I cannot be dispelled. It is "D&D" (or in this case Pathfinder) permanent, meaning it is permanent until it isn't.
Stone to flesh would work...
Bathing the subject in fresh basilisk blood (per the Bestiary entry on pg 29) would work...
I think Break Enchantment would work but I would have to look it up.
Matthew Downie wrote:
The usual example given is that if you attempt the DC one billion Acrobatics check to jump to the moon, a natural 20 shouldn't automatically succeed.
It wouldn't take a billion checks... simply taking 20 (two minutes) would guarantee a jump to the moon succeeded. This is why a natural 20 is NOT a automatic success (nor is a 1 an automatic failure) on a skill check.
You are over complicating the situation. As has been pointed out, there is no facing rules in Pathfinder, nor should there be.
Combat is hectic and fluid. Combatants are looking in all directions assessing threats. Just cast the spell at the target, you can even shout, "Hey, look over here!" as you cast the spell to get their attention if it makes you feel better.
I am still flummoxed that within the entirety of the Advanced Class Guide there was not Mage/Thief analog.
Point is, there are niches to be filled. Does it have to be with a full 20 level class like the Class Guide? No, archetypes can be wonderful for filling these desires.
I agree that a Magus archetype could be designed to fulfill the roll of Arcane Archer. I might come up with one for my home games...
I have a society character that hails from Ustalav. He is a hunter of monsters and things that go bump in the night very much inspired, thematically, by Hugh Jackman's Van Helsing.
Mechanically he is a ninja. He has never been to Tian Xia and wouldn't know what you were talking about if you tried to call him a Ninja.
Flavor is mutable.
We are not reading too much into the title. Titles are what sets the tone for the post. Yours set an aggressive tone. Do not walk up to someone and punch them in the face and then start asking them how their day is... they might "read too much into it" and hit you back.
Sheogorath says this thread makes his teeth itch...
Do not disallow them their plan. Let them kill him and, as has been pointed out, have him decline to acquiesce to their offer of revival. When the reincarnation fails and they try speak with dead have them run a (high) risk of speaking with the wrong personality that knows nothing of the information they need.
Never disallow players their ideas... just don't let them play out the way they think they will. ;)
Pathfinder is not a video game.
There is NOTHING preventing you from putting on a second necklace. Only one of them will function, but nothing physically prevents the wearing of a 2nd, 3rd, or hell go all Mr. T. on it and wear 50lbs of necklaces... only one of the magic ones is going to work though.
To say you CANNOT put on a second necklace? Really?
I will reiterate. Pathfinder is NOT a video game. There is no computer code of 1's and 0's preventing your character from putting on a second necklace.
To answer the original question, as others have said one would work and the other(s) would not. Choose wisely which one is currently functioning.
No disagreement there deusvult. I was simply answering the direct question regarding alignment. I did not go into the gray areas of how things are perceived and presented.
You simply cannot have Evil listed on your character sheet. You can absolutely play a LN cleric of Asmodeus and "tow the line" if you wish. But be prepared to justify your actions to a questioning GM if you tend to hang out on the darker side of said line.
This is not meant to dissuade, merely to inform.
You cannot play Evil aligned characters in Pathfinder Society. It is expressly prohibited in the Guide to Pathfinder Society Organized Play.
From the guide (Pg. 9)
They will know names of key NPC's and some story info from the adventure cards.
I am currently playing Rise of the Runelords and have played through the first deck of the adventure card game with my son. I didn't really see anything that if feel spoils anything. Like I said, just NPC names and some vague story info.
I've stuck with the XP system because it's what my players and I are used to.
First, not judging... just something to think about.
[Note: No monkeys were harmed during this analogy]
First, get a cage large enough to hold five monkeys and a step ladder. You will also need some bananas and a high pressure water hose.
Place the step ladder in the middle of the cage and hang a banana from the top of the cage.
Now put the five monkeys in the cage. They will, of course, go for the banana. One will win out. Turn the hose on the ones who failed to retrieve the banana [see note above].
Continue this process until the monkeys learn they cannot have the banana.
Now, put away the hose. You do not need it anymore.
Remove one monkey and replace it with a new monkey. This monkey has never been exposed to the hose. He does not know he cannot have the banana. When he goes for the banana the others will stop him, probably violently.
Continue to replace monkeys until you have five new monkeys that have never been exposed to the hose. In fact, the hose does not even exist anymore.
They will not go for the banana. They do not know why. It has just always been that way.
Moral of the story... doing something just because its the way it has always been done is not necessarily a good approach.
Feats are like skill points. I never have enough of them.
In my home games with my sons we utilize the hero point system and I frequently choose the anti-hero option for an extra feat. Granted, we house rule that it is actually a feat every 5 levels as one feat for the versatility that is the hero point system seems lack luster.
