Voin_AFOL's page

Lemme start by saying that I heartily appreciate the new elements of gameplay strategy that Downtime & Kingdom-Building rules bring to the table, and I want to thank everyone involved in that (and the excellent "Kingmaker" AP that prototyped it) for all their time and effort.

What I'd like to propose is a "Worldbook" of sorts, that would go through the nations and factions of Golarion (or perhaps just the Inner Sea) and stat them out using Kingdom, Downtime, and Faction-prestige rules.

The introduction set forth in Kingmaker is wonderful, but to those of us aspiring to take our characters or parties on the path to rulership, we hunger for more. What happens if our Stolen Lands kingdom wants to carry out an invas- er, sorry, "intervention" in Galt? Or what if the GM decides Technic League of Numeria invades the Stolen Lands? What if an Alkenstar-Andoran Alliance (with PC heroes at the helm, of course) is at war with a Chelliax client state? How about a grand campaign of conquest all across the Inner Sea - the kind which has made Alexander, the Caesars, and the Khans (in)famous in our world's history?

Basically, what I would like (and would pay good money for) is a "Bestiary of Nations" (and factions), with each statblocks of each one's territorial holdings, troop strength, and wealth - just like a player's Kingdom or Downtime stats. When my players (or I as a player) go up against a rival Kingdom or guild, I want to know their stats, just like when taking down a monster.

To my knowledge, as of this post, there isn't a product out there like this already - but if I missed such a thing already being published (there are a lot of PF books to keep up with, I'd appreciate someone letting me know.

Don't hesitate to post replies if you'd like to throw your support behind such a project, &/or if there is something you'd like to see in such a book that I forgot to mention.

What I don't want to see is people wasting my time the weak, shoot-down "counter-argument" of: "oh, but you/your GM can just make something up for those nations" - well, if we follow that rabbit-hole to it's logical conclusion, I could just pull all the stats for monsters, magic, classes, heck, a whole game system of my own out of my rear, but then we wouldn't be playing Pathfinder anymore, would we? Such arguments bring nothing to the discussion and are only lazy attempts to shut it down.

Also, I (obviously) would love to hear from the good folks at Paizo themselves regarding their thoughts on this idea.

Well, I think know the answer, and it's "laziness". I'm guessing some game designer back in the day figured "well, it's basically like Diplomacy for critters, so, hurrdur, let's make it like the other Cha skills". And then nobody bothered to fix it in the years hence (I know it's actually not "Diplomacy for animals", that's a common misconception).

My reason for contesting this is that I've worked with animals for years (not just household pets - everything from large livestock to poultry), and even won several champion-level awards for such, and the skill as mechanically represented in the game doesn't seem to match my IRL experience at all. Just like "swinging a sword", I'm guessing "raising/training an animal" is something that whatever designer originally made the skill had no first-hand experience in before taking a wild, stabbing guess in the dark and pulling an arbitrary rule out of their butt that in no way mirrors reality.

Now let's back up a sec and refresh what the ability scores we're discussing actually mean. Because while this is not a strictly simulation game, the numbers still have to represent something in the game-world. We're not shuffling numbers around for the sake of shuffling numbers around - this isn't "Accountants & Agony: the Board Game".

Wisdom describes a character's willpower, common sense, awareness, and intuition.

Charisma measures a character's personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance.

Now in my own time spent working with animals, training them, etc., my "willpower, common sense, awareness, and intuition" were a lot more crucial to that process than my "personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead (people), and appearance."

Animals don't care how much social graces amongst sentient beings you have - they care if you're paying attention to their signals, which is something entirely different. Just earlier this evening, my cat started making noises like he was upset at something. I deduced from the context of the situation that he might have been too warm, so I put an ice-cube in his water-dish, and he happily lapped up the water. It was my taking notice of the surrounding factors and intuitively deciding on a course of action (Wisdom), not dazzling him with my magnificent oratory and subtle glibness (Charisma) that resolved the issue.

Keep in mind, Handle Animal is about a sentient being (human, elf, etc) working w/ an animal, not "showmanship", like a circus performer presenting in front of an audience (which would probably be better handled w/ a Perform skill).

