might be rogue, aristocrat or anything else entirely.

Do any of you Paizonians have insights on how to go about this ?

"So 99% of all liches are evil.. sooo it's been done before, I can totally become one and not do anything bad-like... because you know.. I am special."

The arrogance and stupidity of that is enough to fail, it seems if you are willing to take a chance like that with your morality and soul you can not possibly hope to end up on the 'good side'.

how do you explain that as his OWN spellcasting class.. ? there are better and at least raw legal ways to cheese the MT but this aint one of them

I am not so sure it has much to do with sexual harassment, anyone is likely to be the victim of aggressive behavior and if anything a guy is more likely to be beaten up than a girl for looking at someone funny.

Men are hardly immune to intimidation and violence, while I do sympathize with women it really isn't just women that suffer I'd not be surprised if for every physical sexual harassment towards women a man is stabbed or otherwise a victim of severe physical abuse.

All the same if more people would have the decency and conviction to stand up to such behavior society might be a better place, but truth be told I can hardly blame people for being afraid to act, it is not uncommon for good people trying to do the right thing to become the victim. So yea, kudos to you Hama and glad you did not get knifed.

first thought is : how does that mesh with multi-classing ?

alternate solutions :

Make multi-ability item boosters a bit cheaper compared to single ability boosting items.

Give increases in pointbuy instead of plain ability increases at level up, or make ability increases inherent into the classes.

I'd use this opportunity to use some Good Guys from my Bestiary to chase down the character, some celestial retribution, a local jihad proclaimed by the resident high priest and Good Guys gone bad in their undying desire to avenge their loved ones, awesomeness.

I'd like a point pool like grit, arcane points or ki they can draw from to do some nifty tricks, if talents are fixed up they will be just fine.

I think it will simply pass through the wall of fire since it is not physical and fire seems to have no special effect on the kill cloud

Fighter is fine, paizo overshot their goal in the barbarian, just made him a bit too good, rage powers are better than feats and you can take rage powers by giving away feats. A fighter is stuck taking feats.
A rogue has talents which are worse or equal to feats and can exchange feats to get more of them.
A paladin seems to be built under the presumption that RP restrictions balance it's relative power which is weak design in my opinion.
Ranger would be fine if not for a single spell that whacks it out off balance, which is quite often the case with magic in general there are so many spells there will always be a few doing a bit too much, metamagic rods and SADness take them further out off whack.

The fighter could be a bit more sexy, the rogue could be a bit better, it is better fixing the few things that make other classes overpowered or obviously better first. Not to say I do not have house rules to make fighters more appealing but I adjusted the more obvious game breakers first.

Greenwood stuff

Never been a fan of Greenwood, sounds like a horrible GM, with a lot of 'cooler than thou' NPCs.

I think it is an issue with the change from 3.x to pathfinder, in 3.x it would have been a very powerful ability actually ignoring hardness and dealing full damage, frankly a bit hesitant to rule it that way even though that was likely the intent.

In pathfinder the ability does not do anything since halving damage before hardness will be unable to do anything at all.

Touch AC is not that hard to deal with and many characters can really, I think the trouble in this case was a lack of diversity in your party.
A dodge feat, fighting defensively, combat expertise, deflection bonus, concealment, power attack, force effects, channeling, turn undead, withdraw are all things that could have helped, a paladin would have also been quite useful. 100+ hit points is not a lot with an AC of 15, and some of the mentioned attacks deal a lot of damage to them.

Allowing all 3 to attack a single target in the first round is a bit harsh, and energy drain is quite nasty if you take into account that they get 10 temporary hit points every hit. Nasty but hard to peg by CR, either they are very dangerous or not a big threat at all.

ericthetolle wrote:

*handwave* custom designed spells or something. Or, tell me what rules I broke, and I'll do something else. It's a wizard. They always have something else.

The real point, is that after a certain point, fighters are pretty much useless for anything other than having Dominate Person cast on them so they'll attack their own party. So comparing an actual competent class to a fighter is unfair.

Actually, when you cast Gate to call in Solars four times, it failed, so you have no slots left and your time stop is up, and the solars might be pissed that you bugger them so much...

But no. Fighters can be very useful and do fill a niche, especially as archers. There was an example back when there was only Core of a (core only, obviously) fighter that could quite easily beat a Pit Fiend in single combat; that's a CR+4 encounter. IIRC it one-rounded it with the bow with little issues - and that was core only.

Wizards are very powerful, but a lot of their power comes from players who think "I'm a wizard, I can ignore the rules" (as you just did) or that just write shroedinger wizards online. When used in actual play, while they are powerful, they are far from the only class that matters.

Any class, barring potentially rogue and monk (though with archetypes they too) can murder anything within the standard assumptions of the game with little issue.

And custom designed spells have little against a use-activated Bow of True Strike and Time Stop and a readied action... So there ya have it...

not to mention you wasted 10,000 gold on 4 useless gate spells, a fighter could UMD an anti-magic shell and rip you apart for considerably less gold.

