Roelandt's page

There are a lot of real world mechanics that simply don't apply to Pathfinder.

Trying to go down that path is just going to cause you to disagree with a lot of RAW.

Artanthos is correct. As I've said often on the boards, Real life combat and game combat rules have as much in common as the east has with the west.

Ultimately, ask your DM. If you were to ask me in my game I would tell you no without hesitation. Bows take A LOT more than a couple of arms to shoot accurately. You only have one brain and one pair of eyes to aim. Doesn't matter how many arms you have. Bottom line though, there is no rule in the game to support the idea, mostly because it's pretty strange, therefore, Rules As Written, you can't.

Other than the (rather odd) archetype someone mentioned earlier in the thread, I'd suggest giving up the idea as it seems pretty silly to me.

It's a flying mount so I planned to have it fly straight up. This should alarm the rider who may choose to jump off before it gets too high. If not...yikes!

In a game I have planned, I'm going to have the badguy cast dominate monster on the character's mount. I figured there would be some rules for a suddenly hostile mount but couldn't find any.

What would the ride check be? I see no rules on "bucking" to get a rider off, or details if the mount suddenly wants to bite you.

Any directions as to where I can look?

I know this questions will sound odd, and the answer seems self evident (at least to me), but bear with me.

One player in our group is creating a character who fights with alchemical items. He is convinced that the rules allow him, even at 1st level, to "tie multiple flasks to a stick and throw the stick," enabling him to multiply the damage. For example, he claims that the rules allow him to tie 8 Acid flasks/bombs (which do 1d6, range increment 10', 2x crit) to a stick and throw the stick, doing 8d6 damage.

I see nothing in any Pathfinder or D&D rule to support this claim. Ultimately his approach will likely involve a "leap of logic" in the absence of expressly stating he cannot. We are playing an "arena game" next Saturday, the rules of which include "No DM" so rules interpretation or concerns will be left to the group concensus.

Anyone have any insight as to the validity of this claim, and/or where in the rules I can direct him for clarification (other than the links I've included below which, of course, do not support such an interpretation)?

Alchemy Weapons List
Throw Splash Weapons Rules

I'm with a new group, and most are either rules lawyers or people who try to resolve Adventure Conflicts by arguing with the DM.

I've got enough experience as a GM in various systems to deal with such things but, as I'm fairly new to Pathfinder rules, and I know my people--I know what's going to happen Saturday.

They are going to fight a wizard with greater invisibility. No problem. Should be fun and challenging since they don't have see invisibility yet (but have Glitterdust and all of them have pouches of flour...cool).

However, there are two archers in the party and I promise you, as soon as one of them hits the Wizard with a successful pinpoint and concealment check, this is what they are going to say:

"Okay...so we are going to keep our eyes on the visible arrows that are now sticking out of the invisible Wizard to target him."

I see nothing in the Pathfinder rules that addresses this. I'm fully prepared to inform them, "No" and move on, but it's easier with these guys to say, "Pull it up in the SRD." That usually ends it.

In the Invisibility rules (LINK HERE) I see nothing about "visible arrows" pinpointing invisible opponents.

Is there any validity to this pending argument? If not, I'll just use my DM powers.

Tels wrote:

Yes.

Thank you. The ancient elves in my homebrew setting fight mostly with short swords and buckler. Strange that Paizo now releases a class that is that perfect for them. :D

I had the same thought, Navarion.

In my Campaign there is a race of Celtic/Viking/Nordic folk and the idea of using the prisy Bard character class made me wince and multiclassing low level characters sucks.

Skald is PERFECT for them.

Tels wrote:

Alexander Augunas wrote:

A thrust (which is what a piercing weapon represents) would require some strength behind it in order to, you know, pierce someone.

Dr. Bernard Knight is a medical examiner, and forensic pathologist who has done a number of tests on human cadavers through out his career. His tests show that, with a sharp knife, it takes between 1 pounds to 6 1/2 pounds of pressure to pierce the human flesh and inflict deadly wounds.

The spell Mage Hand lifts up to 5 lbs., which means, if it could be weaponized, Mage Hand has enough strength in it to potentially inflict a deadly wound on a human by piercing them.

An Unseen Servant has a strength score of 2 and can generate up to 20 pounds of force. So an Unseen Servant is more than strong enough to kill humans with a sharp knife, if it could make attack rolls.

Humans are very delicate creatures and we are surprisingly easy to damage or destroy.

[browncoat] You would know this if you remembered your Firefly![/browncoat]

What you are forgetting is that you don't need dex to damage to kill a human. You need it to pierce stoneskin, or kill a dragon, or damage a golem, or critically injure someone who has years of combat experience represented by all his class levels in one strike.

So I'm with Alex on this one - it makes way more sense for slashing weapons than the other two.

Disbelieve if you wish, but Dr. Knight is correct. Pathfinder is a GAME written by nerds, not athletes, and its combat details have as little in common with real life combat as the East does with the West. As a Classical Rapier instructor, I can assure you, brawn has exactly jack to do with the penetration of a rapier. In fact, if you are utilizing brawn (assuming your opponent is a trained rapier fighter) you are an untrained thug who's doing it wrong, your weapon is going to break and/or you are going to die. Precision and technique are the exclusively requirements to do any combat application of a rapier, including piercing hard materials (which the weapon is not built for anyway...but don't tell D&D writers or rules lawyers that). Go to your nearest fencing school or local SCA group if you want more information.

Having said that, Pathfinder is a game. Just go by the rules. They don't make sense in real life combat but who says they have to?

