Snowleopard's page

356 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


1 to 50 of 356 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>

And I almost forgot: So many girls and only one captain Flasheart!!.
Whooof!! (with pelvic thrust as well)

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Geflin Graysoul, you forgot to add the immortal battlecry: Hurrah it's ME!!!!!

Well a severe lack of treasure in the Kingmaker campaign let me play my paladin with scale mail untill level 4. In fact technically my paladin still wears the scale mail although I now have enough money to get that Masterwork Full Plate.
Indeed a lack of acces to shops can simply force players to make do with what they have or find.
I play in a campaign that starts the party on a deserted island and that severely limits the possibilities of upgrading gear or obtaining goods.

A good GM doesn't flood his party with treasure and certainly doesn't allow the party to find anything whenever they want it. Challenge players and provide them with limited recources. That will force them to make choices they might not make when they are in shopper's heaven.

Bob Bob Bob wrote:
Continual flame already establishes a precedent for fire that doesn't burn. On the other hand, the Nightmare's fire doesn't illuminate either (it doesn't say it does). So... it has nothing in common with fire. Maybe it's just orange-red hair and nobody can tell?

The original description of nightmares explained that people standing close (5feet) to the nightmares could be blinded by smoke if they failed a saving throw. This was attributed to their fiery existence.

I made an Aasimar Paladin that had a wisdom of 16 (+2), a racial of +2 (Aasimar racial bonus), 1 skill rank, a trait (eyes and ears of the city (abadar)) that gave a bonus of +1 and make the skill a class skill for a whopping +9 at level 1. This basically made me extremely perceptive without investing unhealthy amounts of recources. Basically just a trait and a skill rank.
It's not impossible to surprise me, but it sure is difficult.

I'd like to introduce a feat called 'multiple item crafting', that allows a mundane crafter (not magical items) to work on multiple projects and advance them all at a certain increase in time.

It basically means that a crafter may make one item under normal circumstances, but if he/she wants to craft the same item multiple times that this is possible for a limited amount of extra time.

Off course the amount of items created should be limited as well. I'd like to think that for every 5 ranks the crafter can make an additional item if increasing the time needed (+10% for each additional version).
Off course this means that all raw materials, for each individual item, should be available as well.

Perhaps this should even be an option that is available normally, but enhanced by the feat. Normal add 50% of time for every additional item while the feat allows you to reduce that to 10%.

It's not even that strange a option/feat because if you are making 2 items that are the same you can make them faster if you create them at the same time. You could even allow the feat to give a slight reduction in raw materials (10% less cost).

I disagree with this point of view. A cleric is a devout follower of a diety and I feel most dieties will object to the cleric worshipping another diety and recieving powers of that diety. The combination cleric and inquisitor is possible only if the same diety and even the same domain or subdomain is chosen. Going by that analogy I would not allow a cleric, inquisitor, oracle, druid, shaman or paladin to be allowed to recieve powers from different dieties.

If I am not mistaken the paladin description states :
>>>Associates: While she may adventure with good or neutral allies, a paladin avoids working with evil characters or with anyone who consistently offends her moral code. Under exceptional circumstances, a paladin can ally with evil associates, but only to defeat what she believes to be a greater evil. A paladin should seek an atonement spell periodically during such an unusual alliance, and should end the alliance immediately should she feel it is doing more harm than good. A paladin may accept only henchmen, followers, or cohorts who are lawful good.<<<

I'd think that in this case that discussion can't even be started as the paladin has no way of knowing the evil character is evil (by detection or their actions).
As a GM however I would let the party run in to a cleric (preferably of the same diety as the paladin, if he adheres to a diety) who detect's the party and warns the paladin of the same faith of the evil one who's accompanying him. That would provide a nice roleplaying situation that could allow the party to convert the barbarian to a non-evil alignment.

Lord Vukodlak wrote:

Crafting magic items requires one day for each 1,000gp value of the market price of the item. You can halve the crafting time by increasing the spellcraft DC by 5.

OR you can have a full day's travel&adventuring and still work on the item but it takes four times as long (one day for every 250gp...

If in a sheltered and quite space with the materials and tools needed, you can actually get 2000 gp per day done if you spend 8 hours on crafting at an extra spellcraft DC +5. But you can only make one magical item per day max and you cannot work longer then 8 hours on an item (you may do so, but it will not be effective). Remember that the time spent on making a magic item at the rate of 2000 gold a day must be spent in 2 uninterupted four hour blocks. But you can take a break between the 2 blocks for some food, rest or even shopping.

And while adventuring you can only spent four hours a day on crafting (doing nothing else then 8 hours of travel and 8 hours of sleep and the basic activities), but because you are not in ideal circumstances the time counted against the actual (effective) hours of work is halved. Again noone stops you from taking an extra spellcraft DC +5 to speed up production and get 4 effective hours of work in on the move!

Off course you need to be able to afford the extra +5 DC, but I noticed that this usually is not a problem. It might be a problem if you make a more complex (higher DC) item and you need to compensate not having the spell available as well. But remember that letting a friend reserve the needed spell for your crafting is allowed as well. The friend effectively studies the spell and may not use the slot and be present at the creation/enchanting until the item is finished at which time the spell will be removed from the slot as if it was cast normally but no effects take place.

Most tools that have a specific number increasing a skill require a craftsman of the same number in ranks to construct them.
I also noticed that a +5 competence bonus is a 3th level CL in the 'eyes of the eagle' and the 'cloak of the elven kind'
and a +10 competence bonus is a 5th level CL in the 'elixer of hiding'
And so I assume a +15 competence bonus is a 7th level CL
and a +20 competence bonus is a 9th level CL

34. Your judgement is demanded in a case of a noble vs. a commoner. (no matter who's side you will decide it will leave the other side offended)

35. Extreme rain affected the storage rooms (either food, items or both), perhaps fast action can prevent or limit damage.