It isn't uncommon for me to grab things like cosmopolitan or other more flavorful and less meaty feats.
If a natural 20 was a success on skill checks then on a 20 a peasant with a gimp leg could jump to the moon. This way lies silliness.
Or... maybe that is how the cow did it?
Or, as others have put it, natural 20's are not automatic successes nor are 1's automatic failures with regards to skill checks.
James Jacobs wrote:
James, I love that change! Consider that bit of renaming genius stolen for my home games.
Yes, I know what he was referencing. It is the space in the magic section that expands on the bit called out in the invisiblity spell. Basicaly it ensures that hostile spells are counted as "attacks" for purposes of breaking invisibility and being generaly hostile. That is why is says they are "condidered" attacks.
However, it does not make them "Attacks" as defined in the combat section.
Sneak Attack requires an attack roll. The exception is the Arcane Tricksters Surprise Spells ability.
That is simply how it works. /shrug
That is an interesting stance, but I am not the one house ruling.
Sneak attack requires an attack. Making an attack requires an attack roll. A Fireball (or other aoe spell such as burning hands) does not constitute making an "attack" by the general rules as it requires no attack roll (note: I am not implying that hitting someone with a fireball isn't a hostile action, just that it does not fall under the "attack" category as defined in the book).
Such spells are called out via a specific rule in the Invisibility spell as counting as an attack based on the text, "For purposes of this sepll, an attack includes any spell targeting a foe wor whose area or effect includes a foe". This is expressly so that such spells break invisibility.
AOE spells such as fireball do NOT get sneak attack damage via general rules.
If it worked the way you imply then the Arcane Tricksters "Surprise Spell" ability would be useless, which it isn't. This ability specificaly allows what you are implying is general rule and does so via s specific rule. It is, to my knowledge, the ONLY way to apply sneak attack to an aoe type spell that requires no attack roll.
My son, Lord Ulgier aka "Uglier" had a blast at this event. I think it was actually his favorite at the con. It was a blast seeing him make the semi finals!
Just wanted to say thank you to everyone involved for making it a great game.
I have only had issues with two books, "Gods and Magic" and "Sword of Valor". Gods and Magic I was borrowing from a friend when it fell apart so I just bought him a new one and kept the damaged one.
Sword of Valor on the other hand was part of my subscription and fell apart the first time I opened it. Contacted Paizo and they sent a new one with my next shipment.
Can you use a hollow pommel to put a wand in a sword?
Absolutely, if you house rule it. As a simple storage area for a wand I see no problem with this at all. I have played a wizard before that kept his bonded wand inside his cane similar to a sword cane. (for pop culture reference see Lucius Malfoy from the Harry Potter stories. His wand is sheathed inside his cane.)
Can you use the wand while the wand is inside the sword?
Absolutely, if you house rule it. There is nothing saying that this works nor is there anything saying it does not work. What it does, however, is get around a bit of action economy. Is this a bad thing? Maybe, maybe not.
Or you could utilize the weaponwand spell which is a magical means of doing what you are suggesting.
So, to summarize... yes, if you house rule it.
The class name is irrelevant.
My "Witch" in my RotRL game is a Priest of Nethys to anyone who asks. He no more considers himself a witch than he considers himself a duck. ;)
I also play a "Barbarian" who is a civilized aristocrat whose passion and profession is acting. He can have a bit of a temper at times, but don't most of the aristocracy?
I also have a "ninja" in society play who wouldn't know what a ninja was if you asked him. He is a monster hunter, he hunts monsters. He just happens to be good at hidding himsel and striking from unseen positions. Oh, and he can climb walls like a spider. ;)
Finally, the term "Witch" can either be gender specific or not depending on who you ask. And, as has been pointed out, the term "Warlock" does not neccesarily mean "male witch". It tends to have rather twisted conotations. An archaic meaning of the word was "oathbreaker".
So, take it for what you will and call your character what you will. You can have a female or a male witch or you can have a witch character that calls themselves sorcerer or grand high pubah of the magical dandelion. It does not really matter. People get too hung up on names of classes and try to limit said classes based on their perception of what that name entails.
I have a question regarding Skulgrym.
His "During Combat" tactics states that he opens by casting Silence on his axe. Then he casts hold person... deeper darkness... summons reinforcements, teleports, casts regenerate, vampiric touch... rinse and repeat as necessary.
All of these are spell-like abilities... how is he casting them in silence?
Is this an error in the tactics or am I missing something?
Edit: Also, where does his 2d6 sneak attack come from? ;)
To the original poster, yes. You are worrying too much.
As has been pointed out Dungeons&Dragons has guns... AD&D had guns... 2nd Edition AD&D had guns... 3rd Edition had guns...
Why do people seem shocked to find that Pathfinder has guns? It's not new. It's not innovative. It's same old same old.