Roelandt wrote:

I found an error in the Spell section (I'm still reading so hopefully I won't find more...I'm in "B" in the alphabet).

Barrow Haze is a Sorc/Wiz, Witch spell. The spell augments the range of witch hex abilities. Since Wizards or Sorcerers have no hexes, they will get no use from this spell. If one suggests that it will include the Sorc/Wiz spells, then it's DISTANTLY more powerful for them than they are for Witches. Nowhere in the description does it say it affects Witch (or Sorc/Wiz) spells.

This will need to be addressed as it is clearly erroneous. The spell description should not include Sorc/Wiz.

Fog cloud doesn't let you see through it, this does. Barrow haze has its uses and witches just happen to get an extra perk. Looks fine to me.

You missed the point, Necro. Wiz/Sorcs don't have hexes, so why are they listed as able to cast this spell? That's an error.

I found an error in the Spell section (I'm still reading so hopefully I won't find more...I'm in "B" in the alphabet).

Barrow Haze is a Sorc/Wiz, Witch spell. The spell augments the range of witch hex abilities. Since Wizards or Sorcerers have no hexes, they will get no use from this spell. If one suggests that it will include the Sorc/Wiz spells, then it's DISTANTLY more powerful for them than they are for Witches. Nowhere in the description does it say it affects Witch (or Sorc/Wiz) spells.

This will need to be addressed as it is clearly erroneous. The spell description should not include Sorc/Wiz.

Why not ask him? I can't think of anything myself.

I can't get ahold of him. Question stands.

I have a question. I after the game session last night, one of my players, who is playing a soulknife made a comment that has me confused.

We were talking about the boss fight that the players won. The boss had a special ability that he didn't get a chance to use. He could use his shield as a missile weapon at a 30' range with Return feature (ala Cpt America). I mentioned that I was disappointed that he didn't get a chance to use this.

The soulknife player said if he had done that then the shield would have stuck to his character and the shield would not be able to return.

What was he talking about? I can find no such power available to the soulknife in the SRD, nor have I ever given or approved such a power.

But but But butt Butt but but but but

What If What If What if What if

Why Why Why Why Why Why

That's a good point Meatball.

An Evil Deity cannot grant a Paladin POSITIVE energy powers (ie most of his abilities and spells).

Guess we can call that a wrap.

However, the intelligent discussion about alignment in general is interesting.

Pray proceed.

I agree with you Ipslore. The Chain Whips in the videos may not have reach. But they are fully 6 feet long (longer than any one handed weapon I can think of off the top of my head), and in my hands (I'm 6'4", it is trivial for me to hit someone 10 or 12 feet just by widening my stance...my rapier lunges are that long too). And many Chain Whips are even longer than 9-Sectioned Whips.

Still, if I were the OPs DM, I would not give it reach to preserve the one-handed/two-handed options, assuming that their chain whip is 9 sectioned. But if someone went out and made one that was longer, I would allow it, but in 25 years of gameplay, no one ever has in my game.

Still, my point remains...show the videos to the DM and let him decide. He might say yes. Who can tell.

And yes, I give chain whips piercing/bludgeoning.

Back to the OP. Get a Chain Whip and take Lunge. That won't help you with attacks of opportunity with the narliness of the chain whip, that's awesome. Then, work up to Combat Patrol and OWN the battlefield!! "No one may move without my permission!!!"

Or take a regular Whip with reach and get flaming or other damage bonus.

Silly question perhaps. Is a Nine-section whip a whip: insofar as it gets 15' reach? I don't see as it does (other than the description saying it is a whip). Seems like it would be 8 1/2' long (1 foot sections) with 1 foot being the handle.

Anyone have a "better description" of this item and its "whip" characteristics? Or is it simply as described, and thus having no reach?

Also, is there a "reach" style whip that does more damage than 1d3? or 1d4? TY in advance.

It's not a whip like you might see Catwoman use. Their mechanics are as far as the east is from the west. But does it have reach? In real life, yes. 15 feet? No.

Nine-Section Whip is Paizo's take on a Chain Whip (which universally includes the Nine-Section Whip...often with more than "nine" sections). Since "Balance" is the key, not logical, historical, or practical use, these often extremely long weapons do not have Reach in Pathfinder for no reason other than game mechanics. When I'm using a Chain Whip in katas, you can be ga-ding-dang sure I've got a LOT of reach.

Pathfinder was written by gamers, not fighters. But that's okay. It's just a game and you have to draw the line somewhere.

I generally House Rule most weapons to resemble reality, such as the use of the thrusting tip of most swords, which Pathfinder rules say do not exist, and the curious omission of a rapier's razor sharp cutting edge. Having said that, show your DM a picture of a chain whip, or go to youtube and show him a video of someone doing a kata, like THIS or THIS) and ask him if HE THINKS it can have reach (let alone having a Piercing option, but don't get me started on that...hehe).

The weapon, like most Pathfinder/D&D weapons as written was either "game mechanics illogic" or a simple oversight or misunderstanding of the weapon on the part of Paizo. Let your DM be your guide.

I am a level 7 Cleric. We are about to start Rise of the Rune Lords Hook Mountain Massacre. I want to use the spell Divination to help us prepare. I have played through Burnt Offerings and The Skinsaw Murders so any knowledge from those two chapters can inform the questions but nothing beyond that point.

If you have any generally good Divination questions shoot, but remember to use spoiler tags for any question with module knowledge.

Thank you.

Hi, TimrehIX.