36. Earthquake (all walls and buildings take damage)

37. Flooding (in the spring when rivers increase in volume a minor flood can cause some harm)

38. Extremely fertile year (bumper crop extra yield of 10% to 50%)

39. Extra trade income of the yearly market (10% to 50% extra money in taxes)

40. Wandering mercenary group wander into your territory (are they looking for work or are they plunderes?)

41. Extreme weather destroying part of the crop (10% to 50% less yield)

42. Epidemia (all work in the castle area is basically suspended and people may lose their lives)

43. Visit of a royal family members and his entourage temporily boosts business in your fiefdom (increase tax revenue by 10% to 20%)

44. A conflict occurs between rival guilds threatening production that month

45. Royal visit. As much as you think this to be a boon, it is actually a hindrance and a financial drain. All work in the castle is suspended and great feast are held and must be prepared and cleaned. A royal banquet every day surely drains the monetary recources of the castle (there are multiple examples of kings bankrupting their hosts by staying too long, sometimes even intentionally)

46. Doomsayer visits. A Doomsayer visits your neck of the woods and scares the populace. A decrease in production occurs (20% to 50%) unless you either bribe the Doomsayer or manage to defraud his scam

47. A new crafting facility is sponteanously founded and it's facilities are at your service.

48. Extremely fertile livestock delivers more tax income (5% to 15%)

As general rule I'd advice to allow player to limit or even prevent (or repair) the damage by an adventure or efforts on their side. Make sure they realise that a fiefdom is more then numbers on a piece of paper. A fiefdom requires effort and dedication (not all the time off course).
Reward players for coming up with unconventional solutions and the use of their own crafts, skills and professions.

When making/designing a new character I want to know first where the campaign takes place and what kind of surroundings there are.
Secondly I am interested which other classes the party contains. I will not think about the interest of the party only, but I won't take another warrior class if a party of 5 allready contains 3 warrior types.
When I decide on a class/race I will assign stats in order to make sure my characters does not have extreme weak spots (no dump stats) and I want at least 1 extra skill point from intelligence.
Feats are chosen according to the role of a character. Combat feats for front line fighters and supporting feats for others.
I will generally choose a trait(s) to make a skill available as a class skill, that was no class skill to the character.

I prefer to choose at least one skill that is either a craft or a profession.
Even as a front line fighter I will choose a skill point as my favourite class point.
I like to be able to fight in the saddle and that why I hope that Paizo to fix some mounted combat rules issues (no pressure*).
I am also a mule that loves to own a caddy handing me all kinds of tools neccasary for any situation.
When leveling I will make sure all usefull class (swim, acrobatics, climb, appraise, knowledge) skills will eventually have at least 1 skill point. Skills I deem vital (perception, heal, ride, survival, spellcraft) will be assigned specifically and more often.

*which of course means incredible pressure

It matters greatly if you want the shield or not. You can use a shield and a coorporation feat (shield wall) to gain armor from someone with the same feat and working together to form a shield wall.

You could get dodge, mobility for extra AC if you need to move in combat in order to shield buddies or provide a flanking bonus. Think of taking 3 ranks in acrobatics so you get extra AC when using defensive fighting and total defence. when you combine total defence (with 3 ranks in acrobatics) and mobility you will gain 10 AC against attacks of opportunity when moving through threatened squares while employing total defence.
If you add spring attack (prerequisites: dodge, mobility) to that as well to allow you to attack during your movement. Combined with defensive fighting (and 3 ranks in acrobatics) will allow you to move to threatened squares with a +7 AC against attack of opportunity make an attack with a -4 penalty (defensive fighting) and move on to the place you want to reach. You could reach a flanking position fairly save and remember that even when using total defence you still provide flanking for someone else at the opposite side.

And the shield path so you will not loose you shield bonus to AC when making an attack with your shield rocks as well. Shield proficiency(which you have as a fighter) followed by improved shield bash and maybe shield focus. In order to reduce attack penalties you might want to invest in two weapon fighting as well (a light shield is considered a light weapons and a heavy shield is considered a heavy weapon for purposes of two weapon fighting)

Indeed powerattack for extra damage as well as improved critical and cleave.

And quick draw allows you to switch weapons easily during combat. Toughness will provide some extra hitpoints to make sure you don't fall too easily.

If you want to change something on monsters and how well they can be hit I suggest u use a minor (or major) form of damage resistance to represent the thick skin or shel of a monster.
I'd say a tortoise would have a Damage Reduction against physical damage of 5 to represent the fact that the skin of such a large monster is thicker than that of a medium creture on average.
And maybe rule that small weapons or smaller cannot hurt it as the size of those weapons are unable to penetrate it's thick skin.

UnArcaneElection wrote:

@Snowleopard: Sounds like you want the Shaman from the Advanced Class Guide. Just watch out for changes due to Errata (of which quite a bit will be needed).

That type is a druid and I would prefer a more clerical type.

As a missing class I would like to see some shamanic type of savage cleric like the barbarian is the savage type of fighter.
I'd like to see some shaman that has a minutely better BAB then the cleric (like 3/4) and less armour (light max), with some spiritual totem like 'diety' that grants the shaman spells. With 'domain' spells that are obviously elemental, natural or spiritual in nature. No Channeling, but a extended 'domain' spell territory (both in some extra slots as well as more then one spell). As well as more skillpoints per level (like 4 or 5 maybe) to represent the special position of the shaman in a tribe. Maybe some special pool of skills the shaman can choose from instead of extra skill points (3 free skills and 2 pool skills?). A pool containing thing like heal, proffession (herbalist), Knowledge (nature), perception, Knowledge (local), Knowledge (history), Knowledge (planes).
Pool skills are off course class skill when pool points are expended for them.
I am not sure whether or not to allow spontaneous casting.

So in short a barbaric type of cleric that has no channeling, but slightly increased domain spells. And slightly increased combat at the cost of armour (no medium).

I have not considered unbalanced combinations yet so feel free to attend me to them.

Bandw2 wrote:
i want to cut a mountain in half, without magic.

That's easy. Become a stone mason. Profession (stone mason).

One of the few rich travelling guilds that could afford (and needed) a permanently employed blacksmith (for maintenance of their tools) and were powerfull enough to demand pay on a four day basis!! (historical facts!!)