Also, having guns in Pathfinder is not anachronistic because Golarion is not Earth and thus Earth timelines are irrelevant when determining if somethings chronological inconsistency.
Now I understand everyone may not be playing in Golarion but unless you are playing on Earth in a specific timeline that is intended to mimic historical accuracy and then, for some reason, seed in elements from a different time period with the express intention of creating an anachronism then nothing in your game can be said to be anachronistic.
Bottom line... NOTHING in the setting is anachronistic. Not guns, not printing presses, not Numerian tech... nothing. Why? Because everything detailed in the setting fits the chronology of the setting, thus it cannot be said to be an anachronism.
I just love that it seems everyone in the "kingdom"* of Varisia (still trying to figure out when Varisia got one) knew about this mythical tribe of good and literate but non-common speaking goblins pacafists... except the party.
*I'm honestly curious about this. How did it come about? How is it handled in game? Who is the King? Is Magnimar, the "Free City" the capital? What happened to the Mayor? Is the Mayor the King? Is Korvosa pissed that they are no longer a city state? What happened to their King/Queen (depending on time line)? Are they now a duke/duchess? Is Kaer Maga pissed that they are no longer a city state? Did the King ban troll seers and zombie slaves in Kaer Maga?
As I said, I am truly curious how a Varisian "Kingdom" is adjuticated.
I love how certain points keep getting glossed over with no answer...
Why do these "Good", and apparently literate, goblins not speak common... none of them... not a one. What language were they learning to read and write in I wonder?
Why did Shelalu not mention this tribe to the adventures? Especialy since she would have to know that they only speak goblin and can't communicate with others which is bound to lead to some misunderstandings and dead goblins.
Goblins are, per the bestiary, evil. Goblins are, per Golarian, evil. You can quote the write up about alignment being not absolute all you want, which is a general rule. But the specific bit (the bit that overrides the general) is that golbins and their kin are a special kind of evil (just read their entry).
Can you have outliers? Of course, there can always be exceptions even whole tribes of them. But unless you set up some precedent to the norm don't be surprised at the outcome.
Could the adventurers have noticed that these particular goblins weren't hostile and were no threat? Only if the DM adequetly set the scene and described as such. Which I am not saying was or was not the case.
Either way players paying any attention should have noticed that there was no attempt to fight back (which boggles my mind... even a tribe of "friendly" goblins would defend themselves... these were some seriously pacifist, turn the other cheek, goblins I guess). This should have led to a moment of, "What in the 9 hells are they doing..." opening up the opportunity for one of the literate but unable to speak a blasted word of common to scribble a note in the sand in, hopefuly a language one of the players knew, saying, "Please don't kill us, we be NICE!"
But I digress...
My arm chair interputation... both sides (DM and players) were at fault. There was a communication/attention to detail break down between the two sides of the GM Screen. GM's have to give information and Players have to ask for information. Otherwise you get what we had here... failure to communicate... which is how he wants it... and he gets it... (sorry, my Guns & Roses came out a bit there).
Which makes abosolutely no sense as it creates instances where a weapon can bypass the EPIC DR of a mythic creature... but not something with "lesser" DR.
Even better, just look at the Golem conudrum. Per the mythic addendum to the DR rules a +6 equivilent weapon, lets say a +1 vorpal great axe, will slice through an Adamantine Golem (DR 15/Epic) like a hot knife through butter but will not mitigate in the slightest the damage to a... Wood Golem (DR 5/adamantine). Does that make sense?
Thus, I ignore that little blurb in the Mythic book a it is a needless adjustment to the DR rules as presented in the CRB and serves no useful purpose as it creates in consitencies where DR EPIC can be bypassed but lesser DR cannot.
As to the original question, yes an Amulet of Mighty Fists +4 Bane counts as a +6 equivilent weapon and will bypass DR/Epic as it was originaly written (i.e. DR/Epic can be bypssed by a weapon with a +6 or better enahncment bonus) AND as it stands in the Mythic Book (if you use that version).
My son and I have experimented with a wild west version of pathfinder with a lot of influence from the show Supernatural.
I would recommend using the variant Wounds and Vigor system from the Ultimate Combat book. This allows a bit more thematic description as the vigor is representative of near misses and being beaten down where as wounds represent actualy being shot, stabbed, etc.
We are also using the Class Defense variant rules from 3.5 to facilitate a little protection without having to walk around in full plate in the old west.
As for price of fireamrs costs we went with Guns Everywhere. To figure the cost you just take 10% of the listed price from the book.
Revolver = 400gp
We actualy translated the "Gold Piece" into dollars and cents and common currency are coins like $20 gold piece or $50 gold piece. From there I looked at the average cost of a revolver or a lever action rifle for the time and used that as a basis for the value of a gold piece vs. a dollar.
Good luck with the game!