First, I can see that no one has responded since you posted this a month ago. On behalf of the community here, I apologize for that. I believe that the reason for the silence is that Divination spell is one of the red-headed step children of D&D magic. The reasons are a bit deep but if you like, you can read this article, Divination-the Unsung School explaining this phenomenon among D&D players.

I'm sure you are into the game at this point enough that you've probably made up your own mind in the matter. If not, the only suggestion I would make is to be as clear in your question as possible, and Black and White as you can, since your answer will be generally vague. Also bear in mind that the results, even if you understand them, will still be a little vague since, even before making the response cryptic, the answer to your Divination will be your DM literally guessing what MIGHT happen up ahead. And not even your DM can see the future since he is just human.

The DM might give you an answer of wealth, fame, and cute bunnies, then 20 minutes later, your Barbarian player gets impatient and tears open the heavily trapped treasure chest, wiping out half the party. No DM fulfilling the Divination spell could have anticipated that.

Personally, I try to limit my questions to, at least generally, positive/negative, right/left, safe/dangerous, because open ended questions requiring longer answers really provide information that, even if clear, will be ultimately of little value.

David knott 242 wrote:

The rules were BECMI, not 2nd edition AD&D. That is important because the BECMI rules lacked any discernable distinctions between "good" and "evil" clerics, so it was much easier for "evil" deities to fool followers who would never agree with their true portfolios.

<sigh> Ahhh the good ol days when there were only three alignments, Lawful, Neutral and Chaotic.

Actually I have never been a fan of alignment and tend to just houserule it out of my games.

Well, BECMI isn't the "good old days." Alignments have been around since day one Basic Set. Still, I agree about not being much of a fan of alignment. I've found that in the past, most attempts to describe them in the game have been very poor to say the least. "Right and Wrong", for example, seemed to elude those young writers. To date, Pathfinder has, in my opinion, done the best job at exploring good and evil, and law and chaos, though I still houserule law and chaos as personality traits and utterly pointless in the scheme of things.

Ashiel wrote:

Haladir wrote:

Worshiping an evil god is a voluntary evil act.

Citation, please?

Evil is hurting, oppressing, or killing. Worship is not any of those things.

There's Lawful Neutral Admodeans, Chaotic Neutral Rovagug followers, etc., so worship of evil isn't inheritly evil; just toeing that line.

You are incorrect, Ashiel. Those are "criminal acts." "Killing" is not evil. Killing the person who is trying to kill your spouse when you have no other alternative is not evil. We aren't talking about weak-willed neutrals, but paragons of greatness, goodness, and righteousness far beyond the strength of character and discipline of most modern people...vis-à-vis Paladins.

Worshiping, ascribing to be like, and devoting oneself to the principles of an evil god is clearly evil (or deranged), unless the definition of "evil" escapes you (something that I sadly see all too often in todays world).

No alignment can be explained in just three words. Evil is, among many other things, Hate; hubris; dishonor; disregard for others; malice; inflicting suffering for pleasure, personal gain, or without remorse; self serving pride; unbridled lust; desire to dominate; etc., etc., etc.

These things, and many, many more, are "elements" of evil. For example, even Hate isn't necessarily evil. A Paladin could Hate injustice, for example.

Evil is more complex than some gamers think. But Pathfinder does a reasonably good job of describing it in the Core Rules.

In response to the OP, No. A Paladin cannot worship an evil god. That would make him pretty nuts (as nuts as the DM who would allow it)...since as is explained in the Class description, an evil god doesn't embody "virtue" and "reward righteousness in his followers." Anyone that suggests that "virtue" and righteousness" are subjective things and can be "evil" as much as "good," should be avoided and NEVER allowed to babysit your children or date your daughters. That said, it's up to your DM. Ask him.

"...Paladins seek not just to spread divine justice but to embody the teachings of the virtuous deities they serve. In pursuit of their lofty goals, they adhere to ironclad laws of morality and discipline. As reward for their righteousness, these holy champions are blessed with boons to aid them in their quests: powers to banish evil, heal the innocent, and inspire the faithful.

Not a lot there to support a Paladin worshiping an evil god unless you're morally confused.

Doomed Hero wrote:

OP specified two weapon fighting. Off Hand is a necessary declaration.

Also, Tanglefoot bags (and other grenade-like weapons) are tracked as Ammunition. Wrist sheathes specifically hold ammunition. The only limiting factor is weight. Turns out they weigh 4 pounds, so you're right. They don't fit.

There's a lot of other grenade-like weapons that would though (acid, alchemist fire, liquid ice, a dust of dryness pellet containing 100 gallons of water…)

Wait, what???

No. No they are not. They are alchemical weapons (a subset of thrown weapons). If they were ammunition, it would be a free action to draw them, and the wrist sheath would be irrelevant.

With respects to the benefits of exploring knowledge in a topic, Tanglefoot bags and Wrist Sheathes are of no interest to me. My character is a "person" not a "gimmick," so will be fighting with Sword and Dagger his entire career unless his life and story changes that. He might use a tanglefoot bag at an inn as a practical joke, and will never want to use something (from his perspective) as "base" or "cowardly" as a wrist sheath.

Thanks for all the input though. It's good to know that a dropped opponent doesn't end my full round action.

Perhaps, pick up this feat:

Champions of Purity pg. 23 wrote:

Golden Legion’s Stayed Blade

When you’re dealing with large and secretive organizations, a dead enemy is just a corpse, but a captured enemy can be a tool.

Prerequisites: Base attack bonus +3.

Benefit: If you deal an amount of damage to a creature that would slay it outright, you can pull that attack, instead dealing only enough damage to reduce its hit points to –1, and leave it stable.

WOW!