I'd say that no matter what class you'd get. You'd want your general to have a good/high charisma and more then a decent intelligence.
Depending on the society (I am assuming medieval, chivalrous society), it will require a general to be good at the joust and tournaments. A certain amount of nobility is a pre-requisite (no noble => no officer), as no commoner would make it to higher ranks, no matter how talented.

It is smart for a general to have the profession (soldier) at max rank and earlyer mentioned: diplomacy, sense motive, perception and maybe bluff and intimidate. Knowledge of logistics (profession (cook)??) is the most important skill of any army-leader as armies travel on their stomach => no food equals no army and over 80% of any battle ever fought was won on the ability of the general to feed his troops (historical fact!).

The high intelligence will provide some extra skill slots and will provide the character with a reasonable excuse to come up with excellent battle plans.
Any good leader must be charismatic and there are plenty of examples of generals rallying their troops with a good speach (diplomacy?) to regain their morale.
Leadership is a very solid choice as any general would appreciate a group of loyal companions to his cause and well being.

Cevah wrote:

Bless Weapon

The spell does:
Bypass as +1 the DR of evil creatures or striking evil incorporeal creatures.
Becomes good-aligned, bypassing the DR of certain creatures.
Auto-confirms criticals vs. evil foes.

The first is covered by needing a +1 weapon to apply this on as an effect.
The other two are harder to evaluate to specific items.

Only if you cannot liken it to another item do you use a formula.

The formula used is:
2000 * CL(1) * SL(1) * MinPerLevel(2) * Slotless(2) = 8000 gp
The paladin's caster level = class level - 3, so CL=1 not 4.


What makes everyone think it's slotless???

It's a weapon enhancer and occupies a slot in a weapon.
So I'd say +4000 is enough.
And good call "Peet" on the not keen combination as the spell indeed specifies that.

Alleran wrote:
Snowleopard wrote:
Alleran wrote:
Tacticslion wrote:
The NPC wrote:
Tacticslion wrote:

After getting poisoned by a shirt from his wife. How ignoble: he died by blowing his highest save...

(Of course his will saves sucked, given the number of times he went insane and killed people he loved. Or maybe it was just 'cause he was being manipulated by a goddess. Still: his life kind of sucked.)

And let us not forget where the poison came from. Messy.
I know! She didn't know it would kill him (though, to be fair, her Sense Motive tanked pretty hard). All his wife wanted was for him to stop sleeping arou-

It should be noted that in one version of his myths, every night for fifty nights a father sent a different daughter to Herakles, and he never realised they weren't the same person.

INT was his dump stat. So was WIS. He didn't put any ranks in Perception, either.

Int definetly was not Herakles dump stat as he used his brain on several tasks and fights.

Everybody rolls a 20 on their INT check eventually. Or has Athena roll it for them. Or uses mythic power for a Moment of Intelligence +20 circumstance benefit. But yes, it's true that he did.

Herakles does use cunning in his trials (which were assisted by Athena). There are plenty of points throughout the myths where his simple-mindedness also stretches into the comedic, and he appears often in Comedy.

Everyone also rolls a 1 on their int checks so, I do not think that's a strong argument.

I agree that Athena helped him along. But Herakles is more often reffered to as cunning (He is not Odyseus, I immedieatly agree) then simple minded. I tend to think that his misfortunes are often contributed more to the plotting and cruelty of the gods then him failing an int check.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Actually slimes are usually pretty scary, but The Black Pudding always made me wince as it eats the magic out of your precious equipment.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Alleran wrote:
Tacticslion wrote:
The NPC wrote:
Tacticslion wrote:

After getting poisoned by a shirt from his wife. How ignoble: he died by blowing his highest save...

(Of course his will saves sucked, given the number of times he went insane and killed people he loved. Or maybe it was just 'cause he was being manipulated by a goddess. Still: his life kind of sucked.)

And let us not forget where the poison came from. Messy.
I know! She didn't know it would kill him (though, to be fair, her Sense Motive tanked pretty hard). All his wife wanted was for him to stop sleeping arou-

It should be noted that in one version of his myths, every night for fifty nights a father sent a different daughter to Herakles, and he never realised they weren't the same person.

INT was his dump stat. So was WIS. He didn't put any ranks in Perception, either.

Int definetly was not Herakles dump stat as he used his brain on several tasks and fights.

1. He realized he couldn't win the fight with the hydra so he got his friend to burn the wounds he made shut so the heads could not regenerate and the immortal head he could not defeat he burried under a rock, so he won the fight. That's using your head.
2. He cleaned the Augias stable by leading two rivers through the stables instead of simply starting to shuffle.
3. He defeated Cerberus (the three-headed dog and guardian of the entrance to the underworld) by feeding it moonseed cookies so it fell asleep and he simply bound it and took it along.
4. He defeated the legendary wrestler Antaios that renewed his strength every time he was put on the ground. Herakles defeated him when he realised every fall revigorated Antaios and lifted him from the ground and without the help from his mother Gaya his strength waned and Herakles defeated him.
5. And the theft of the golden apples nearly had him taking over lifting the heavens instead of Atlas, but he used a trick to have Atlas lift the heavens once again and sped of.

In fact, in addition of his legendary strength he was known for his cunning as well and that made him almost invincible.

By the way in D&D Immortals did have stats, but these stats were not the same representation that mere mortals value to these numbers.
It basically meant that an Immortal with all stats at 3 is still infinitely more powerfull than a level 20 mortal with Mythis tiers and all super equipment.
Also Immortals can influence mortals by raising/lowering their saves for a single save if the spend some temporary power. It's possible but pretty expensive so Immortals will not make a habit of this, but will do so in exceptional cases (like Hera being extremely pissed at Herakles, because she wasn't able to punish Zeus directly).
I really loved the immortal system used back then as it assured the Immortal being infinitely powerfull when compared to a mortal, but still have limitations and do immortal stuff, like plotting and gaining power in doing so.

FLite wrote:
I think in the absence of other citations, I (were I GMing) would call this a "Gap in the rules" and use my discretion, which in this case means non-lethal coup de gras knocks you unconsious if you fail your save.

I disagree as the rules clearly state the function of the Coupe de Grace.