So the wizard is deemed to be the most powerful class, comparing every single class to a wizard is just bad design, but even so the summoner does get access to some nifty spells earlier than the wizard and they aren't even summoning spells per definition, they do have decent hitpoints, BAB and fair combat ability.
It does not really matter that much which is more powerful since it is about party dynamics but the summoner overtakes the role of the martials and offers much more on the side, summoner simply does too much, too well.
You are right though, the wizard should be taken down a notch, but that would offend the wizard fanboys too much.

Nearyn, what do you mean by "sucking in more arcane points than I know what to do with"?

They only refresh at the start of each day.

Wyroot

Source: Advanced Race Guide.

The root of the wyrwood tree has a peculiar quality. When a weapon constructed of wyroot confirms a critical hit, it absorbs some of the life force of the creature hit. The creature hit is unharmed and the wyroot weapon gains 1 life point. As a swift action, a wielder with a ki pool or an arcane pool can absorb 1 life point from the wyrwood weapon and convert it into either 1 ki point or 1 arcane pool point. Most wyroot weapons can only hold 1 life point at a time, but higher-quality wyroot does exist. The most powerful wyroot weapons can hold up to 3 life points at a time. Any unspent life points dissipate at dusk.

Wyroot can be used to construct any melee weapon made entirely of wood or a melee weapon with a wooden haft. Constructing a wyroot weapon that can hold 1 life point increases the weapon's cost by 1,000 gp, constructing one that can hold up to 2 life points increases the weapon's cost by 2,000 gp, and constructing one that can hold up to 3 life points increases the weapon's cost by 4,000 gp.

I am pretty sure it is not meant to work with scimitars, but there it is.

Darkwolf117 wrote:

AnnoyingOrange wrote:

my main issues are with the lack of flavor of the eidolon as a creature and summon spells in general.

Wait... what? You actually find the ability to completely build up a creature's appearance and functionality and origin and whatever else, to fit nearly any concept you can imagine, to be a lack of flavor?

I mean, yeah, it's kind of a 'blank-slate' type of deal, but the eidolon's customizability for flavor is one of my favorite things about it. You put your own spin into it, and have pretty much full control over the design and how it fits in, etc. I'm way on the opposite end from considering that to be a problem :/

Fer instance. Can't do that with a conjuration wizard. ;)

Also:

Guardian angel

Imaginary friend that grew up as harsh as the child that imagined it.

Infernal overseer sent to make sure that its assigned diabolist carries out his end of the pact.

From a couple of friends' personal game: An outsider jammed into the body of a mortal sacrifice who are slowly merging into one being, which terrifies both of them.

Bound genie that's been passed down through the family.

Manifested totem/guardian spirit of your tribe.

The lingering spirit of a dead loved one.

A freaking bioweapon that sychronized with you after cracking open a piece of Numerian wreckage.

And on and on and on.

This is a good thing. Locking the Eidolon into a tightly focused flavor runs the risk of ruining all of that, potentially really turning it into a "here are my pokemons let me show you them" class.

I like to think of there being a loose order of Summoners and Eidolons in Dehrukani(in South Garund), where azata/eidolon attunement is treated as a sacred art. Hell, it's almost been confirmed to be the class to represent the God-Callers of Old Sarkoris.

Well it is has that amount of flexibility but it is not the real thing. It can not really be a devil without any of the devil traits, you can kinda fake some by giving immunity to fire, some resistances and the like but you can only ever hope to approximate the devilish qualities and if you do it will generally suck.

The summoner is just a horrible class, it looks and feels like it is designed for a different system. The mechanics are wrong on several levels and don't fit with the changes paizo made to 3.5 (especially the synthesist in that regard).
I also have trouble with this pile of amorphous goo that is an eidolon, one level you have a devil(ish) minion next level you have an angel(ish) one, it reeks of (clunky)mechanics with little flavor, even if you want to stay in the same them it is impossible to have the eidolon evolve naturally since you have to dump abilities to buy 3 and 4 point evolutions.
Personally I do not like any class feature companion x abilities, summon monster X is sort of broken already (with a fair bit of farfetched fluff) and the summoner has an odd mix of spells that make little sense, the AC is way too easy to buff up for both the summoner and eidolon even before you apply magical gear or feats to it.

I think that is most of it..

It has been my experience that if someone wants me to go back to his room at 4am, he's looking for sex (or something sexual in nature). Likewise, if I'm going to ask someone to go back to my room at 4am, it's because I'm looking for sex. It's not unreasonable to assume that was the case, here, and I think that most reasonable, sexual beings would assume that sex was the goal. It would have been very, very easy to make it not about sex. For starters, if the request was made at 4pm instead of 4am, or if he had suggested they go somewhere other than a hotel room for the conversation and the coffee, or if he had emphasized the fact that he wanted to talk, or flat out said that he wasn't looking for sex.

Or, you know, he could have had the conversation he wanted to have with Watson when she was at the bar, which would have been all too easy if he was genuinely interested in just a conversation.

If it looks like a proposition, and it smells like a proposition, it's probably a proposition. It's possible that it wasn't, but if that was the case, the guy could have and should have done more to make that clear.

The guy did nothing wrong in my opinion, if the proposition was clear all the better, he put it fairly polite and accepted no for an answer.

