Utgardloki's page

I was going through this black notebook I have, figuring out if there was anything in there worth saving before I threw the thing away. The notebook has notes on two prestige class ideas I had.

So, having torn those pages out of the notebook, I have to decide what to do with them? Do I write them up for 3.5 or for Pathfinder? Or not write them up at all. Maybe I should just have idea cards for them so I can flesh them out someday if I need to.

So I come here: Would anybody be interested in seeing either of my prestige classes written up for Pathfinder?

Twisted Sorcerer

This PrC is inspired by the depictions of Seoni, so it makes sense to write it up as a Pathfinder Prestige class. The basic concept is that they can concentrate their magic through extreme gestures, which means moving about the battlefield and makes it impossible to gain the special bonuses while constricted or trying to cast covertly. Besides Seoni, I was also thinking of the Crooked Sorcerer character from The Patchwork Girl Of Oz.

The class combines dexterity abilities and spellcasting. They take a slight hit in spellcasting levels (I don't see a way around that), but the spells they cast are more powerful and more likely to get through spell resistance.

Dollmaker

This PrC is required for my Audor Campaign, but that campaign is currently inactive. The concept is that a culture of gnomes includes an occupation of slave traders who shrink their captives to make it easier to transport them.

This kind of makes them sound more evil than they really are. Usually they do not catch slaves. Usually they purchase captives taken during the ubiquitious warring among the various races, and end up delivering the captives to tribes of their own race, where in most cases they are granted their freedom. So really, they are more like ransomers.

Of course, with their specialized abilities, there are many things a Dollmaker could do, both honorable and sinister.

If anybody is interested in these ideas, let me know, and I can write them up. Otherwise, I'll just file them with my other idea cards.

Thinking again about running a science fiction campaign, what usually stops me is the lack of good adventures for space based campaigns. I don't want to do "You beam down to a planet and basically go through a Dungeons and Dragons adventure."

So, the question becomes, is there or are there Adventure Path adventures that might be well suitable for interstellar heroes? I am thinking of doing a science fantasy setting where there are planets with wizards, and magic and science can interact (although magic does not scale well to mass production), so magic is no bar to being considered. I am inspired by Star Wars and by the Legion of Super-Heroes, and wizards are no strangers to the latter, especially.

I've been thinking about a Pathfinder game set in the 17th Century for some time. Right now I am watching Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire. It occurs to me that if fantasy is real in the 17th Century, then Hogwarts could very well exist in this setting.

From having read the 1st book, and seeing the first three movies, it appears to me that perhaps Pathfinder is the worst system to try to model Hogwarts. Of course, I'm not trying to run a Hogwarts campaign -- I'm just running a campaign in which Hogwarts and their students and alumni would exist.

So I thought I'd come here and fish for ideas for how Hogwarts might fit in Pathfinder - 17th Century.

I've long been a critic of the archetype concept. My main two objections were 1) it adds complexity to the game, and 2) archetypes are too tied to a particular character class and too inflexible.

I've come up with an idea for an alternative: customizable options. Basically it is a house rule that allows you to take an archetype ability whenever you would gain the class ability that would replace, whether or not you have the class listed for the archetype.

For example, in the Advanced Player's Guide, a Breaker gains destructive in place of fast movement. With my house rule, a character about to gain his third level of Monk could take destructive instead of fast movement if he wanted to be the kind of character who could just break things with his bare hands and feet.

I'm not really sure how good this idea is.

From 5th through 10th levels, our party relied on a Cleric PC who had the Craft Wondrous Item feat. But then the player retired that Cleric, and brought in an Oracle who does not have that feat. It made sense, however, that my Sorcerer/Bard/Druid would learn his secrets before he left, and at 11th level, she took that feat.

Unfortunately, she had not been keeping up her Spellcraft skill. Currently she has 6 ranks, for a +11 total bonus.

How much effort do you think she should put into building up her Spellcraft ranks? Would it be worth it to take a feat like Skill Focus (Spellcraft).

Currently, she is a 1st level Sorcerer/6th level Bard/4th level Druid. Her Intelligence is 14, Wisdom is 16, and Charisma is 18.

As you know, I've been playing a druidess/bard. We're 11th level, and as we were travelling through a town called Coalmore, we learned that the miners are on strike, and the big man of the town has hired thugs to try to intimidate the miners into honoring their contract.

My PC is chaotic neutral, but we're travelling with a paladin, and he's caused enough stir about standing up for justice, that I don't think we can just leave town without resolving this problem.

So, primarily because I think it would be interesting, I thought I'd come here for advice on what we should do. I suppose slaying the big man in the town is out of the question, especially with a paladin in the party and all. Besides, my character is chaotic neutral, not chaotic evil. (But wait, if you are CN, and you kill a guy to make life in a town more pleasant, is that really an evil act?) Anyway, it is out of the question.

The party consists of the following characters:

Asgar, an 11th level paladin who is invested with legal authority as a "chevron".

Noralith Andonna, my chaotic neutral 1st level sorceress/4th level druidess/6th level bard.

Dolonar, an 11th level halfling rogue.

Nicodemus, an 11th level gnome sorcerer.

Orlen, an 11th level gnome oracle.

I haven't decided if I want to add this spell to my Bard's spells known list, but I thought I'd post it here to see if there are any comments. This is a Bard spell idea I've had for a while.

SONG OF CRAFT
School: Divination; Level: Bard 2
Casting Time: 1 round
Components: V, S, F (see text)
Range: Personal
Target: You
Duration: 1 hour/level
Saving Throw: None Spell Resistance: No

When a bard holds a tool in her hand and sings the song of craft, she is imbued with inspiration that allows her to make any craft checks using her Performance skill bonus in place of any craft skills, provided she can hold one or more tools related to the craft skill she uses to use. She does not need to be holding the tools constantly: the effects of the spell last for the duration and she may use the magic for whatever craft is appropriate for the tool(s) she last handled.
She may interrupt her crafting for up to one round per caster level, either contiguously or separately, but more interruption than that ends the spell effect.

Having decided to run a campaign set in the 17th Century, inspired as a sort of cross between the Three Musketeers and X-Files, and having decided to use class archetypes, the next question to come up is what archetypes I need for a 17th Century campaign, especially what archetypes need to be added.

A note of philosophy: Even though it would make sense for a PC to be an unemployed Shakespearean actor who signed up with an adventuring party, I do not think it is necessary to have a Shakespearean Actor archetype. It seems to me that you can make a perfectly respectable character like this with just the regular Bard class, choosing Acting and Oratory (and possibly Comedy) as your performance skills.

There might be a need for a Whirling Dervish archetype (although I probably would look for a way to make it a little more generic) that would feature divine rather than arcane abilities. The Ottoman Empire had a substantial presence in Europe at this time, and it there may be enough special features to make it worth defining an archetype.