And to give an example of non-lethal damage actually having the effect of a Coupe de Grace: Hit someone on the throat real hard and you might cruch his windpipe wich is non-lethal damage on it's own. However since you have a good chance of obstructing the victim's airway the victim might die of asfixiation. A good example of a coup de grace using non-lethal damage.

I know, I know, Pathfinder and reality do not mix, but some level of reality is in rules and I like to think that this is applied from reality.

beej67 wrote:

So you think you are strong because you can survive the soft cushions.

Well, we shall see.

Biggles! Put her in the Comfy Chair!

Victim: oooh this is quite comfortable.

Inquisitor: Confess ... Confess ....Confess....
Biggles: I confess!!!
Inquisitor: Not You!!!!!!!

In Short: NOONE expects the Spanish Inquisition.

Orthos wrote:
And freedom is definetly a value of good

Not in the D&D/PF alignment scale. It's a value of chaos there.

PRD wrote:


Good Versus Evil

Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.

Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.

Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.

People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent, but may lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others.

Hmm. No mention of freedom, liberty, or anything else related to those concepts. Let's check the other axis....

Good implies respect for life!!! Slavery is no respect for someone else's life.

Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others.
I see so a master oppressing his slave by forcing him/her to stay with the master, suddenly is not evil??? I don't think so, it's evil and the fact that you too didn't see that makes me very wary of your character.
You were trying to hide slavery behind the Law and that's what all slave owners were trying. And they did so because they tried to avoid the discussion about slavery being evil and the easyest way to avoid that discussion was claiming that the law allowed this and therefor it wasn't evil.

Next time spend time actually reading the descriptions of good and evil.

Imbicatus wrote:

I'm saying it's not evil in game. I'm not saying that it's just to the slave, but in most cases, it's going to preferable than the other option (death).

News Flash: Slavery was an acceptable practice in all cultures at various points in time, and the idea that slavery is universally evil is a modern invention. Ownership of a person is only one step removed from the duties of citizenship.

I am NOT saying that slavery in the real world is good.

But Slavery in Alignment terms is neutral. It's the treatment of Slaves that is good or evil, and in most cases, the treatment is going to poor, and the resulting alignment will shift to evil.

Freedom is not a value of Good. Good is about helping others. It isn't about if they are free to do what they want.

Good vs Evil and Law vs Chaos are separate, unrelated scales.

Slavery in any civilisation has always been a debate if it was a valid option and the discussion stopped when the huge amounts of money involved in the slave trade and the free labor came to the correct persons.

The fact that slavery was an acceptable practice in cultures at various points and places in time doesn't make the practice acceptable.
The very notion you claim that slavery is one step removed from the duties of citizenship is a lie and the fact that you do not realise that is dangerous indeed.
Citizenship is a choice and if you do not want to be a citizen then you can leave town and be free of all protections and duties that the citizenship provides and demands.
Slavery is the practice of holding fellow human beings captive against their will by threat of force. You are able to sell your property as you wish or even let them be part of an inheritence. Nothing in that description passes as anything but evil. And the fact that some treatment of masters to their slaves may be considered good doesn't make the practice neutral or good.
And freedom is definetly a value of good and the fact that slaves are not able to do as they please is definetly a value that can be described along the good evil scale and their masters are responsible for that situation.

Claxon wrote:

In real life yes, Golairon no. Good and evil are absolute, so sayeth the multiverse. It doesn't change depending on your location or who you are interacting with. Various groups may respond differently to it, but that doesn't change it's position. Just because some groups are indifferent to murder doesn't make it less evil.

Ethics and alignment are two separate entities. In real life ethics determine good and bad, in Golarion there are absolute sources of good and evil. Now, as people we may have different opinions on what the "absolute source" would say is good or evil on a particular issue, but it should never change because of who you're interacting with or where you go. And that's the absolue part.

There are Paladin codes that will clash heavily with each other. And they are all supposed to be lawful good, so your argument fails for Golarion.

The most basic Paladin code suggest allowing your enemies to retreat if they so ask, treat your prisoners fairly and accept surrender normally.
There is a specific paladin code that specifically states to take no prisoners and pursue any fight to the death of your opponent.
Those two codes do not mix and they are both of lawfull good paladins so explain to me again how absolute the Good / Evil is???

Any GM has their own ideas about good and evil and you are subject to their interpretation of good / evil. Allthough it's unlikely that the concept are seperated that far for most people, Imbicatus just tried to defend that slavery is a neutral act!! And I can assure you that it isn't as should anyone else.

Imbicatus wrote:
Snowleopard wrote:

I call B!++~@+@ on both Claxon and Imbicatus here.
Morality and ethics are flexible and changing developing through the ages and depend heavily on culture.
What we consider moral or ethical today differs greatly from what people considered moral and ethical a 1000 years ago.
Certain groups have vastly different morals and ethics now. Just think of most religions for example: Nearly all religions hold different morals and ethics for their own group vs. other groups. Just think of supporters of different sports team who are sometimes willing to fight each other over 'worshipping' a different team.
Justice in the middle ages of Europe gave vastly different punishments for the exact same crime as long as you were able to pay enough to escape real punishment. And the punishment were different as well, with the rack / vice, swallow or die, lashes of the whip / cane, beheading, burning on the stake, chopping of limbs, quartering someone and loads of other punishments we do not consider ethical or moral today. Torture was used as a means of confession and in very rare cases where someone didn't crack under torture (extremely rare but possible) they sometimes were unable to convict someone, because they hadn't confessed to the crime.
Certain groups consider stealing perfectly fine as long as you didn't steal from your own group (or get caught stealing...

National laws are not intrinsically tied to Lawful as an alignment. Slavery as a practice is Lawful Neutral. Law is all about Order and having a rigidly defined status in all things. Chaos is about Freedom. The concept of freeing a slave is a Chaotic act regardless if the local laws support or outlaw slavery.

Slavery is also not intrinsically Good or Evil. Slavery may be used as a punishment to a crime as an alternative to imprisonment or death, or as an alternative to paying off debts. The treatment of the slave may lead to good or evil actions, but freedom is not inherently Good.