That's PERFECT!!!!

Thanks bbtroll! I'll take that feat.

I couldn't find any ruling on this, so I might be out of luck.

I'm going to be fighting in a No Magic, arena type tournament against other players with a bunch of weak trash mobs around.

Since I don't want to "tip my hand" and reveal to the other contestants my mass of muscley uberness, I want to "hold back my damage" on the trash mobs until I hit one of the contestants, then Whamo!

If I have a longsword and a 20 Str doing 1d8+5 damage, can I choose to NOT use my +5 Str damage, doing just 1d8+0? Or better yet...roll 7 damage and choose to reduce that damage to...say...4?

The reason I ask is one of the rules of the tournament is that Rules will be STRICTLY adhered to. Anything not expressly indicated in the rules will be disallowed (no spot DM rulings...if its in print, yes...if not...no).

I BELIEVE that this rule will include all published 3.5 or Pathfinder materials, with Pathfinder getting final ruling in the event of 3.5/Pathfinder conflict. Since I can find nothing in the rules addressing this "pull my punch" tactic, it will not be allowed unless someone can tell me where I might find it.

Thoughts? Bear in mind, Opinions or House Rulings are fine, will have no bearing on this matter, I'm afraid.

Thanks

Okay, lets say I'm using two weapon fighting with a rapier and dagger.

I've got a total of 4 attacks (3 + 1 for my off hand).

While doing my attacks, my opponent drops on Attack Number 2.

"Dude...I killed 'im! That was easy!"

I now have two attacks left, one with my sword and one with my dagger.

There's another badguy 15 feet away. I made a full round action so I can't take a move action to get there.

Can I use one of my two remaining attacks to throw my dagger at the other badguy?

With spells that can raise the dead without the need of any trace of remains, how can you finish off an enemy who has many people who would just resurrect him. Short of divine powers, I so far haven't seen anything that can kill someone and they can't come back other than them dying of old age. This wouldn't always work though as not all of them age anyway. So how can you really kill off an enemy?

Do what my wizard does. Don't kill them.

I use Trap the Soul or even something simple like flesh to stone. Then I summon a Pit Fiend or Balor (depending on the alignment of my permanently lost, unfortunate opponent), and ask them something they won't mind telling me like, "What effect would a slow spell have if I cast it on the Astral plane?"

In exchange for the information, I give them the gem/statue. To such a creature...that's a HUGE prize!

I did this when we had a Paladin player in our group who was sort of using "reverse-meta-gaming" to bully the party. He would blindly attack party members at inopportune times and give lame excuses...like when the rogue sneaked by him, saying he was startled, or when the cleric touched him to heal him thinking he was attacking. We got sick of it and I asked the DM to let me handle it instead of asking him to leave the table (in hopes that he would learn...he did).

I trapped his soul and sold him to a Pit Fiend. The DM sat there thinking about it for a minute then looked up at Steve and said, "Please create another character. This guy is gone. I hope this never has to happen again."

If I understand your question correctly, I believe the FAQ on this page addresses it.

Qinggong Monk FAQ.

No it's not crap.

An 8% chance of getting hit? Far from crap.

The mythic Bard in our party who uses it in every almost every fight gets attacked as much as everyone else does and has NEVER been hit while it's up.

EVER.

Distantly far from crap.

Anyone found a way to make a Tiefling into a humanoid? I'm trying to make this PFS legal.

Polymorph Any Object.

Same Kingdom (animal) +5
Same Class (mammal) +2
Same size (medium) +2

9+ = Permanent

I personally do the Dropbox thing, Malwing. But not everyone in my group has a computer.

I THINK ethically print a single copy. I printed out a single copy of a PDF I purchased and carry it in a binder in my Book Bag with all my other books. I would question any distributor that has a problem with that as long as you aren't doling out printed copies to everyone.

And since I have the added cost of printing it out myself, and the distributor chose not to absorb that cost by choosing to sell it in soft copy form, I would be confident if any of them objected to my printing out a hard copy. When I buy a book, it is not true to say that I'm the only one allowed to look at it.

And to talk openly...of course they expect you to print it out. They want you to use it, and you can only use it in a limited way if it's in soft copy.

So, Roelandt, you would have no problem with a fighter wearing full-plate, carrying a heavy shield and bastard sword, all his other gear and an extra set of full-plate? I get it that you can get used to carrying loads around, especially when you wear a suit of armor that is designed to divvy out the load across your whole body instead of just your back but there are limits to what a person can reasonably carry and totally eliminating worn armor from the equation is a joke. I could see halving the weight of worn armor and clothing but when you try to say that 45 lbs of armor is mystically reduced to 0 lbs when worn then you have lost perspective.

In regards to my Houserule, why would I have a problem with it, Fake Healer, as long as his strength is sufficient to carry his shield, sword, and equipment? I ignore the armor (and assume that the character is used to wearing it as knights did in real life living in their armor (often heavier than 45 lbs) all day long, laboring, training, fighting, shopping, eating, dancing, etc., which, if I read you correctly, you assume didn't actually happen). The shield, sword and other gear would, of course, add to his encumbrance.

I would have no problem with it because I do it and see it all the time (well...most Wednesdays and Saturdays). If you're in Northern California, come to SCA (Society for Creative Anachronism) Fighter Practice at Rosemont Park in Sacramento on Americana Way on Wednesdays at 7:30 pm and I'll show you. I'll pick up one of the big fighters there that I can barely lift, then put armor on and if you're right, I won't be able to pick him up, right? But you will see that I can. If you're not in my area, check the web for the SCA in your area and visit a fighter practice and see for yourself. Don't take my word for it...test it.