Do people have to seek flaws in every little thing, I am not saying it was a perfect performance, but hell at some point you have to say kudos for trying to be decent, that is about all you can expect really.

meatrace wrote:

Urizen wrote:

So what you're saying basically boils down to "come ooon, we knoooow what he wanted!" but we don't get to make that assumption. Hell, maybe he was gay!

It doesn't matter what he wanted. I'm not accusing him of anything. I accept that he was perfectly innocent of any actual bad intent. He probably wanted to have sex with her, but he probably would have taken no for an answer even if she had come back to his room.

His actual intentions aren't the point. What it looked like to her at the time is the point. He (probably) left the same room she did and took the same elevator on purpose. At least he commented on listening to her talk, which suggests that he'd been there and that he'd sought her out. That's enough that a reasonable person would think it wasn't a coincidence. Just like a reasonable person would think that a late night invitation to his hotel room might include more than just coffee and talk. Even he seemed to get that it might be inappropriate because he felt the need to start with something like "Don't take this the wrong way." He knew it would be taken the wrong way, so why say it? With someone you don't know, the disclaimer is meaningless.

Even Kirth agreed that going back to his room would be stupid. If it's obvious that what you're asking would be stupid for the other person to do, because it's dangerous, then why is it wrong to be bothered by him asking it?

In order to avoid offending men by suspecting they're dangerous, should women assume all men are completely harmless until proven otherwise? Should they put themselves at even greater risk to avoid offending you

Funny thing though, if she was actually not married and attracted to the guy she very well might have gone with him. Since she was not interested the guy was creeping her out. I am afraid much of the perceived offensive behaviour of men depend on wether or not the woman finds the man's attention desirable.

Mergy wrote:

james maissen wrote:

Mergy wrote:

Casting a spell doesn't take away threatening.

The only time it would do so is if the caster is still casting. That is they are casting a 1+ round casting time spell.

In this specific case it boils down to what we've NOT been told.

-James

Actually, I'm not sure about that. Does it say anywhere in the rules that you cannot take an attack of opportunity while casting a full round action spell?

Considering that a full-attack is a full round action, and you can take attacks of opportunity after that. There are many other actions that take a full round, and none of those stop you from threatening.

1 round casting time, not full round casting time. They are different.

Full round casting time: I start to cast at the start of my round and and at the end of my round, I can take a 5' step before or after casting.

1 round casting time: 1 start casting at the start of my round, I will finish just before the start of my next round. I can move 5' during my round

I was wondering about that as well, I would houserule it so that the caster could not make an AoO in this case but I do not think there is an actual rule to disallow it.

There is no good answer for 3.5 Loyalist's question about a mummy. So, by association, there is no good reason to assume every undead should have to be evil.

All undead are Evil because that's what JJ wanted for Golarion, -not- because it makes sense on a theological level.

Of course JJ decided the mummy had to be evil that doesn't mean there is no good reason for it. The fact that a mummy is evil determines it is immoral and ruthless in following it's duty, it will not be bothered or slowed by plights of mercy or particuary care 'why' you are in his tomb, you are there so you have to die.

Neutrality in an intelligent creature would indicate that it has compassion and cares about morality to some extent wether it acts upon it or not, I imagine that is not the flavor JJ was going for in undead, a mummy is better served as a single minded ruthless guardian in my opinion.

Brinymon DeGuzzler wrote:

Additional Lich Information from Pathfinder Campaign Setting: Undead Revisited

"It is not merely force of will that propels one to lichdom, nor is it the simple desire to avoid death, though these are certainly factors in the mindset of the would-be lich. Instead, those who would follow the path of the undying mind must seek out tomes of forbidden magic and lost lore. Though the initiates might not be evil when they begin, the process under which they become liches drives them slowly into the arms of corruption—the focus they must develop drives out all other concerns, including the civilized needs of friendship and love."

Sounds like flavor text to me, and flavor text can be easily ignored depending on GM.

Unlike the 'non-flavored' fact that says that liches are always evil ?

It is simply explaining why liches are always evil, without it you only have the 'non-flavored' facts, separating fluff from crunch is something invented by RAW gamers to dodge RAI, PFS made this worse.

The GM can ignore everything, it is not the basis of PF though and apparently even less so in PF Golarion but that should not stop a GM that wants things differently in his campaign.

It doesn't seem to be a huge problem even a 1st lvl wizard can get along in combat, many wizards manage to squeeze out a dex 14, if you have mage armor and fight defensively you have better than average AC for 1st lvl characters. Just use your actions to aid another.

Daze is a great cantrip to have, acid splash, mage hand, detect magic will all have their uses even if not all of those uses are in combat.

School powers help as well but ary widely between schools.

Skills, you got alot of these even if they are just knowledge skills, consider some languages. Depending on the campaign putting some ranks in a craft might not be a bad idea to make some extra money in between adventures.

Scribe scroll allows you to create some extra resources early on once you manage to get a little gold.

Hrm, this makes me kinda concerned that we are experiencing a significant amount of power creep with this book. :-/

I think it is just a trick by paizo to have the munchkins buy the book en masse before they hit it with errata :)