Likewise, stealing is inherently Chaotic,...

And here we have it.

Imbicatus is actually making a case for slavery not being evil!! News flash: Owning another human being as property is EVIL no matter what the circumstances. Imprisonment or laboring of a debt is not slavery (although it borders on slavery and can become slavery)

Stealing is although indeed unlawfull (in most countries) usually quite evil, although there are exceptions which make the act forgivable or unpunishable. But in it's basic form it is taking something from someone else without permission and that's evil. Is stealing the most evil thing in the world?? No usually not, but it is definetly not a neutral or good act.

Claxon wrote:
Imbicatus wrote:

On Earth, ethics are a social construct, and mores only matter to the cultural that made them. A highly charismatic individual may be able break those values without consequence, or even change them for a while.

On Golarion, Alignment is a force of nature, and absolute. Peoples actions determine where they stand, regardless of whether other people forgive those actions.

Indeed. People forget this far too frequently. Morality is absolute and established forces of nature, a good act is always good and does not depend on culture. Evil acts are always evil, and do not depend on culture. On Golarion.

I call B*$#*+&+ on both Claxon and Imbicatus here.

Morality and ethics are flexible and changing developing through the ages and depend heavily on culture.
What we consider moral or ethical today differs greatly from what people considered moral and ethical a 1000 years ago.
Certain groups have vastly different morals and ethics now. Just think of most religions for example: Nearly all religions hold different morals and ethics for their own group vs. other groups. Just think of supporters of different sports team who are sometimes willing to fight each other over 'worshipping' a different team.
Justice in the middle ages of Europe gave vastly different punishments for the exact same crime as long as you were able to pay enough to escape real punishment. And the punishment were different as well, with the rack / vice, swallow or die, lashes of the whip / cane, beheading, burning on the stake, chopping of limbs, quartering someone and loads of other punishments we do not consider ethical or moral today. Torture was used as a means of confession and in very rare cases where someone didn't crack under torture (extremely rare but possible) they sometimes were unable to convict someone, because they hadn't confessed to the crime.
Certain groups consider stealing perfectly fine as long as you didn't steal from your own group (or get caught stealing from your own group).

On Golarion moral and ethics depend heavily on the location you are at. As some locations will allow slavery while other do not. Lot's of different gods all having their own code of moral and ethical behaviour.
In the same society different groups will have different morals and ethics depending on the own culture, history or rank in society.
Freeing a slave is a serious crime in a slaver town, but a very moral and ethical act in the eyes of town officials that do not support or allow slavery.

The reason we label certain actions as moral and ethical is because we look at Golarion through our own sense of ethics and morale. And even that leads to discussion and disagreement about what's moral and ethical! Just check the Paladin discussions.

Remember that spontaneous casters can swap out an old spell for a new one (when raising a level), which is pretty good for spells that are only effective at low level like sleep or a save 'that evades all effects' spell.

Considering the size of the group, playing a bard would be pretty effective as well. But make sure to play what you want and have fun.

Kolokotroni wrote:
con damage is not exactly lethal? Isnt it like the definition of lethal?

If the save for the disease is really low a character will simply save it off fast, but will get some minor con damage temporarily. And that will hamper the player. And the disease doesn't have to affect Constitution only, it might affect str or dex instead. Just enough to really annoy, but nothing really lethal (yet).

I never mentioned that we should kill an overweight character like that, but some minor mundane disease that saves relatively easy and does minor con damage is a major pain in the backside although not exactly lethal.

Actual overweight is a constant hindrance, detroying joints, clogging arteries, shortness of breath, crushing organs if really obese untill someone heart cannot cut it anymore or they litterally die because they are crushed under their own weight (asfixation / organ failure).

Besides underweight is quite lethal as wel and leads to problems a lot faster.

Ask any olympian athlete to train with the special forces and their (honest) answer: 'Yes I can use a recovery training (light training for recovery)'. And you will see that a specialised athlete runs circles around the special forces.
I agree that fighting is one of the most physically taxing activities in existence, but soldiers do not fight 24/7 because noone is able to do that.
And checking the Pathfinder analogy will show that those 3 fights a day seldom last longer then 6 rounds each and trust me 5 hours of training or more that the athletes clock on average, cost more energy then the combat the adventurers are clocking in.
And no Michael phelps doesn't burn 10K calories, it's more like 5K to 6K, which is considerable as swimming is a high energy sport.

In short my estimate stands and is not unreasonable. In fact the game mechanics are very mild because they let us get away with eating one meal a day.

Tsiron Ragmar wrote:

1 cp=100 calories.
1 sp=1000 calories

That's a baseline. 4000 calories is a pound.

Now, this is the tricky part: how many calories does a day of adventuring burn? A day of farming? A day of desk work?

Now, for mechanical bonuses and penalties. Can you guys help me out here?

Generally speaking a male adult burns about 2500 calories a day and a woman about 2000 calories.

Assuming one does a phusical job (like farming, miller, carpenter, lumberjack, adventurer when travelling while walking or riding) one might burn up 500 to a 1000 extra calories per day.
Athletes may burn up 4000 to even 7500 calories a day if they do the tour the France, Vuelta or another multi day race covering 150 miles a day for several days/weeks (yes, cyclists burn the most calories).
But realise that adventurers are not Olympian class athletes, so it's unlikely they will burn more then 3000 to 4000 calories a day.
Also realise that athletes eat at least 8 times a day!! And they will take small portions at a time, taking in 250 to 500 calories a meal/snack of very well proportioned food.

Considering that a commoners meal is usually 3 sp and is most likely about 2500 calories, that seems reasonable. Although a poor man's meal of 1 sp is most likely still 2000 calories. And a good meal of 5 sp is most likely 3000 calories. You should realise that the poor man's meal tastes very bland, while the other meals will have more variety.
Eating more then you need usually is only possible if you eat things you like and not things that do not stand out at all. One of the reasons elderly persons are malnourished is because the food they get does not tastes delicious, but bland or even bad.