A note on house rules: As noted in my previous thread, I am liking the idea of being a bit more flexible, and defining these as Customization Options rather than Archetypes. The idea behind the Customizable Options is that it allows a PC to mix and match to more precisely match a character concept.

I am playing a druid who so far has lost a mount and an animal companion in the course of her adventures. This is not good for a priestess who actually cares about whether the animals she summons are or are not likely to survive the battle they are summoned to fight.

What I am thinking is perhaps designing a simple 1st level spell to help her animal friends survive. Nothing munchkinic. Maybe a spell cast as an immediate action that grants an animal or magical animal temporary hit points that get lost first, so if the party is hit by something like a fireball, the animal has a better chance of survival.

I don't know if there is a mechanic for a druid to research a spell not defined for the spell list though. When I ran a 1st edition game, I ruled that divine spellcasters researched spells by making a petition to their gods, and had the player write out why the caster should have that spell.

(It's a pity I had to deny the PC's petition for the one time that rule was used. The player had designed a pretty cool spell, sort of like Planar Ally, but I reasoned that the deity felt the PC was relying too much on supernatural allies and not enough on the mortal resources available to him.)

Maybe this weekend I'll get a chance to write up a good spell and run it by the DM. But I thought I'd see what the consensus was here regarding this kind of action.

I am not sure if I like the class archetypes introduced in the advanced players guide, or if I want to use them for the campaign I am contemplating. I am interested in thoughts that other people have regarding these.

In the old days, if I wanted make a "court bard" as a PC, I'd make a Bard, and say "My character learned his trade as a court bard to <insert name of person with a court>". Now I have to look over the Bard Archetypes, notice the Court Bard archetype, and decide if the pros and cons of this archetype are satisfactory to me.

This would not be bad if the only PC I was ever going to make for Pathfinder was a Court Bard, I didn't have a job, or I had plenty of time to examine every source of data for putting together a PC. But for players who just want to get on with the game, having to wade through all the archetypes can be overwhelming.

My current thinking is that, since I've found a way to use the tarot deck to organize my write-up for the various classes, only allow a subset of the archetypes, the ones that I feel are necessary or add to the setting. Since the information for players is then all in one place, they can decide which archetype they want without having to agonize over whether it is worth it to give up inspire competence for mockery.

(And the Court Bard will probably not make the cut, since in this setting, "Bards" don't really have an official existence anyway. Nobody in this setting would say "I want to hire a Bard." (Whirling Dervish, maybe, but not a Bard.)

Speaking of Whirling Dervishes, another complication archetypes brings up is whether it is worth it to define a Whirling Dervish archetype, or to just have players wanting to play such a character make a Bard with the appropriate abilities.

One possibility I am considering is breaking out the specializations that archetypes provide, and offering them "ala cart", so if a player wants a satirist, for example, he can substitute satire for inspire courage, without prejudicing options for taking glorious epic vs dirge of doom later on in his career.

I do not currently plan to make a Jester class, and had posted on a thread asking a question "What would a Jester do that a Bard wouldn't do?"

While watching a movie last night, I got an idea.

In the movie, there was this guy, who had a briefcase, and in the briefcase was five million dollars in cash. This guy was obviously some sort of Rogue or thug or other serious criminal element type. But he encountered Harold, the protagonist of the film, and hilarity broke out, despites the attempt of everybody in the movie to make things follow a logical outcome that favored their own interests.

So, my idea, is that the Jester would be a character who makes hilarity happen. If a guy has a case with 5,000 gold pieces, it would just so happen that someone else would bring in an identical case, filled with women's underwear. And of course, who knows who gets whose case.

This makes a Jester a lot different from a Bard specializing in comedy. And it could be an interesting class to play, if anybody ever specs it up.

If you've read my tarot card thread, you'll know that I assigned a tarot card to each class, and the Oracle was assigned to the Empress card.

If you've read the thread about Clerics being overshadowed by Oracles, you'll know that I don't care much for the Oracle class.

I was going to start a thread about Oracles vs Diviners, but a little bit of thought indicated that Diviners would be better for a fortune telling character than Oracles would be.

Which leaves me the question of how Oracles would fit in my 17th Century campaign. There certainly would be an "oracle" occupation, but that role would seem to be better filled by Diviners. My campaign is confusing enough, and confusion between Oracles and Diviners makes it even worse.

So I was thinking, what about replacing the Oracle class with an Amazon class. Since I'm committed to offering exactly 20 classes, it's either the Oracle or the Amazon.

The Amazon thing can't be being a female fighter, because females can be Fighters, or Paladins, or Rangers, and males can be Amazons. But I think there is precedent for the latter, as I remember from my college Literature course that some of the best Irish heroes were trained by amazons.

I think what might make the Amazon different from the other Fighter classes might include the following:

* They fight like women. They rely more on Dexterity than Strength, and more on dodging blows than wearing heavy armor or just being tough.

* They have some shaman powers. Spellcasting progression is like the Paladin and Ranger. Their magic tends to have an elemental aspect, and they get some divine class abilities. I am thinking chthonic associations would be apropos for this class.

* They are an ancient order. "Modern" Amazons have learned to use swords and bows and axes, but they are not proficient in every martial weapon. They do learn to use simple weapons to great effect, however, so a spear-wielding Amazon could compete well with a sword-wielding Fighter.

I'll have to get a chance to lay out 20 levels of fun. I'm interested in any ideas people might have.

Ideas are easy to get. What I need are some opinions.

I am thinking that my proposed 17th Century Pathfinder campaign needs one or maybe more pirate queens -- women who ruthlessly rule the seven seas.

But how many should I have? One? Two or three? A few? There probably should not be very many; after all, how many women would even WANT to become a pirate AND have the ruthlessness to run a pirate ship? Also sometime after meeting the 4th or 5th pirate queen, the concept no longer seems quite so exotic.

Given that there are very few pirate queens out there, who are they? It is easy to come up with ideas, so I'll need to select the best ones.

I think that there has to be an Irish pirate queen.

I also like the idea of an Asian female ship captain, perhaps with an all female crew, perhaps the daughter of an Asian woman and a Portuguese sailor. Maybe instead of being a pirate, she hunts pirates. Perhaps she is even chasing a pirate ship through the seven seas, seeking revenge for her father's death.

Any other ideas are welcome.

I have a sorceress/bard/druid who is now Sor 1/Brd 5/Drd 4. This means, she has wild shape. But she does not have Natural Spell. Her feats currently are: Dodge, Mobility, Practiced Spellcaster, Great Fortitude, and Spell Focus (Enchantment).