Game and Real-life rarely have anything to do with each other. If you think athleticism in real life is measured in the same way as a game written by fat guys eating Cheetos all day (that was a joke Paizo...hehe), you're perspective is gone and you need to get up and join a gym.

But, it's a Houserule, dude. I don't understand your trolling. If you think I've lost perspective based on my personal, frequent experience as opposed to your complete absence of practical experience in the matter, you are free, with my respects, not to play in my game.

But barking at a someone's Houserule...hmmm...

So what differentiates a mythic being from a demigod, or a demigod from a god?

That's up to your DM...or you if you're the DM. I can tell you what it is in real-life (as indicated by philosophy and literature...hehe).

GALACTUS: "Sphinx! You share the folly of all your lowly species. You believe that power itself makes one a God! But even Galactus, to whom all is possible, even Galactus whose every passing whim becomes reality — even Galactus is no God". -Fantastic Four, Vol. 1, #213

LOKI: I went down to Midgard to rule the people of Earth as a benevolent God, just like you.
ODIN: We are not gods! We're born, we live, we die, just as humans do.
-Thor: The Dark World

How your DM want's the view it is up to him. But to me, power has exactly JACK to do with it. Ultimately it's about worshipers. So Galactus isn't a god, but Michael Jackson was.

Ultimately I think in game terms the difference between mythic and demi-god is just a matter of "subtype". You either got it or you don't. And ultimately it didn't matter. At least in Greek mythology, demigods (like Hercules and Perseus) were demigods because of their lineage, and didn't have worshipers in life. One could therefore argue that demigod is a racial trait. Mythic is power a character obtained or earned. Though there are examples of demigods obtaining that status too, so again...DM's choice.

In any way, shape or form, it will have no impact whatsoever on the game.

I don't think I can stuff my crab into a handy haversack during combat, but I don't really want it running around either. So,

Ultimate Equipment wrote:

Familiar Satchel: This armored case provides total cover to any Tiny or smaller creature contained within it. It includes air holes (which can be plugged with cork stoppers if you need to go underwater) and two receptacles for food and water.

Here's the thing, it's 6 pounds, and my crab is 5 pounds, and a mithral chain shirt weighs 12.5. I'm getting really close to my encumbrance limit, and that's before magic items (headbands, amulets, etc.)

So, okay, encumbrance, so what? Fine. But...

What is a familiar satchel made out of? Is it metal, in which case a mithral version costs 3025 gp? Or, is it wood, in which case a darkwood version presumably costs 135 gp?

Also, is a spell component pouch made out of leather? So, a darkleaf spell component pouch costs 755 gp?

"DEFINITION: A satchel is a bag, often with a strap.[1] The strap is often worn so that it diagonally crosses the body, with the bag hanging on the opposite hip, rather than hanging directly down from the shoulder. They are traditionally used for carrying books.[2] The back of a satchel extends to form a flap that folds over to cover the top and fastens in the front. Unlike a briefcase, a satchel is soft-sided."

Satchels (in real life) are generally made of leather (or modern leather-like materials or even complex fabrics like we see on backpacks nowadays), but there's no reason not to be able to make one out of cloth or canvas. By definition it's not likely to be made of metal. But "satchel" is just the "name of the item," so again, there should be no restriction as to making it out of whatever crafting skill you happen to have, wood, metal, no reason not to.

Same is true for a spell component pouch. But since darkleaf is "light armor" used in place of leather, I see...again...no rule or reason not to be able to make it out of whatever you want. You protect your spellbook with sturdy materials, why not your components...or your Familiar! Spell component case? Spell component jar? Familiar backpack? Familiar Box? Why not?

But since weight is your concern, I'd suggest avoiding metal or wood.

And...you CAN put your crab in your haversack...but he can't breath in there.

About the armor, I miss the old days when armor and worn clothing didn't add to encumbrance. I'm in a fighter in the SCA and I know better. Armor exhausts you when you're new and first start wearing it. But as you get used to wearing it over time, until you can wear it all day and not notice. In no way does wearing armor reduce the amount of weight you can lift or carry...just your endurance...which you get used to eventually. Because of this, I houserule as it was in the olden days, and don't count WORN armor or clothing against encumbrance. Carrying it is another matter.

Check with your DM about the materials, but it's probably okay to make it whatever you want.

When you talk to your dm, I would propose two more things to discuss with him (aside from the suggestion from others to define good):

1) what it means to be good vs what it means to be lawful or honorable. Being good doesn't mean that you can't be a tactician and play (do things) in a sneaky way.

2) the roles of each party member. Being a rogue means you don't have as many hp as the fighter and don't hit as hard. You are NOT the TANK...

NOTE: I apologize for the length. But this ended up being more of an article than a comment. Thanks for your patience.

Cuttler hit the nail on the head Eleclipse. I strongly suggest you follow his suggestion and discuss with your DM the two points Cuttler mentioned (abbreviated above).

Based on what you said, it seems to me that your DM is one of those players who simply don't understand "good."

"The ways of good are confounding to...less morally aware people."

As a volunteer counselor who has studied and observed human behavior (both "good" and "bad") most of my life, those who say "Good is stupid," or "Good is weak," are generally those people that just don't get it (and are generally not on my list of babysitters...hehe).