I would add overweight to the encumbrance of a character, effectively lowering his/her total weight allowed by the extra pounds over his/her starting weight. And when above 110% of starting weight I would let a character make weekly fortitude saves (DC 10) of contracting some mundane disease. Every extra 10% of weight over the starting weight will add 2 to the DC of the save.

It shouldn't be too hard to do kind deeds. Simply find out what an area lacks and provide the area with that. Be polite and help people out, not expecting huge amounts of reward. Or trade some needed help for a service, instead of hard cash. Simply hunting for some predator/dangerous animal in the surrouninds of a village will most likely be well received. And if the predator/dangerous animal happens to be edible simply organise a BBQ afterwards. It shows everyone what you did and makes you popular for providing a meal.

Pearl of power to supplement the 1 level spells (they are cheap, especially if constructed by yourself).
Perhaps a handy haversack.
Special ammunition, flare arrows (handy if you want to cause a fire), cold iron arrows, alchemical silver arrows (although I consider that a waste because of the -1 to dam), message arrow.
Perhaps a wand of level 1 spells.
Perhaps constructing an item that will allow her to cast a spell she often casts or needs for a couple of times per day. It frees up slots for more needed spells. Or an item giving a competence bonus on a skill (relatively cheap).
Silk rope perhaps or spider-silk rope.
Think of alchemist fire and/or acid flask.
Calltrops (heavy, but reusable)
If she crafts get Masterwork artisan tools (+2 circumstance bonus, that stacks with competence bonus).
If you allow the master transformation spell from ultimate magic (about the only spell our GM allows from the ultimate series), she could spend some gold to upgrade weapons, armor to their masterwork variant so they can be enchanted (later).
You mentioned a +1 bow, but maybe a masterwork strength bow can get some extra damage or doesn't she have any strength bonus??

I assume her strength is not too high so any combination with a handy haversack allows her to get a significant ammount of storage space for extra mundane surprises, like heavy callthrops, ropes, vials, grappling hooks, mountain climbing gear, pytons (really heavy but usefull).
Cheaper potions are viable as well.
A masterwork musical instrument?
When you have 4-5k investing in cheap magical storage equipment and expensive and heavy mundane equipment is a good choice.

Imbicatus wrote:

Stealing isn't evil big e or little e. The entire idea of stealing is a social construct. If you culture doesn't have personal property, then taking something that isn't being used is natural, regardless if someone else sees it as theirs. This outlook on life is Chaotic, but it isn't Evil in alignment terms.

In game, Law, Chaos, Good, and Evil are absolutes that have no bearing on real-world moral values of good and evil or any societies individual laws.

Wrong, in a society where there is no personal property people will notice you gathering stuff that's for everyone to share and not share it but keeping it for yourself only! And you will be punished for it!

And about the stealing: Would you allow a paladin to steal something, without falling from grace???? I don't think so either.

Depending on how deep you must go. My party went after a sunken wreck treasure last session.
3 of our 5 party members went down the depts to explore. And the remaining 2 were minding the boats and holding a rope with a grappling hook in case we needed to pull something up.
Don't forget to think of a rope code before you submerge (we did).
1 pull = more rope, 2 pulls = pull up.
While down our party noticed a aquatic monster that noticed our submerged party long before we saw it. And 2 succesfull attacks and a hasty swim upwards, resulting in 17 damage and 21 damage for our heroes made us decide to return later.
Next day we returned with our best preperation available. We used our best constitution guy (monk) who had a decent swim skill and a ring of swimming (+5 swim). We spelled him up with a Bull's strength, a potion of invisibility, my ranger's Negate Aroma spell and my ranger's Magic Fang spell. It allowed the Monk about 3 minutes of time submerged if not attacked and a 1.5 minute minimum. (The magic fang wasn't neccasary, but I cast it just in case).
Even in combat him rolling a one would have rolled him a 15 for his swim check.
The idea was to avoid any combat and simply get to the treasure and take it along. we now knew there was a monster down there, which was guarding the wreck. But it was too big to fit into the wreck. It was very perceptive though and we didn't know if it had the scent-ability or maybe even tremor-sense, which translates to underwater-tremor-sense for aquatic creatures.

We got lucky as it actually had scent, but not tremor-sense and combined with the potion of invisibility and the negate aroma spell the monster literally swam 5 feet past our monk and not discovering our monk while rolling a 20 on it's perception check.

We also had a grappling hook and rope in the water to lift the treasure or our monk back up. We gently lifted the treasure chest out of the wreck and rowed out as fast as we could.

It was a great coorperation with my Ranger's spells, our freshly conquered potion's of invisibility, our Cleric's bull's strength and swim ring which he loaned to our Monk. Our Barbarian massive strength for lifting the treasure from the wreckage. And I guess our thief was there as well and she managed to open the chest without force after we retrieved it. So it actually was a full party effort, which made the undetected swipe even more fun. We got 1k in gold and adamantine machete which will be nice going into the jungle.

I suddenly realised something.
Would it be possible to hide your phylactery in another time??
Like on the same planet you are on but a proto-planet or far into the future???
Would a wish accomplish such a scheme????? (perhaps temporary and simply rehide every now and then??)

FuelDrop wrote:

My personal opinion is that all loot should be divided up as fairly as possible among the party, with the exceptions of items which are obviously best suited for one party member (EG an item that responds to channeling goes to the cleric by default, for instance).

As a general rule I'm more inclined to let a fellow player have some nice kit which suits them perfectly, even if that means they're getting more loot than anyone else for that encounter/dungeon. However, that goes with the understanding that if we stumble upon something that I can use better than anyone then it goes to me. What goes around comes around, you know?

I agree, all adventures I play with groups, first determine what is looted and consider that party treasure and if we deem it neccasary we agree on who get's what and split treasure if needed. I prefer playing that way as I do not want to quarrel over a game and someone being to infantile to share the spoils.

Example: I play a ranger who now has acces to magic spells and we recently found a clerical wand with cure light at level 3. off course the cleric of the group is given this item so he can put it to good use, but I did mention that in case of an emergency I am able to use the wand as well (ranger magic is divine) and in case of dire emergency the party thief might even handle it. The cleric ask me if I wanted the wand in my inventory, but I explained that I just wanted to mention the option in case he goes down and we have to heal him or someone else. And mentioned he'd better not bury the wand in his backpack, because if we need it in a hurry we might not have the time to search for it. I suggested having it available like I carry a sword in a sheath at my belt. We all agreed that this would be nice (the GM was most likely happiest of all as he would now get an easyer opportunity to steal it).