For next level, it would make sense to take Natural Spell so that she can cast spells while in wildshape form. But, I am thinking it would also be useful to take Leadership and have a cohort and a team of loyal followers. Maybe even worth giving up the ability to cast 1st and 2nd level spells without returning to human form.

I am thinking that it would be really useful to have an Oracle for a cohort. Not only do they have healing abilities (and more spells), but also more healing, thus freeing up the cleric and saving money on healing potions. The main reason for wanting an oracle cohort, is to gain divinatory ability.

Thoughts?

My sorceress/bard/druid just reached 4th level as a druid, and now can use wildshape.

So, my question is, what are some good things to do with this ability, and how best to avoid going "splat!" while doing so?

I suppose it would make sense to take natural spell next level. She does not have that feat yet, but I'm not sure if she'll be taking that feat or if she'll be taking another feat she really needs to have.

I am finding that my local library does not have much on the 17th Century, and forget about the local book store. This means I'll probably have to order books online.

Does anybody know of good books to read about the 17th Century, especially the 30 Years War and its aftermath?

Take a look at that Monk over there?

You mean that woman? What makes you think she's a monk?

Look at the way she's beating all those guys up. Three guys come at her with a knife, and she knocks them all back, empty handed!

Maybe she has the Improved Unarmed Strike feat.

Dude! She made three attacks in one round. But she doesn't seem to have a +11 BAB.

Maybe she has the Two Weapon Fighting feat.

Nah. Look at how much damage she is doing each time she strikes. I'd say she's doing 1d8, at least.

Let's ask her what she is. Pardon me, miss. Are you a Monk?

Do I LOOK like I shave my head???

And thus my dilemma. I've convinced myself that there could be Monks in the 17th Century Protestant world, but I do not think they would call themselves "monks".

To them, "monks" are people who live in monasteries and shave their heads and copy books and drink the sacramental wine. What I am thinking of is a kind of "wandering saint" who studies the scriptures and contemplates the mysteries of consubstantiation and predestination. They also wander from town to town, using their martial and spiritual skills to do good works. Paladins use swords, but these guys, and gals, use fists, and/or a select few weapons that they specially train with.

My problem is that I can't come up with a really good name for this type of adventurer -- a name that they themselves would use. I would like a name that sounds good in German, but I'm not happy with any combinations I've been able to come up with.

Given that this organization arises during the wars of the Reformation, what would be a good name for them?

An interesting idea I thought of this evening -- what if the Tarot cards were associated with the various Pathfinder classes?

I've come up with the following associations:

Wands -- Commoner
Swords -- Warrior
Pentacles -- Expert
Swords -- Aristocrat

I. The Magician -- Wizard
II. The High Priestess -- Witch
III. The Empress -- Oracle
IV. The Emperor -- Fighter
V. The High Priest -- Cleric
VI. The Lovers -- Druid
VII. The Chariot -- Cavalier
VIII. Strength -- Monk
IX. The Hermit -- Ranger
X. Wheel of Fortune -- Gunslinger
XI. Justice -- Paladin
XII. The Hanged Man -- Sorcerer
XIII. Death -- Anti-Paladin
XIV. Temperance
XV. The Devil -- Rogue
XVI. The Tower -- Alchemist
XVII. The Star -- Bard
XVIII. The Moon -- Barbarian
XIX. The Sun -- Summoner
XX. Judgement -- Inquisitor
XXI. World
0. The Fool

Thoughts?

I've long assumed that the Fighters were the backbone of the Fighting-types. Barbarians, Rangers, Paladins and Cavaliers all have their special roles, but the Fighters are the ones who spend hour after hour day after day training for armed combat. They're a bit generic, but they can master feat combos that the other classes can only dream of. At least, that's how it was in 3.5.

Now, I haven't had a chance to see the Fighter in action in Pathfinder, but I notice that they get all these armor abilities, which are probably very useful in a traditional fantasy campaign.

But along comes the Gunslinger, who's bullets rip through the Fighter's armor. Guns become more and more common, and eventually musketeers become the backbone of the modern army, with Cavaliers serving as cavalry and Rangers serving as scouts.

So what happens to the Fighters? Do they become an anachronism? A reminder of the olden days, wandering the land with sword in hand, the last ones to give up their suits of armor? Or is there a place for the Fighter in a society that is rapidly becoming modern?

I am still working on my campaign set in 17th Century Europe. I've figured out how to fit most of the classes into the culture, although there is not a match at all between Pathfinder class and 17th Century occupations.

For this thread, I am considering changes that I should make to the classes to make them fit. for example, Fighters should have proficiency in runs, but Armor Training and Armor Mastery is not likely to be very useful.

But first, I am looking at the Druid. I written up that four possible character concepts for druids are the following:

1. A remnant of the ancient druidic religion, who has somehow inherited the rites and traditions of the Celtic religion.

2. A "green witch" who focusses on magic based on the natural world.

3. A shaman from a distant land where the primitive culture is practically untouched by modern civilization.

4. A master of "applied natural philosophy" whose study of and respect for nature allows them to actually cast spells and achieve other magical effects.

The main thing I am considering is making Wild Shape an optional power for this class. I see that there are various alternate class options for Druids that delay the acquisition of this power, but I am not sure I like the alternate class feature mechanic. The problem I see with it is that it makes character creation a lot more complicated, and at a certain point I wonder if it would be better to do a classless game like GURPS.

One thought I have is maybe give Druids the customization option to forgo Wild Shape at 4th level, and then at 5th level may choose a spell of 3rd level or less that she can use as a spell-like ability the number of times a day that she could have used Wild Shape.

I am looking at the Advanced Player's Guide, and I see that they have Teamwork feats. These are interesting, but I don't see them being used by PCs very much.

What I am thinking of doing is making a Teamwork Skill (key ability: Charisma). If you make a DC 20 roll using Teamwork, you can use any of the Teamwork feats that apply, providing you have the prerequisites for the feat, and your partner makes a DC 10 roll. You have to be able to communicate with your partner. You can only use one feat in one round, unless both you and your partner are affected with a spell that grants an additional action, in which case you can use as many additional feats as you have additional actions.

I'm not sure if I picked good numbers for the DCs. Perhaps the target numbers should depend on the feat being applied and what the PC is trying to do.

The effect is that nobody "takes" a Teamwork Feat. The Teamwork Skill can be used untrained, but the DC 20 is hard to meet without having ranks in the skill.

I'd have to decide which classes have this as a class skill. From the Core book, probably Bards, Clerics, Fighters, Monks, Paladins, Rogues, and Wizards. From the Advanced book, probably Cavaliers and Witches. The Gunslinger would probably also have this as a class skill, since in my setting many of them would be trained as "musketeers" or "dragoons".

(I don't have plans to use any of the other classes currently in playtest, so I haven't considered if they would be likely to have this as a class skill.)