How would this change (making the skill based off of Wisdom insead) play out back in the mechanics? Consider that the core "natury" classes (Barbarians, Druids, & Rangers) are archetypical loners often living far away from civilization, in the company of beasts, and they like it just fine, thank you very much. The casters have high Wis, since it's their casting attribute, and all 3 can probably afford to dump Cha, since it doesn't do much for them. So there's zero reason why characters whose whole shtick revolves around "protector of nature" should be penalized when dealing with the very animals whom they work with and protect every day. Instead they'll enjoy better Handle Animal modifiers.

Likewise, Fighters and Cavaliers, who are also likely to have higher Wis than Cha will be better able to handle warhorses and guard dogs. I'm not too worried about Paladins, since their Wis tends to be nearly as high as their Cha anyway, and now Pallys have an option to not be saddled w/ a mount.

Who are the stereotypically high-Cha core classes that I haven't mentioned? Bards, maybe Clerics, sometimes Rogues, and Sorcerers? Is there any particular thematic reason for them to be inherently good at Handle Animal, let alone better than nature/survival-themed classes? I think not.

This isn't a huge issue (like class balance disparity), just something that kinda bugged me for a while. And also because of that, the change would be simple, painless, and unintrusive to implement. Paizo's done a lot of great things for smoothing the rough edges of the 3.X system - I'm just pointing out one I think they missed.

p.s. - haven't started a thread for a while, hope I'm posting this in the right place.

The answers I'm looking for are not only "what does the official material state/imply" but also "what's worked in your own campaign?"

Here goes:

1) The legitimacy of the charter, and the secrecy of its true purpose.

My impression from what I've read is that the Sword-Lords (especially the mayor of Restov) is organizing the expedition under the nose of King Surtova (and w/ the king's authority), with the surface excuse of "anti-banditry/monster intervention", while keeping all the "but these guys are intended to found new nations and back us up in the coming civil war" under wraps. How far are they going to keep this a secret? Do the adventurers signing up for the expedition know that it'll be their responsibility to found a new nation, or do they all think it's just a simple bandit-hunt until book 2? That's an important thing for my players to know as they're making their characters.

If the adventurers signing up for the expedition know, what's to stop them from blabbing in about it in a tavern beforehand and blowing the whole deal out of the water? I find it very suspicious if every adventurer in Brevoy had heard about this "sign on to go carve out your own kingdom from the untamed frontier in the south" and Surtova's agents had not caught wind of this.

A king that oblivious (and with that many enemies) would soon find himself on the pointy end of an assassin's blade, and isn't the Surtovas' whole shtick is that they're supposed to be crafty scheming bastards?

2) The sovereignty/autonomy/independence of the new nations.

In "Stolen Lands" (page 7) it makes mention that the Sword-Lords' plan is the "establishment of four new puppet kingdoms,
all beholden to Restov’s swordlords and the rest of
Rostland". However, the new charter in "Rivers Run Red" (page 6) states "...hereby granted the right to rule. The nature and laws of rule are theirs to define, and the wellbeing of this new nation is theirs to protect...future relations between kingdoms might be mutually beneficial."

So how autonomous/independent are these new nations supposed to be? It seems to me the overall tone throughout the AP is "Rostland's gearing up for a civil war vs Issia, and expects their new buddies to have it's back (literally and figuratively) in the upcoming fight" (essentially, an alliance). Meanwhile the new nations can govern themselves as they want, provided they don't take hostile action vs. Rostland (like trying to annex Rostland hexes).

But "puppet state" implies something entirely different in a geopolitical sense.

A puppet state is a metaphor of a state that is supposedly independent but is in fact dependent upon an outside power,[1] it is nominally sovereign but effectively controlled by a foreign or otherwise alien power, for reasons such as financial interests, in fact anything but the common good.[2]

A puppet state preserves the external paraphernalia of independence like a name, flag, anthem, constitution, law codes and motto but in reality is an organ of another state which created or sponsored the government.[3] Puppet states are not recognized as legitimate under international law.

Essentially, the PC's kingdom would be Rostland's b@+&%, having to do what Rostland wanted, when Rostland wanted (that doesn't sound as fun to play as "run your own nation"). But how would Rostland even have the expeditionary military might to even enforce it's will upon a foreign land? I thought the whole point of their secret plot with the expedition was that they didn't want to stretch themselves too thin by claiming the Stolen Lands themselves, and they needed allies for the upcoming civil war because they were militarily outmatched vs Issia?