Any character/race that's older then 100 years can get the feat that adds +2 to knowledge rolls.
So I'd suggest some elf bard.

Actually the only reasons why looting a downed opponent during combat, would be reasonable and acceptable is because the unconscious character/NPC has an item the party desperately needs or because the party is in a hot zone and needs to withdraw in the forseeable future.

For instance a banner bearer has fallen and you are charged by the commander to regain the banner and fly it ASAP or the battle is lost.
Or a Messenger is surrounded by enemies, falls and you desperately need that message.
Or the banner example in reverse, where the commander charges you to conquer the enemy banner from the enemy bannerwearer.
Or you infiltrated a tribe of enemies and are discovered and need to retreat and you manage to secure some loot from an enemy while retreating.

All situations where the looting is either a specific goal or an opportunity that will not be available again.

But the example given by the GM indeed reeks of trying to gain more then the rest of the party. And I think that confronting the player out of game is a good way of handling this. Off course I suggest a diplomatic approach as I assume that the goal is the have fun and keep playing together.

I like the +3 bonus very much as it represents several strong points of certain classes and gives PC's an opportunaty to have a small edge in skills specific for their class.

And there are ways around the selected class skills using traits or feats.
I create a Paladin in a Kingmaker campaign that started with the trait 'Eyes and ears of the city (Abadar)' and this makes perception a class skill for a Paladin as well as provide a +1 on it. I noticed the Abadar at the class skill and decided that my Paladin should become a Paladin of Abadar as well because I liked the Lawfullness of the Abadar diety as well as the urban preference of Abadar. I thought that since the Kingmaker campaign will focus on founding a city/kingdom that this would be right up the ally of a Paladin of Abadar who would really appreciate bringing Law, Order and a city to the wild of a region.
And thusly my paladin was created with both an awesome bonus on Diplomacy (+11) and Perception (+9) at level 1.

I agree that Class skills are limiting certain classes, but I also think that's what makes the game versatile and shows strenghts and weaknesses in classes. And feats and traits allow you to mildy adjust this to your liking.

You can always make a desperate temple in the next city that will gladly raise your friend if they will just do a quest in return!
And when the players are higher level they can solve it themselves, so the desperate temple is basically a low level solution

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Snowleopard wrote:

Nowhere does the feat explanation state that the crafter may only 'enchant' items matching his craft skill.

No, it doesn't. Nor does it state that the crafter may enchant items that do not match his craft skill; the feat is silent on that.

The rules on which skills can be used are in the magic item creation section, and they are very clear that the skills used must be appropriate to the item crafted.

Nowhere is this restriction lifted.

As an analogy, the Master Craftsman feat does not say that the crafter doesn't gain proficiency with any weapon or armor s/he crafts. Does this mean that we should interpret the feat as granting proficiency?

Read the mastercraftsman feat and the create wondrous item feat.

the master craftsman allows a +2 on a chosen skill check and forces the craftsman to use that skill check when creating magic items. The create woundrous items allows the crafter to create any item in the wondrous item group (except for spell trigger or spell activation items).
The master craftsman feat does not limit the crafter any futher then the spell trigger or spell activation items and the create wondrous item feat allows a master crafter to create all items in that category (except for spell trigger or spell activation items).
So no analogy needed as the feats explain the situation perfectly. And combining the master craftsman + create wondrous item feat allows the craftsman to create any magic wondrous item he/she matches or exceeds the requisites for.

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.
Zahir ibn Mahmoud ibn Jothan wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:

Because the rules on creating wondrous items state that the required skill is : "Spellcraft or an applicable Craft or Profession skill check."

If you can explain how Profession(barrister) is appropriate, it would be acceptable.

Master Craftsman wrote:
You must use the chosen skill for the check to create the item.
Master Craftsman tells me its the appropriate one.

Even though I tend to think that the craft skill should be affiliated with ENCHANTING the item the rules do not suggest so.

Read the master craftsman feat rules very specifically:
>>>>>>Choose one Craft or Profession skill in which you possess at least 5 ranks. You receive a +2 bonus on your chosen Craft or Profession skill. Ranks in your chosen skill count as your caster level for the purposes of qualifying for the Craft Magic Arms and Armor and Craft Wondrous Item feats. You can create magic items using these feats, substituting your ranks in the chosen skill for your total caster level. You must use the chosen skill for the check to create the item. The DC to create the item still increases for any necessary spell requirements (see the magic item creation rules in Magic Items). You cannot use this feat to create any spell-trigger or spell-activation item.
Normal: Only spellcasters can qualify for the Craft Magic Arms and Armor and Craft Wondrous Item feats.>>>>>>

The ranks of the mastercraft skill replace the regular requirement of caster level needed for item creation feats.
You must choose the chosen (mastercraft) skill for the check to create the item and that means that you replace the regular spellcraft skill with the mastercraft skill check. The creating of the item is the creating of the magical properties of the item and not the item itself and this is explained in the chapter 'magic item creation'

Nowhere does the feat explanation state that the crafter may only 'enchant' items matching his craft skill. It states specifically that the crafter may not make 2 sorts of items (spell-trigger or spell-activation items) and the feat allows you to make any item relating to the Craft Magic Arms and Armor and Craft Wondrous Item feats and those feats allow you to 'enchant any item', except for the items specifically mentioned in the mastercraftsman feat.

So technically speaking a mastercraftsman with the Cook skill may take the create magic armor feat and enchant masterwork armors using his cooking skill instead of the normal spellcraft skill!!!!!!!! Any craft or profession that has the mastercraft feat attached to it may be used to replace the spellcraft skill for creation and is the requisite for qualifying for an magic item creation feat.
It doesn't mean the crafter can make the masterwork item needed for enchantment, but the magic item creation feats never did that and specifically state you must have this item before you can enchant it and do not state you must craft the item yourself (allthough you may if you can).