This is just something I thought up at 2 in the morning. I think this approach fits the style of story I am thinking of, in which panache and teamwork is emphasized. (The specific campaign I am considering is set in the 17th Century and inspired by the Three Musketeers.) I welcome any comments and considerations.

When I get time, I take a look at information regarding the use of guns in the 17th Century. It looks to me like there would be four types of gun specialists: Musketeers, who are trained to fight in military infantry units; Dragoons, who ride to the battlefield, and then dismount to fight; Cavalry, who use guns while riding horses; and Gunfighters, who are not trained as part of a military unit but perhaps are self trained, trained by someone even though they do not qualify for military service for some reason, or learned to use guns while living on the frontiers where formal tactics are not used.

My question is how these might be modeled using the gunslinger and cavalier classes. Would Dragoons and Cavalry be gunslingers, cavaliers, gunslinger/cavalier multiclassers, some sort of hybrid class, or some sort of prestige class?

I've been thinking about defining a unit of female dragoons for my setting, and thinking perhaps they are gunslingers with riding skills, and the potential for advancement into prestige classes. In another thread someone suggested mounted musketeers might be more like cavaliers with gun training, but I am thinking these ladies are more likely to concentrate on gun skills, with riding as a means to their objectives rather than the focus of their training.

I've been thinking about how the classes would fit in my campaign, and I think they'll all fit in well, except for the Monks.

I can see where a female monk might come from. I was thinking I could have an "Order of Thecla" as a Judeo-Christian tradition of Christian female ascetics who practice mystical contemplation and, for self defense, the martial arts.

For males, I think I'd like to create a Pugalist class which has more fighting and less mystical contemplation. Of course, females could be Pugalists, too, but this would be rare. I imagine there could be an underground culture in Paris where female pugalists go at it against each other.

Maybe an isolated character could be like Father Father Mulcahy from M.A.S.H, or Brother Silence from Dorkness Rising: a priest who also is a skilled boxer, as well as having a number of other talents. He would not be part of an order of pugalistic monks, but it might be enough because how many players will want to play male monks?

Any other ideas might be appreciated.

I was in a conversation in which I brought up the possibility of getting invited to the Queen's party if they give the Queen nice gifts (i.e. expensive treasures they might have brought up from the dungeon).

This led to the question of why the PCs would want to do this. There are of course lots of tactical and strategic reasons for wanting to be invited to a party, but I am thinking this comes to the general idea of why players would want their PCs to spend money on things like expensive food, clothes, gifts for women, and other things that might not have a direct tactical and strategic benefit.

In my games, I've been using a rule that the PCs spent about 10% of their income on stuff, including food, lodging, maintenance on their equipment, entertainment, et cetera. In return, I did not require tracking expenditures on every arrow shot or meal eaten. I just asked players to write down what they were taking, and basic supplies like rope, grappling hooks, pickaxes, et cetera were essentially "free" (included in the 10% 'tax').

For the game I'm planning, Reputation will be a part of it. (I'm not sure exactly how I would track it, maybe on a scale of 1-100.) How PCs spend money would have an effect, and attending parties, wearing good clothes, giving people gifts, et cetera would certainly help.

I am writing up my introduction to my campaign set in 17th Century Europe, and it occurs to me: they killed witches in 17th Century Europe.

and not just members of the Witch class. anybody who was suspected of casting spells was liable to be burned as a Witch. Granted, at the time there was a movement of skepticism which made it harder to gain convictions for witchcraft, but if somebody blatantly casts Fireballs in downtown Stockholm, he might very well find himself an outlaw by the next game session.

Thinks makes life difficult for spellcasters, I think.

I've just starting thinking about a possible campaign set in the 17th Century, and inspired in part by The Three Musketeers.

Which brings me to the question: would the Gunslinger class as currently constituted be a good model for the Musketeer character type?

I just started reading the class. They have guns and know how to use them, which is basically what the musketeers did. However, due to the primitive gun technology, musketeers had to rely on a lot of other skills when engaged on adventures.

(According to Wikipedia, the British Redcoats were the best trained musketeers, and could get off four shots a minute. And that is about a hundred years after I plan to set my game.)

For a Pathfinder campaign I am contemplating, I would like to encourage PCs to be human, but allow nonhuman PCs IF they are rare and can be justified.

So I am considering the following rules for the campaign, and wanted to get feedback on what people think:

1. Any nonhuman PC has to be justified on a case by case basis for whether it makes sense for the character to be in this campaign.

2. Nonhuman PCs start out at one level below the level that a human PC would start at.

3. To make up for this, nonhuman PCs get an additional +2 to the ability score of the player's choice, in addition to the regular ability score adjustments.

Thoughts? Comments? Cries of outrage?

I don't know if I'll actually run this game or not, but I am feeling inspired by this idea. If I don't run it, maybe it will give somebody else an idea.

The first idea was to run a "17th Century Pathfinder Game", which I described as "Three Musketeers and Zorro with Wizards and Witches". Then I was talking to a friend about time travel games and started thinking "What if Rene Descartes had designed a working time machine and Queen Christina had built it?"

So, my thinking shifted to the 17th Century, still with Musketeers and masked "Zorro-types", but with a storyline that could involve Queen Christina of Sweden and time travel.

I just started thinking about this a couple of days ago, and need to get to the library today to see if I can find a book about Queen Christina of Sweden.

On the Pathfinder aspect:

P1. Actual Pathfinder characters are very rare. There are Witches and Wizards, but not enough to have really influenced history. This is a low magic campaign.

On the Historical aspect:

H1. I plan to stick close to history as recorded, with maybe a few minor changes here and there. (I am considering delaying Christina's abdication for a few years, for example.)

H2. There is the potential for the PCs to alter history. History has an inertia that tends to keep it in the same direction, but a push in the right direction can make a significant difference.

H3. I have set the start of the campaign in 1653, shortly after Descartes's death.

H4. The time machine was not completed until after Descartes's death.

On the Time Machine aspect:

T1. The time machine is colossal and immobile, being anchored to the Swedish bedrock. It is literally a building, a big building. Most people do not know that it is a time machine, thinking that it is a new palace under construction, and the queen controls who uses it.

T2. The machine can also go to alternate worlds. Thus, it is possible to have adventures on Golaron or in the Forgotten Realms or any other setting I might want to use. This is one thing I like about this setting.

T3. The other planets in the solar system are inhabitable, somewhat like in Victorian science fiction. (Thus, I can implement some of my ideas for a "Space 1699" idea.)

T4. The time machine can not go to any time before it was built. Thus, Queen Christiana can not use it to prevent Descartes's death. Bummer.

T5. There may be one or two other time machines in existence. I am considering putting a time machine in the Taj Mahal, for example.