When playing your Good character, consider this (psychology based) perspective: Evil is weakness. In other words, bad people are bad people because they are weak inside. They are people who are incapable (to varying degrees) of overcoming their (often trivial) carnal desires. They are literal slaves to their whims. It's pop culture that thinks "it's cool" or "tough" because it stimulates the power fantasies that most young men (and sometimes older men) have. What young man didn't admire Darth Vader? It wasn't until we got older and wiser that we realized that he is simply a broken, broken man (cue the Breath sound effect). Lucas got it:
LUKE: Is the Dark Side stronger?
YODA: No. No. Quicker. Easier. More seductive.

On the other hand, Goodness is strength. They are people who are strong enough to resist their urges. They have no fear of the negative opinions of others, and so have no urge to submit to negative peer pressure. They are their own man or woman, and are willing to do what's right even at the risk of their own safety or comfort (much like my volunteer firefighter brother-in-law).

The morally deficient calls this "self-righteous." But that's like teasing your neighbor because he has a hot girlfriend.

So, considering this, if you have the ability to END A FIGHT quickly (in your case by doing a lot of damage by flanking), are you REALLY being helpful to your party by prolonging the fight by allowing it to drag on longer [Ask your DM that question]? I tell my students often (I teach historical rapier combat), "You goal in every fight should be to end it." Either reason the fight to an end, withdraw safely if you can without endangering others, or drop the opponent as quickly as possible. Baring brutality or cowardice...dude...you BETTER flank. End this fight NOW! Not to avoid the party taking 90% of the damage because you aren't "sharing the party damage" as your DM suggested, but before the party ends up taking 90% or more of their hit points in damage because you were too selfish and stupid in your pride to end the fight quickly and efficiently, with as little bloodshed as is reasonable.

Still, considering what you said in your post and the "high calling" the characters appear to have, Robin Hood is not a good model. He was a HERO, but his "goodness" was somewhat ambiguous, just as el Zorro was. Much better models are Batman or Aragorn from Lord of the Rings (the book, not the whiny loser from the movies).

Stealth? Sure. Fighting from the shadows when possible are fine tactics in battle. Your goal is to END THE FIGHT. End it. We are talking about mortal combat, not a lunch meeting. Sun Tzu said (paraphrased) that battles are fought not on the battlefield, but in the mind of your enemy. If you are close, make him think you are far. If you are strong, make him think you are weak. In the SCA (Society for Creative Anachronism) it is considered inappropriate to "kill someone from behind" in honorable or formal combat (such as tournaments or melee battles for fun). But in wars (like when a kingdom or principality is scheduled to fight another)...KILL HIM (following the rules for Death From Behind of course)! If you don't, the fighters on your side may be a little annoyed, and your opponents will use that failing to their advantage. In WWII we didn't call the Germans on D-Day to let them know we were coming.

And go ahead and give your character a grim, quiet or even brooding personality if you want. That doesn't matter. Just remember...you are much, much stronger than the "other guy." You don't give in to your rage, you have no need for revenge; and your urges, dark or otherwise, have about as much control over you as does a distant cloud. You don't have a subconscious need to rebel, dominate, belittle, or despise. You, and only you, are in control of you. You care about other people, big and small, but not about what they think of you; and you consider the needs of others before your own because you are strong enough to bear it. You can live your life adding to the world around you, not chipping away at it as bad men do; and you can live your life without being haunted by the inevitable consequences that plague the weak of character. You are a hero, not because you think you're great...but because you are, even though you sometimes don't even know it. You are what men...real men...wish they could be.

Does this mean tossing yourself in front of a sword to "share" injuries with more heavily armored people? Does the cleric who is healing your party have to draw fire for the same reasons? Does the archer? Does the Wizard?

Of course not.

Wish Paizo would weigh in directly here. I don't see how studded leather armor suddenly becomes something other than leather. The armor itself is made of leather; studs, whether metal, bone, wood (or Peppermint Candy; love that!) are attached to it, not an integral part of it. If the metal being attached somehow alters the armor, what about buckles? Is leather armor tied on with things? Gaff tape? Saying that leather armor is no longer leather because it has metal studs added would be like saying your plate armor is leather because it has leather straps to fasten it on your body. If the description said "Metal Studded Armor" is prohibited, or was the armor type that would be different. The word "leather" is part of the description, therefore it is leather.

Studded leather armor did exist (sort of) in armoring history (in Europe and parts of Asia), though the term "studded" is a modern "gaming" term. Splint (or studded) armor is leather (sometimes heavy brocaded cloth) with bits or strips of metal for added protection, making the distinction between leather armor and splint (or studded) quite clear. Variations of splint mail were made with whatever materials were at hand. There are examples of armor made in Turkey and China of thick cloth with nails sewn all over it that could be considered "studded leather." Gary, Allen or one of the original writers probably saw a picture of what would technically be splint mail with studs and called it "Studded Leather." A good source for details is Stone's Glossary of Construction, Decoration and Use of Armor in all Countries and in all Times if you prefer facts over opinions.

However, the point is...No, they were not interchangeably made from materials other than metal. Wood and bone are cool in fantasy but in reality they are impractical armor construction material (speaking historically). "Studded" means metal studs (or various other shapes of bits of metal) that, yes, are an integral part of the armor setting it apart from leather armor. Therefore Druid cannot wear them. If your DM allows it, there would be no reason why it couldn't be made out of other materials, but would be less effective and likely to break. The Oriental Adventures 3rd Edition rules (game version has rules for substandard armor material which were quite good including increased chance to break, less ac, etc. "Wooden" or "bone" armor would be by definition, "toy armor".

Of course, all this is solved when the Druid gains access to Ironwood, and he can turn even chainmail or plate into wearable wood as tough as iron.

I have a rule question.

The gunslinger chart confuses me after reading the text in Deeds.