3) Empty Hexes

So it's my understanding that it's implied (though not stated) that GMs should fill out empty hexes with something interesting. Site-based adventures, for example. Is this correct? I recall someone on some forum actually totaled up all the static XP from pre-ordained encounters and hexploration and stated that it was just enough to get the PCs to the next recommended level for the next book in the AP. So I dunno if populating the empty hexes w/ adventures will screw up XP gain, but empty hexes are no fun.

PCs: "We explore nearly 100 sq miles, what do we find?"
GM: "Nothing"
PCs: "Booh!"

Also, I know that previous efforts at organized, large-scale settlement/colonization of the Stolen Lands failed, but I would imagine there would be at least some little thorps/hamlets/villages/freeholds (and not ones that are all monstrous humanoids) eking out a living in a few of the more hospitable corners of the frontier. The excellent KM-supplement adventure Cold Mountain from legendary Games had a little tribal village nestled in the mountains.

I mean, it's supposed to be a "bandit-infested wilderness", but who do the bandits have to steal from? Each other? The whole thing that makes criminals, well, criminals is that they prey on innocent, honest, hard-working people. They're parasites, essentially. If they were self-sustaining, they wouldn't need to steal (incidentally, the bandits use the same stats as hunters in the Wandering Monster table in "Stolen Land". On that note, how much trade comes up through the Stolen Lands from Mivon and the rest of the River Kingdoms? I suppose the bandits could ambush travelers, but if it's that dangerous of a region, most travelers would be wary and well-armed.

Aid Another

In melee combat, you can help a friend attack or defend by distracting or interfering with an opponent. If you're in position to make a melee attack on an opponent that is engaging a friend in melee combat, you can attempt to aid your friend as a standard action. You make an attack roll against AC 10. If you succeed, your friend gains either a +2 bonus on his next attack roll against that opponent or a +2 bonus to AC against that opponent's next attack (your choice), as long as that attack comes before the beginning of your next turn. Multiple characters can aid the same friend, and similar bonuses stack.

You can also use this standard action to help a friend in other ways, such as when he is affected by a spell, or to assist another character's skill check.

Questions:

1) Does your ally have to make a melee attack when their turn comes up and they're the recipient of your +2 to hit? Or can they back up a bit, and, say, throw a hatchet at the opponent? Are you the only one who (by RAW) has to be in melee combat for this to work?

2) What if the opponent backs up and blasts your friend with a ranged attack when you're giving your friend a +2 to AC? Do they still get the AC bonus?

3) Is there any official word on what you roll to help someone when they're affected by a spell. In a perfect world, this would be adjudicated by common sense and situational appropriateness, but I was wondering if there was any official errata or something.

4) What's the idea for what's actually happening in the game word as you're giving your buddy the +2 to hit or AC? I always pictured it as "running interference", causing the opponent to divert their full attention from defending against or attacking your ally, respectively. Effectively, it's the same as inflicting on the opponent a -2 AC or -2 to hit your ally, numbers-wise.

5) Why is it limited to melee? This seems needlessly arbitrary and precludes the possibility of "laying down cover/suppressing fire" to the same effect (+2 to hit or +2 AC for your ally). In fact, I just recently found out this "melee only" restriction while perusing the rules. Most groups I've been with have ignored it (or weren't aware of that it existed, because why should it?), and other d20 games (like Star Wars Saga) ignore it as well. Also, by RAW, it skews the combat balance toward melee, since ranged guys can't help each other out like that. I say get rid of it - there's no justifiable reason for the restriction to exist, and it just causes more "rules interpretation" headaches (see "who has to be in melee?" questions above).

Sorry, didn't know where else to put this.

So there used to be an article posted elsewhere on the internet with expanded uses for everyone's favorite cantrip, but lately, WotC has been pig-headedly purging everything that's not whatever new .5 version they're cranking out this week while disposing of last month's version, so most of those valuable old links to good articles like this are forever broken.

But fear not! I copy-pasted the relevant info at some point in the past before it got senselessly trashed into to the cyber-nether:

Here for your cantrip-casting pleasure:

Content Omitted

So the rules say "Only a normal, unmodified animal may become a familiar."

But once a raven or hedgehog or little scampering dinosaur or whatever becomes your familiar, is there any rule stopping it from taking class levels while continuing to function as a familiar?