I have to get off to the library to do research, but I think Pathfinder has a lot of aspects that will support my ideas. As for the campaign:

C1. I'll probably start the PCs off at 1st level, and not associated with Queen Christina.

C2. An early adventure (perhaps the first) may include catching a burglar who, among other things, has stolen Rene Descartes's skull.

C3. After recovering the skull, this gets Queen Christina's attention, because she wants to know why anybody possesses Descartes's skull in the first place.

C4. After solving that mystery for her, Christina may give the PCs more adventures. Early ones are more likely to involve travel around the 17th Century world. Eventually she may send them on time travel and/or off world adventures.

I'm watching the Bionic Woman, and as I was preparing to put the DVD into the player, thought about the possibility of writing stories about the Psionic Woman.

That led me to think about psionics and D&D and the modern world and then the possibility of a campaign based on the following premise:

The PCs live in the modern world (probably 20th or 21st Century), but have abilities and magic from Pathfinder classes and prestige classes, in addition to modern training and equipment.

I'm not sure exactly how to treat this. I am thinking NPCs with these abilities also exist. One idea is that they are well known, but a distinct minority. Perhaps most NPCs use Cthulhu D20, but PCs have a tendancy to hobnob with Pathfinder characters.

I'm thinking there would be monsters too.

I currently have a character with 1 level of Sorcerer, 5 levels of Bard, and just picked up a 3rd level of Druid. Having just reached 9th level, she gets another feat. Currently she has:

* Dodge
* Mobility
* Practiced Spellcaster (Druid)
* Great Fortitude

My question: Is Spell Focus a feat worth taking? Having multiclassed this way, one of her weakness is that she does not have powerful spells to throw at her enemies. She has a Wisdom of 16 (a +3 bonus) and a Charisma of 18 (a +4 bonus), so the saving throw DCs vs her spells are currently DC 13, 14, and 15 for her 0th, 1st, and 2nd level Druidic spells, and 14, 15, and 16 for her arcane spells. Spell Focus would increase each of these DCs by +1 for a given school of magic, probably Enchantment would be the best option.

Alternatives to Spell Focus that I am considering:

* Lightning Reflexes. Making Reflex saves is good.
* Skill Focus. Making skill checks is good.
* Weapon Finesse. I'm considering multiclassing into Duelist when her BAB gets up to +6, but Weapon Finesse is a prerequisite. But I think I'm probably better off putting off getting this until 11th level, and taking something that will be more useful right now.

A situation happened in the game last night, where one of the other PCs killed the horse of my character. My character happens to be a chaotic neutral Druid.

The situation is rather complicated. An evil necromancer wanted a certain evil magic book, so he took a hostage and told the party's Paladin to get the book for him, in exchange for the hostage's life. We went through an adventure to get the book, and drained of resources and without enough time to sleep or recover spells, rode to the place where we were going to exchange the book for the hostage.

(The evil NPC did not know that we had actually substituted a fake book for the real book, but we in the party of course knew that.)

When we got there, the BBEG wasn't there, but his servants were, and they demanded the Paladin approach to deliver the book.

My Druid was worried that this could be a trap, and that if he went up there, he could be captured. So she made the demand that if they wanted the book so badly, they could meet the party in the local tavern in town, bring the hostage, and we could make the exchange there. It sounded like a perfectly reasonable idea to her.

Negotiations dragged on, and the evil guys made an ultimatum with a ten second countdown. My Druid was the one carrying the book, so, calculating that the evil guys would not harm the hostage while they believed they could still get the book, she unilaterally started riding back to town.

The rest of the party did not agree with her decision. To stop her, the Sorcerer cast Magic Missile on the horse, stopping the horse.

So, yielding to the desires of the rest of the party, she handed the pack containing the book to the Sorcerer (after taking her money out), and just sat down while the Paladin and Sorcerer went up to deliver the book.

It turned out that this was not a trap, after all. The Sorcerer and Paladin came back down, with the hostage, who was still alive. But the Druid's horse was dead, so the party took longer to get back into town because she refused to ride on anybody else's horse.

My question is, how should a druid react to another party member killing her horse? My thoughts are:

* She is chaotic neutral, so she does not have a code of honor that requires any sort of revenge or anything like that.

* Both she and the sorcerer did what they believed to be the best course of action.

* But he did cause the death of an innocent animal, which goes against druidic ethics. As a druid, she is concerned that people have respect for nature, for plants, and for animals.

* But on the other hand, she is from a warrior culture, and realizes that if horses are going to be ridden into dangerous places, some of the horses are going to be killed. There are probably myths and rituals regarding this.

* Her patron deity is Silvanus, who is historically a Celtic deity.

* The sorcerer offered to buy her a new horse, and she accepted.

My thought is that the horse got the proper rituals. Because the Sorcerer is buying her a new horse, that should patch everything up. But to make sure that he understands, she can let him know that if he does it again, she will cast dolorous sadness on him.

Thoughts, comments, or cries of outrage?

1. One of my New Years resolutions is to work on the ideas on my "short list" and hopefully bring them to some level of completion.

2. The first idea selected for working on (currently only known by its code number G-3g), involves two planets that recently fought a war. The "E's" are an advanced race of large "space mermaids" who are of the 13th level intellect average, and have a peaceful society. But when attacked by the "U's", a race of xenophobic space conquerers with a small space empire, the "E's" quickly developed military technology and forced the "U's" to sue for peace.

3. I just got my copy of the Pathfinder Bestiary 2. Looking through the pages, it looks like I can recast many of these monsters as aliens from other planets.

What I am looking for here are ideas for using Bestiary 2 creatures in space, and possibly how they might help define the plots of subplots of an adventure the PCs could get involved in.

My idea is that the PCs are members of a "Third Legion", an interstellar peace keeping force. I do NOT want to do something like the Star Trek VI movie ("Undiscovered Country"), but I am assuming at this point that the plot will involve someones who do not want the peace to be kept.

Since I'm currently playing a Bard, I'd like some ideas for low level Bard spells to learn as she gains levels. Currently she has Expeditious Retreat, Feather Fall, Grease, Unseen Servant, Sound Burst, Gallant Inspiration, and Hold Person.

What I would like to see is new and original spells to consider taking. Currently she is 5th level, so 1-3rd level spells would be the most useful for my purposes.

When I get a chance, I plan to post some ideas I have. A couple that come to mind:

1. Song of Craft. This is probably a second level spell, that allows a bard to use his Perform Skill for a Craft check

2. Shoe Cloud. Also second level, creates a swarm of shoes that dance and march and kick any creatures that occupy their space. The swarm can be directed in a manner similar to a flaming sphere, only the shoes do bludgeoning damage.

I'll probably get more ideas later.