On the chart, Deeds pop up at irregular intervals in the Special column of the chart. Once at 1st, then 3rd, then less frequently thereafter. Though there is no indication of this that I can find, do these "deeds" entries mean that the Gunslinger gets to pick one of the available deeds for use like a Sorcerer choosing a known spell, or can he...as the text seems to suggest...use any available deed as long as he has sufficient grit? For example at level 3, can he use any of the first six deeds (all level 1 or 3 abilities)?

Simply put, is he like a Druid who has the entire spell list available for use, or are they like Oracles who are limited to selecting which specific spells he is able to cast from then on?

I can find nothing in the class details to clarify this.

Thanks in advance.

Any effects for the party will need to be somewhat limited since the battle is going to be a "Performance Combat" To the Death situation set up by the Mythic Bard bad guy in a Town Square with about 500 spectators. Danger to the civilian crowd will (or better be) foremost in the heroes minds. So a poorly placed fireball or lightning bolt might just kill a few dozen spectators. The badguy will be influencing the crowd the entire time making performance combat checks (along with his performance combat feats) to gain bonuses from a cheering crowd. The Players will need to figure out that they will need to put on a good show or they will be disadvantaged. What better battlefield for a mythic bard? Hehe.

So effects like darkness, invisibility (or anything that blocks the view of the audience), will get negative reactions from the crowd. And since a major element of performance combat is audience reaction, everyone will be avoiding doing things that shift crowd attitude from their side.

Therefore the mythic bard will be casting spells and conducting actions that either make the Players look bad or are sufficiently spectacular as to get cheers for himself from the crowd (increasing his morale bonus/causing the party to lose theirs).

Any ideas for any tricks or actions the badguy can take to make either himself look good to the crowd and/or make the heroes look bad? One thing I'm going to do is have him use speak with animal on one of the many squirrels around town prior to entering the Square and convince him with a handle animal check to stay close to the Wizard, and cast mythic silence on it (which allows the caster to make himself and up to 1 target per tier immune). This will keep silence (that the bad guy will not be affected by) on the Wizard without giving him a savings throw until he or someone else figures out why the Wizard is quiet and can't seem to cast spells (I checked...the wizard has a grand total of ONE spell in his spellbook that has no verbal components).

The bad guy is a level 12 Bard, Mythic Tier 4 Trickster.

I tend to agree, and appreciate your inputs. However, I'm not concerned with "effective ways a player can buff the bad guy with Mirror Image," since this won't be relevant. Any possible variations will depend on what spells the Player Character happens to have memorized at the time and how he chooses to play it. If he has no buffs or beneficial effects memorized at all, he'll be stuck using 0 level spells like resistance (again, depending on what he has). If I affect the Wizard and he has nothing at all, or I anticipate that he won't, I'll just word the command to include using Aid Another combat action if he has no viable buff spells.

@Captain Zoom, I can't concur with your conclusion on the touch attack destroying the image.

The spell states: "Spells that require a touch attack are harmlessly discharged if used to destroy a figment." Since a heal spell or Enlarge spell, is not being "used by the player to destroy an image," as I read it, the spell effect would both, not discharge and not destroy an image, if it happens to miss the bad guy and hit an image instead.

This is a good discussion in any case since I'm sure that after seeing how the Mythic Bard uses Mirror Image against the party, the Wizard will almost certainly be adding it to his spell list first chance he gets (particularly the mythic version which increases the max images to 12 and gives a Will save vs. dazzle to the enemy who destroys an image.

Okay...this one has me puzzled. I'm working out a tactically challenging battle for the Players in an upcoming mythic encounter with the Mythic Boss (a Bard Trickster) and his buddies. One of the numerous "tricks" he is going to use is I am giving him a Mirroring Belt (Found Here) to give him mirror images that increase in number if he takes damage. He is going to attempt a suggestion, or other spell effect to cause one of the party members (the oracle, wizard, or bard) to "not attack him, and just buff (or heal) him with spells."

What's got me split is, assuming the character fails his save vs. the enchantment and starts casting Heroism, Haste, Cures, etc. on the badguy, how does mirror image affect them if they (essentially an ally) tries to touch him with a beneficial spell effect?

MIRROR IMAGE.

This spell creates a number of illusory doubles of you that inhabit your square. These doubles make it difficult for enemies to precisely locate and attack you.

On one hand, the rules as written seem to suggest that an ally would still need to randomly roll which "image/enemy" he hits, and if he hits an image, it would discharge the spell effect but would not destroy an image since it's not a harmful spell.

On the other hand, one might argue that since the text says, "target of a spell that requires an attack roll," and since most DMs (including myself) don't require the cleric to make an attack roll to hit the injured fighter with a Cure spell, then the "enchanted player" would be able to touch him with a beneficial spell circumventing the mirror images.

I'm fine either way since if the later is the case, worse case scenario it puts an enemy Player "out of commission" for a while and even has a small chance of actually buffing him if he gets lucky (and causing some serious havoc among the party in reacting to an ally aiding the enemy).

What do you think? I'm leaning toward Mirror Image works the same for friendly or enemy effects, but the fight would be even more challenging if the buffs aren't affected by the mirror image.

Just yesterday I found a spell that allows you to cast a spell on a willing companion or (I think) familiar, turning them into a tiny stone statue small enough to fit in your pouch.

I can't, for the life of me, find the spell again. Anyone have any idea what this spell might be and where to find it?

I'm looking for a safe means to store both my familiar in dangerous situations, and Simulacrums I create.

Your help is appreciated.