When you are a magic item creator via magic (clerical or arcane) the wondrous item category is the category for anything that does not comply with an another category and therefor the most broad collection of all magic items (most item slots are woundrous too).
Also remember that the master craftsman only allows you to take the create magic item feat substituting the normal caster level requirement. So at level 5 with a maxed-rank skill you can take the master craftsman feat and when you gain you next feat you may take a create item feat (usually level 7).

The ability states you need to use the craft-check of the craft you chose the mastercraftsman feat and create magic item feat. As a GM I find it very strange to say the least to allow a calligraphist to enchant a magic weapon.
It seems logical to me that a weaponsmith who is a master craftsman and has the create arms + armor feat can create a magical variant of magic weapons he can make (not bows)
So I would agree with a cobbler or a leatherworker to make certain leather items and enchanting them.
And an armorer making and enchanting armors.

HOWEVER: I have checked out the exact text concerning the master craftsman and I agree that the text does not prohibit to use a skill to enchant something not created via that specific skill. It simply states that you are a master craftsman and must use you craft skill instead of the normal spellcraft check. So I agree with Mexcalibur!

Mobility adds a +4 when moving and a good armor + shield (tower?) will provide a nice bonus as well and make sure your extra armor from dexterity is present as well.
Dodge provides 1 point.
The cooperative feat of shield wall will provide your neibors with a bonus and their shield will provide you with a bonus.

The combination of towershield and mobility provides your character with a similar bonus whether standing still or on the move.

So a Full plate +9 and a dexterity of 14 (as long as you aren't flatfooted) will provide a +2 if you have at least 3 fighter levels.
Add a tower shield and mobility and a minimum of +4 is added.
+4 if standing still and not taking full cover from towershield
+4 from tower and +4 from mobility if moving.
And cover if standing still and choosing that option, but it will only function from a certain side. This tactic will combine very nicely with shield wall though (or a narrow corridor).
Add +1 from dodge (as long as you aren't flatfooted)
If you then have 3 ranks in acrobatics and fight defensively you add +3 to armor or you could add +6 if you go for total defence.
Spells that provide concealment provide a miss chance in case someone manages to hit you.
Or an invisibility and total defence will function nicely as well. Remember that total defence is a standard action so you can take total defence and then start moving gaining a +4 from total def (+6 if 3 ranks in acrobatics) and a +4 from mobility. You could use the heavily protected move to provide flanking for your teammates. And yes someone employing total defence provides a flanking bonus to a friend at the right spot, but is unable to use the bonus him/herself that round.
Remember that gaining full cover of a tower shield will not combine with fighting defensively or total defence! (all three are standard actions!)
Don't forget that using a towershield has an attack penalty of -2, unless you have the towershield proficiency.
So I would immagine a fighter with a dexterity of 14 using a full plate and a tower shield.
Base AC of 25 , flatfooted AC of 23.
Dodge will add +1 ac to base. Base AC of 26 , flatfooted AC of 23.
Mobility will add +4 for an AC 0f 30 when moving. and can be combined with fighting defensively or total defence (I assume you took 3 ranks in acrobatics). Base AC of 28 with fighting defensively and Base AC of 31 when taking total defence.
And if you move after using fighting defensively or total defence another +4 is added. Base AC of 32 with fighting defensively + moving and Base AC of 35 when taking total defence + moving.
When standing still you could use the towershield to get total cover from a side or let a friend (both the friend and you have shield wall) provide you with extra AC from his/her shield and provide him/her with a bonus of +2.
If both shield wall partners are adjacent, have tower shields and use this to provide total cover for themselves, their partners will gain the benefits from total cover from their partners side providing total cover as well.

So ultimately I would have a fighter with 3 levels of fighter 3 ranks in acrobatics, dodge and the cooperative shield wall feat (together with another frontliner)
As equipment i'd take a full plate and a tower shield.

If possible let a party member provide you with magic vestments, invisibility (improved), Blur or fight from an obscuring mist.
Any other magic is most likely best used to enhance your attack as it is likely to suffer a bit from the defensive positions.

Zhayne wrote:
DM Under The Bridge wrote:

Doesn't really change much, being encased in metal or using metal shields shoots out their spellcasting ability.

It temporarily shuts down the link to nature. Seems pretty clear, but it would need to be armour or shields, not manacles or gauntlets.

As ridiculous as that is, since metal is perfectly natural.

Well metal in nature is rarely found in plates or even disks and needs to be processed heavily before it becomes workable. Maybe the druids consider this a twisting or corruption of nature?

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I checked the PRD on druids and it says:
A druid who wears prohibited armor or uses a prohibited shield is unable to cast druid spells or use any of her supernatural or spell-like class abilities while doing so and for 24 hours thereafter.

It says nothing about being forced to do so.
So an armored coat or a Buckler (which is strapped to the arm) will indeed take a druid out of commision (spell-wise and wildshape-wise). And even if they remove the item(s) it will take 24 hours untill they regain control of their powers.
So a buckler fastened to a druids arm and shackles will very effectively remove his/her combat capabilities.
The same goes for a armored coat + shackles.
This is the weak spot of a druid and although the cure is pretty simple remove armor and wait 24 hours (druids do not fall from grace) their active connection to their source of power is temporarily severed.

Needless to say no atonement is needed as a druids source of power will sever the druid permanently if it feels this as a neccasary measure (just like a cleric).

I think the best way too hide something like that is both extremely well hidden as wel as in plain sight.
So a well protected room (lead, mindblank etc.) will work. But make sure that the rooms( seems) to be a treasure room with several chest full of coins. Place the phylactery inside a plain simple lock chest containing copper coins, but make sure that the other chests in the room are more ornate and better locked. Simple lead lined hidden compartments in the simple chest could hide the philactery and make sure several fake phylacteries (or even spare phylacteries) are in the room as well. It's smart to use some obvious fakes as well as some reserve phylacteries and one fake one using all kinds of magics to obscure it's non-functioning. Fake magic aura and such. And trap the most expensive chest with the best lock.

1 to 50 of 356 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>