I have committed to running the Halls of Tizun Thane in Platteville or Dubuque for this Halloween Weekend. I would like to hear opinions and advice from people who have run it, gone through it, and/or studied it.

I'm changing a lot of things to fit my own campaign, of course. I am also putting the event killed Tizun Thane about 200 years in the past.

I am running 3.5 Edition. The PCs will start out at 3rd level.

Someone said that he had a conversion, but the link he posted was broken. But I am mainly interested in opinions. What did you like, what did you not like, and what did you change/wish you could have changed?

I am changing the start somewhat. If I can find my copy of "Freya's Crucible", I'll use that community. My idea is that the PCs are in town just as the attacks by the "shadow dancers" start. Maybe they've struck twice before, and this is the third night they've struck.

Other changes I am considering at this time:

* Changing the iron golem to animated caryatids
* Changing troglodytes to goblins.
* Changing the harem girls to stone instead of having them all escape. Maybe one elf is left, I'm not sure about that.
* Diker and his men are, of course, dead. I'll have to replace them, perhaps with descendants.
* The Berbalang are replaced by harpies, at least one of which is a druid.
* And there has to be an evil tree in the courtyard.

While thinking of rebooting my Audor campaign, it came to me that I never really did figure out what to do about the gnomes. They always end up being "the other short people."

I have been inspired by Wil Huygen and Rien Pourtvliet's book _Gnomes_, where they are described as little guys in blue jackets and pointed red hats. That's how I've described them in my Audor campaign, with the idea there there sometimes wore other colors as well.

I will probably continue to have this "Forest Gnome" the dominate culture of gnomes, but I have also been inspired by Wizard of Oz, and their Rock Gnomes. And Huygen's book describes "Siberian Gnomes" who would fit in well in my northern areas.

When in doubt, I like to randomize. I brainstormed a bunch of ideas for gnome cultures, then drew a card to determine how many to choose for me setting. Drawing the 4 of hearts, I will plan on 4 cultures with perhaps 3 additional subcultures:

1. Forest Gnomes wear the blue suits and red hats and are involved in taking care of the forests. They practice the druidic religion and take it very serious.

Subculture: Village gnomes live in villages with humans or halflings and help defend and protect them from threats.

The problem is, I keep imagining a bunch of little guys singing "In the navy....!"

Subculture: Seagoing gnomes actually do join the navy. (Or some sign up for service on merchant vessels, or fishing boats, or even pirate ships.)

2. Rock Gnomes live in the mountains and are very xenophobic. They feel that big people keep wanting to steal their stuff, and they have some of the finest crafted gems and jewelry around. They are also good at making traps and weapons.

Subculture: Rock Gnome mercenaries may not have a lot of size or physical strength, but they make up for it with determination, cleverness, and magical weaponry.

3. Ice Gnomes live in the cold places. Chaotic neutral in cultural alignment, they actually sometimes get along with trolls. They have a harsh culture and sinister reputation, but their history of dealings with varied species makes them valuable diplomats (if you can consider someone like John Bolton a "diplomat").

4. Metal Gnomes like to tinker with technology and magic. Their work with mirrors led to their reputation as illusionists, and their research led to the "modern" illusionist class. They often either live in large human cities, or in underground labyrinths of astonishing complexity. They consider themselves the smartest of the gnomes.

I've noticed a difference between the Pathfinder rules and the 3.5 rules. My conclusion was that Pathfinder was more Landover while 3.5 was more Shanarra (to use reference to Terry Brooks's two novel series).

What I am wondering is how much the game rules of Pathfinder affects the societies in Golarion. It seems that Pathfinder puts a lot more magic into the hands of low level characters, with the effect that magic will be almost as common as it was in Glorantha, where it seemed that everybody and their grandmother had magic spells.

If somebody were to step into an interdimensional gateway and end up in Golarion, would he notice anything that is caused/effected by the abilities granted to characters in the Pathfinder rules, in contrast to what one would find on a 3.5 world?

Discuss.

I have to go now and convince the local store owner to get the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Advanced Player's Guide.

But I'll be back.

To test this system, I ran through the following example as a thought experiment. I'll do other scenarios when I get a chance.

The basic result is that the party is able to get out of a tight situation using Diplomacy, but the players need to come up with convincing arguments in order to just do it. They can't just say "We'll talk them into letting us go". Also, it helps a lot to have a bonus in social skills.

1st level PC’s have gone into a dungeon and been captured by orcs. The chief breathes into their faces with his foul, putrid breath and says “Well, well, what will I do to you?”

The Bard says “If you are wise, which I hear tell you are wise, and strong, you would free us.”

The Fighter says “Well, setting us on our way would be best for everyone concerned. There are a lot of interested treasure hunters in these caves, but between our two groups, I think we could come up with a mutual arrangement that would keep these other interlopers clear of the good stuff. You scratch my back, etc - though I think I’d rather not finish that visual image if you don’t mind.”

The GM determines that the orc chief’s attitude is initially Unfriendly, but considers that the Bard’s flattery will be an attempt to change the Orc’s attitude. The DC to change the attitude is 22 (20 + the cheiftain’s CHA modifier). The Bard has an 18 Cha, 1 rank in Diplomacy, and gets +3 for it being a class skill, so he gets a +7 Diplomacy bonus and needs to roll 15 or more to change the Orc’s attitude. He rolls a 19, for a total of 26, thereby changing the Orc’s attitude to Indifferent.

Essentially the PC’s are proposing an alliance. The orc chief is 3rd level, with a total CHA and INT modifier of +3. So his DAC is 26.

The possibility of an alliance between humans and orcs is Unlikely, perhaps even Implausible. The GM decides that it is Unlikely, but sets the modifier to DAC in between the two, for a DC of 31. The BC to erode would be 30 points.

Assuming that the Bard has an 18 Cha, 1 rank in Diplomacy, and gets +3 for it being a class skill, he gets a +7 Diplomacy bonus. There is no chance of talking the chief into an alliance, unless further inducements can be offered.

NEXT, the Rogue says “Why did you tie us up instead of just killing us? You must have had some ideas?” He has a Charisma of 13, 1 rank in Diplomacy, and gets the class skill bonus for a total of +5.

The GM considers that it is very plausible that the Orc Chieftain believes he had some idea, even if the GM at this point has not figured out what the idea was. (You know how these games can go…) The Diplomacy DC is 16. On a roll of 11 or more, the Rogue convinces the Chieftain to consider that he wants the PC’s alive. Since the Rogue only has to erode 6 points with a roll of 1d10+5, a success against this DC convinces the Chieftain that there is some reason to keep the PC’s alive.