Jiggy wrote:

Waitwaitwait... So you guys are telling me that there's a way for three PCs, who coordinate their abilities and work as an actual team instead of a collection of lone wolves, to be able to take down a single enemy?

OMG BORKEN!!!

What's next? A Rogue actually getting flank for all their sneak attacks because the PCs are coordinating their abilities and working as an actual team instead of all trying to be lone wolves?!

Teamwork OP!!!

I agree totally. According to everything I've read here, Teamwork or intelligent strategies from the Players is definitely OP! I am ruling against its use in my game.

Silly people. I can't understand why people think that something like Gentle Repose (or just about anything else) is overpowered. Compared to what? The monsters? Don't freak, Mr. DM...just give Gentle Repose to two badguys and create a significant challenge for your Players to overcome...BALANCE RESTORED. Have more faith in your ability as a DM!

If one side had pistols and the other slingshots...yes...pistols are overpowered. But if both sides have it, what's the basis of the complaint?

The cries of overwhelmed DMs yelling "OP! OP!" makes me sigh, and I prefer not to play in the games of such limited and uncreative DMs. Call me old fashioned, but errors or not, why is it unbalanced? Balanced compared to what? Casting haste on your party of monks, rogues and fighters is so insanely powerful it's not funny. But as a DM, why "remove it from the game" or alter it beyond utility? Just handle it. Just give the scary spell to the next Goblin Shaman or enemy sorcerer the players meet. Balance restored. Why change it or disallow it, Mr. DM? Dude...use it!

You'll be amazed at how easy it is to "balance" things when you remember your job as a DM isn't to win...but to present challenges to the party. A spell like Limp Lash seems to me to be quite a challenge. Try it. You're thinking only of how the spell will hurt your poor single pet badguy. It hasn't occurred to you how comically vulnerable this spell makes the caster, or how much fun this would be in the hands of monsters in a carefully strategized battle against players. Sounds tough to me. And IF the players manage to survive they'll have Achieved something noteworthy!

If you're a DM terrified by the implications of such an effect...well...I suggest having more confidence in your ability. Trust me...you can handle it. Ultimately if you can't, you might not be suited for the role...and that's perfectly okay. Not everyone is.

I played D&D in the 70s and early 80s. Simulacrum was always my favorite spell. We used it to create stronghold guard, watchmen for camp, gain tactical information when questioning an enemy didn't produce results, replace overlords, princes, or local magistrates to gain control over the region politically...or even sims of lost party members we all liked (like Jim's character "Bubbles" who lived on as a sim long after the character died at level 10. Nefarious magic users would create sims of his party to find out if they were stealing from them or keeping secrets. And if you were like me, create a horde of minions for as many purposes as you can think of to store in your Mirror of life trapping: from Green Slime, and Rust Monsters, to Brass Dragons, and sims of that really great chef at that particularly cool Inn.

In PF, I can't wait for my Wizard to get Sim. I'll use it in much the same way (I've already got my eyes on a cook we met I plan to sim), though will suggest several AD&D inspired limitations to my DM to make the spell reasonable.

In AD&D, the rules were DISTANTLY more clear. In 3.5's push to vagueness which PF made even more vague, it's hard to figure. For me, remembering clearly the "spirit and intent" of the spell, even the PF vague description isn't much of a challenge for me and my group to work out. Here's Simulacrum in AD&D:

Simulacrum (Illusion/Phantasm)
Level: 7 Components: V, S, M Range: Touch Casting Time: Special Duration: Permanent Saving Throw: None Area of Effect: One creature
Explanation/Description: By means of this spell the magic-user is able to create a duplicate of any creature. The duplicate appears exactly the same as the real. There are differences: the simulacrum will have only 51% to 60% (50% + 1% to 10%) of the hit points of the real creature, there will be personality differences, there will be areas of knowledge which the duplicate does not have, and a Detect Magic spell will instantly reveal it as a simulacrum, as will a True Seeing spell. At all times the simulacrum remains under the absolute command of the magic-user who created it, although no special telepathic link exists, so command must be exercised in the normal manner. The spell creates the form of the creature, but it is only a zombie-like creature. A Reincarnation spell must be used to give the duplicate a vital force, and a Limited Wish spell must be used to empower the duplicate with 40% to 65% (35% + 5% to 30%) of the knowledge and personality of the original. The level, if any, of the simulacrum, will be from 20% to 50% of the original creature. The duplicate creature is formed from ice or snow. The spell is cast over the rough form, and some piece of the creature to be duplicated must be placed inside the snow or ice. Additionally, the spell requires powdered ruby. The simulacrum has no ability to become more powerful, i.e. it cannot increase its levels or abilities.

With Sim, we would make duplicates of the local arch villain or dark lord and pump him for information (any memory or question would have the previously set40%to60% chance of knowing the detail). For powers, DMs would either roll knowledge percentage (lets say he'd roll 50%). Now the sim would have a 50% chance to have each ability or skill the original had including every known spell, etc. Some DMs would say he has 50% of the total number of abilities randomly determined (so if the original had 8 abilities, he would have 4, if he had 6 level 2 spells he'd have 3, etc...randomly rolled for). The level caviate only came into play when duplicating humanoids since few monsters in AD&D had levels (levels and HD were different for such purposes...thus the line "level, if any."

I hope to convince my DM to impose the knowledge percentage limitation the original version of the spell had. Without it, I'd feel like I was cheating. I WILL be using simulacrum to gather information (and to replace local magistrates and nobles to control the local politics). Besides, questioning a sim of an opponent was fun going around the table and the DM rolling to see if it knew the answers. Hehe.