The Rogue rolls 10, and fails. HOWEVER, the Bard takes up the argument. It’s only been presented once so far, but the Bard failed the first attempt to sway the Orc, or he now has a -2 penalty. But the DC for this argument is only 16, so the Bard has to get 18 or more to succeed. He rolls 12 + 7 for a total of 19, and succeeds.

NOTE: I am assuming that the -2 penalty for failure is only applied to the specific character who failed. So the Bard was affected by his previous failure, but the Rogue was not affected by the Bard’s failure. If the Rogue tries another Diplomacy check, he gets a -2 for failing the previous one.

The Fighter says “We can team up against the kobolds. Together we can wipe them out!” He has a Charisma of 10, and no ranks in Diplomacy.

The Orc Cheiftain has already been convinced that there is a reason not to kill the PC’s, but he is not sure (because the GM is not sure) just what it is. A general aliance was unlikely, implausible even. But the GM determines that a specific, temporary alliance against a specific enemy is more likely. The GM considers this to be Plausible, for a DC of 16. The player rolls a 5, however.

The Bard once again takes up the idea, adding “And I can add the tale of your heroics to my repretiore. Orc warriors will sing of your bravery for generations!” Because the Bard added a new argument, the possibility of glory for the chieftain, the GM adds a +3 bonus. The Bard needs to hit a DC of 15.

The Bard’s player rolls a 12 + 7 for a total of 19. The Orc Cheiftain says “Well then, get a good night’s rest, for we attack the kobolds tomorrow!” Of course, the Orc is going to kill the PC’s as soon as it is convenient for him, but they’ve bought themselves some time to plan.

Reading the thread about playing across gender, I was wondering if it makes much of a difference whether a PC is male or female.

What has been people's experiences?

Reading a thread about prestige classes, I was wondering which prestige classes would be considered the "top ten".

Since Pathfinder is a new game, with limited ability to use concepts developed by WoTC, this thread will include both Pathfinder PrCs and 3rd Edition (3.0/3.5) PrCs.

Which PrCs do you think should be on the list?

I am looking over the possible allies from Summon Nature's Ally, and one entry is a Mite (gremlin).

I've looked up the entry for Mite in the Beastiary, and it refers to their gremlin kin. But I couldn't find an entry for Gremlin in the Beastiary.

I think a gremlin would be more useful for my purposes than a mite, but where to find the stats for a gremlin?

Are there stats for gremlins for Pathfinder, or should I just have to make do without them?

I am thinking of using harpies in a game for 6th level PCs sometime in the (hopefully) near future. I am interested in harpy ideas.

My thought is that the PCs encounter harpies who are looking for people to sacrifice in a dread ritual to an evil tree.

I am thinking of resurrecting my homebrew campaign not as a Pathfinder campaign, but as a "D&D 3.625", combining elements of 3.5 D&D and Pathfinder.

My question is, what aspects of 3.5 most need/should be changed or upgraded?

My thoughts are to mainly use the Pathfinder mechanics where they have been improved, such as the Skills and the CMB/CMD, but use the 3.5 classes with a few tweaks. I'll probably want to boost the Sorcerer and the Paladin from 3.5, but overall I think the 3.5 classes are what I want.

I think I'd like to keep 4x skills at 1st level, and allow 1st level characters to build skill ranks up to 4. This allows a level 1 character to define himself as either a dabbler (1 rank), a novice (2 ranks), serious (3 ranks), or expert (4 ranks). This of course means that, with the +3 class skill bonus from the Pathfinder ruleset, 3.625 characters would be able to reach skill DCs 3 higher than equivalent level characters in either system.

What else should I consider for this project?

My sorceress/bard/druid has the read magic cantrip, allowing her to use scrolls. I'm thinking, what scrolls should she get.

I don't want to rely on scrolls, because they cost money to replace. But there are times when it might be really useful to have a useful spell.

So, I put the question up here: what scrolls would be the most useful for a sorcerer/druid?

I've been wondering how heretical religions would play out in a campaign where the gods make their presence known by the granting and withholding of spells.

In the history of Audor:

The Toranian Empire conquered the kingdom of Audor. When the empire collapsed, a large number of Nobeni mercenaries were stranded in Audor. Switching allegiance to the Audorian barons, they were allowed to settle. But having been part of the invading armies, that kind of didn't help them on the dating scene.

So they bought brides from the Kosa plains across the mountains. These brides brought with them worship of a Kosaka goddess called Neyria, whose portfolios include the wind, love, fertility, and death.

After the war, everybody in Audor was ordered to "recognize" the god Odin as the Allfather and the Giver of Laws. The Nobeni worship a monotheistic god who does not permit worship of other gods, so they did the minimum and said "Yes, we recognize him. He's the guy with the eyepatch and the hair and the spear and helmet with the horns. We'd recognize him anywhere."

The Kosaka brides, on the other hand, were used to the idea of warriors swearing fealty to other warriors, going all the way up to the great god of the pantheon. And when the Judges said that, by the way, they were all freed of slavery, some of them started looking into this pantheon of Odins.

Now Neyria, goddess of love, wind, fertility, and death, is a lot like Freya, who is also a goddess of love, wind, fertility, and death. Some people might begin to think that they are the same goddess. Or different aspects of the same goddess. Or maybe they are related, like sisters or cousins. Or maybe it is all just a coincidence.

So how would this play out in a campaign?

Some thoughts:

1. In order to get divine abilities, characters have to use the name of either Freya or Neyria. This could be because they are different goddesses, or it could be a clarity of thought thing.

2. There might be a desire to mount an extra-planar expedition to resolve this issue.

3. Myths would probably be told that connect Neyria to the Asgardian deities.

Any other thoughts?

My PC (the sor 1/brd 3/drd 1) has some money now, and I'm looking through the Pathfinder section to decide whether certain magic items are worth buying or not.

screaming bolt For 267 gp, I think this gives her 50 nonreusable +2 bolts that scream when they are fired, forcing enemies to save or become shaken. Could be cool, but are they 267 gp worth of cool?

javelin of lighting is also cool, but 1500 gp for a weapon that can only be used once. Granted, it would be a good way to cut down on the hit points of an opponent, but also an expensive way to cut down on opponents' hit points.

ring of climbing/ring of jumping/ring of swimming provide a +5 competence bonus for the price of 2,500 gp. I think I'll probably pass.

boots of elvenkind also give a +5 competence bonus for 2,500 gp, but Nora may be able to get them for 1/2 price, and unlike the ring of jumping, the boots are not limited to using the bonus for jumping. Nora's been relying on acrobatics to avoid attacks of opportunities. They don't seem to come up very often, anyway.

On the other hand, for 5,500 gp, the boots of striding and springing also provide a +5 bonus to acrobatics _and_ increases her land speed by 10 feet.

efficient quiver for 1,800 gp can hold her crossbow bolts, javelins, and spears without having to have the strapped all over her back, and cutting down the encumbrance to only 2 pounds.

The elemental gem seems to be a steal at only 2,250 gp.

restorative ointment could come in handy if a party member gets hit with poison or disease. Retail price is 4,000 gp for 5 applications.

The golembane scarab costs 2,500 gp, but allows the user to fight golems as if they had no damage reduction. This might be better in the hands of someone who is actually better at fighting.

My character just picked up a level a Druid, and I elected to give her an animal companion, a male cougar named Esuark.

What I would like to do is check out some assumptions I have about how animals companions are intended to work in Pathfinder, so I don't end up making dumb choices.

1. As the companion of a 1st level Druid, Esuark gets one bonus trick. I would assume that as a "companion", he would naturally follow, fight, and make perception checks at night. (If I were DM, I'd probably roll 50% chance of the animal being awake and getting his normal Perception bonus, otherwise asleep and taking a penalty of -1d6. I don't know how my DM plans to run this though.) Therefore I picked "Down" as the bonus trick, on the assumption that, being a carnivore, she would be more likely to need to get him out of a fight than to get him into one.

(One thought, "Flank" is not listed as a "trick", but I'm wondering if it could be taught to my companion.)

2. As a "small cat", Esuark gets the "Scent" ability. The description of this ability says "A creature with the Survival skill and the scent ability can follow tracks by smell, making a Survival check to find or follow a track."

Since Esuark is a carnivore, I would assume he is able to find and catch prey as is normal for the species, without my having to specifically give him the Survival skill. Of course, without the skill, Nora might not be able to use Esuark as a bloodhound, especially if he doesn't learn the Track trick. But he still should be able to track and catch deer.

3. For skills, I gave Esuark 1 rank in Stealth and 1 rank in Swim. (I should probably have Nora teach him a Hide trick.) I assume that he gets these in addition to skill bonuses that a cougar would normally have. I would expect cougars to be able to survive, jump, stealth, jump, etc.

I see the Bestiary lists Leopard as having Skill Focus (Stealth), Weapon Finesse, Acrobatics +8, Climb +11, Perception +5, Stealth +11 (+15 in undergrowth). I would assume Esuark gets that, but then, being based on the Leopard rather than the Cheetah, only gets 30 ft base movement instead of 50 feet, and this would be modified by the difference in stats between the Beastiary and the Player's Handbook.

According to Wikipedia, Leopards are strong swimmers. It doesn't say that about Cougars.

So putting this together, I think Esuark would get the following skill bonuses: Acrobatics +9, Climb +9, Perception +5, Stealth +13, +17 in undergrowth, Swim +4

4. The Beastiary says that Leopards get Skill Focus (Stealth) and Weapon Finesse as feats. I would assume that Esuark would get these in addition to the feat granted by the animal companion table. Skill Focus (Stealth) would have been included in the calculation of the Stealth bonus above. Weapon Finesse, I would assume, applies to Esuark's natural attacks.

5. Already I've thought of two tricks that are not on this list under the Handle Animal skill. I think I should be able to teach Esuark the tricks Flank and Hide, given enough time. I'll probably get other ideas for tricks as well.

Flank (DC 20): The animal moves into position to flank a designated target. The Attack trick is still needed for the animal to attack the target.

Hide (DC 15): The animal hides. You may designate a hiding place, otherwise the animal will find one in the area.

For my Return of Circe idea, I was thinking I might need to detail the requirements to become a demi-god, because some NPCs, such as Circe herself, might be on the way to actually doing this.

My ideas tend to be my own, but I'll take any constructive criticism or comments.

To become a demi-god, i.e a Rank 1 Deity, you must meet the following criteria:

1. Sixty or more hit dice. This keeps out the riff-raff

2. At least 21 levels in a class or prestige class. This shows that you have deep understanding of something. Typically this class will be connected to your intended portfolio, e.g. Fighter for martial deities, Wizard for magic deities, Druid for nature deities.

3. Mastery of at least 2 domain classes. Domain classes are special classes available starting about 36th level, and match the domains that you will be providing to your clerics. Mastery is attained when you gain the 10th level of your domain class. As you master a domain class, you can grant domain spells and abilities to your followers.

4. At least 78 worshippers, with a combined total of at least 144 class levels.

One of my thoughts is that each divine rank about 1 is equivalent to another 60 class levels, putting a Rank 20 deity at level 1200+, and quite far beyond anything that I intend to stat.

I've always been intrigued by the Macho Women with Guns setting. And now I have the Pathfinder books. I could convert MWWG to Pathfinder easily enough, but it seems that a more creative idea might be in order.

Suppose that after three thousand years of wandering the planes, Circe returns to Earth. By now, she's earned so many XP that she has god-like powers, especially with her scepter in her hand. Being an ultrafeminist, she uses her scepter to transform the men of the world to various creatures from the Pathfinder Bestiary, and then leads an invasion of other creatures of the Pathfinder Bestiary to take over the Earth. Other creatures from the Pathfinder Bestiary might be attracted to the chaos, including some of the good outer planar creatures.

So after a while Circe rules the world from her castle on Mt Olympus, although most nations are either in rebellion against her, at war with each other, or both. Invaders from other planes have established a few footholds in various places.

And I probably shouldn't forget the zany satirical humor.

I don't know if I'll ever do anything with this, but it seems to be a start.

I talked my GM into allowing my Sorcerer 1/Bard 3/Druid 1 character to take the Practiced Spellcaster feat from Complete Arcane.

This feat allows me to add up to 4 to her caster level for the purpose of calculating the effects of spells and getting through spell resistance. This does not increase spells per day, spells known, or grant any extra spell slots.

Caster level can not exceed hit dice due to this feat. Also, the feat only applies to one class, chosen at the time the feat is taken. The feat may be taken multiple times and applied to a different class each time.

Since Nora's Sorcerer spells are mage armor and grease, it would be more advantageous to apply this feat to her druid spells.

The big advantage of this feat is that Nora's 1st level Druid spells would be counted as cast by a 5th level caster, not a 1st level caster. This means summoned animals would stick around for 5 rounds, attacking, flanking, and potentially requiring enemies to use up attacks and resources to get rid of them. Cure Light Wounds would cure an extra 4 points when cast. Produce Flame would do an extra 4 points of damage, and could be thrown five times instead of just once. And higher level druid spells should benefit similarly.

The feat requires 4 ranks in Spellcraft. Since Nora had so far not had any ranks in Spellcraft, this means scrambling to meet the prereq. With an Int of 14, she gets 6 ranks, so I can put 4 into Spellcraft and 2 into keeping up her other skills.

My question is, is it worth it? Would it be better to use those skill points elsewhere and take some other feat? Maybe shore up the character in the skills and combat areas. Any advice?