I mean, as a familiar, it's got human-like intelligence, so it's not like it's "too dumb too learn". Sure, its other scores may limit its function as a member of that class, but a fox rogue can sneak attack and improve its Sleight of Hand Bite.

I know in the weapons section it says "The price includes miscellaneous gear that goes with the weapon, such as a scabbard or quiver."

I was wondering if that applied to mounts as well. Like if I buy livestock from a farm, would it come with at least a harness, or would I have to pay the extra 2 gp for it?

So I really like Valeros as a character, but... how exactly are his parents illiterate? Are they Kellid barbarians with a 3rd-party trait?

In Pathfinder everyone, even Barbarians can read.

It seems like an example of Gameplay and Story Segregation, which I really don't like. It's jarring in video games, and it's nearly inexcusable in Table-Top RPGs, where we have a lot more freedom to adjust the rules to match the narrative.

I tend to view the rules as a "framework" upon which we drape the narrative, so in that function, the rules need to serve the narrative.

So here's a deep question about clerics, but this may apply to to other classes as well:

If you use a cleric spell to do something that "grossly violates the code of conduct required by your god" - does the spell even function?

A cleric who grossly violates the code of conduct required by her god loses all spells and class features, except for armor and shield proficiencies and proficiency with simple weapons. She cannot thereafter gain levels as a cleric of that god until she atones for her deeds (see the atonement spell description).

So let's say a higher-level Cleric of Sarenrae or Iomedae or any of the Good deities just snaps one day and uses flame strike to smite a young acolyte of the faith. Or an orphanage. Or a basket of puppies. Or an acolyte bringing a basket of puppies to an orphanage.

Would Sarenrae or Iomedae even allow their holy power to be abused in such a manner? Would the flames flow from the heavens or would the goddesses be all "Aw Hells, naw!" and strip the offending cleric of their power for even attempting such sacrilege?

Another way to think about it is this:

A) Is the cleric "calling in an airstrike", with the deity still in control and free to deny use the power against an obviously inappropriate target?

OR

B) Does the deity hand the cleric a "loaded gun" full of spells every morning to do with as that cleric pleases, and if that use goes against the faith, then the "gun" gets taken away from them?

Can the deity sense the intent before the spell is used?

I just know I saw one of these back in the day, with the letter codes on the map matching up to the Adventure Module in question (so "D0" would be on Falcon's Hollow from "Hollow’s Last Hope", and so on).

This, of course, made it convenient to match up a module to where the PCs happened to be geographically (or vice versa).

But now for the life of me, I can't seem to find such a map, either on the net or in my own collection.

My fellow Pathfinders, I implore your aid in this venture. If anyone can post or send me a link, or otherwise point me in the right direction of such a map, I would be quite grateful.

So how many much of Avistan that has heard of this guys smells b.s. about the whole "living god" thing?

Pathfinder Chronicles Gazetteer, page 50 says:

"Razmir claims to have used the Starstone in Absalom to achieve divinity, but any who have visited the City at the Center of the World know this to be false. The truth is totally suppressed in his realm, with “spreaders of sedition” facing a host of harsh sentences, from exile to execution.

Razmiran’s neighbors view the expansion of its cult into their lands as a plague. The willing defection of several border communities to the banner of the Living God underscores the danger posed by Razmir, pushing his neighbors ever closer to taking up arms against him."

This is because the Starstone Cathedral has 4 bridges - 1 for every successful attempt at apotheosis. Razmir does not have one, because, contrary to his claims, he never passed the test, therefore, he obviously cannot be a god. The real gods of Golarion are objectively provable - they grant their followers spells and domain powers and guidance and a place for their souls to rest in the afterlife. Razmir grants his lackeys nothing more than any other powerful wizard-king (like Nex or Geb) could.

I assume the tales of the Starstone have been told throughout Avistan for some time, and even people who have never been to Absalom would have heard of the Cathedral.

It may be that the others in Golarion, regardless of what their main patron deity is could share a general view that it is blasphemy for mortal to self-aggrandize himself as a "god". It'd be an interesting opportunity for followers of otherwise diametrically-opposed faiths (Iomedae and Lamaashtu, for instance) to join forces to take him down, because his cult could be seen as a grave offense to all deities of Golarion.

So the whole "neighbors view the expansion of its cult into their lands as a plague" may be because of that, or it might be simply because any tyrannical, conquering warlord poking at your border is a pain in the ol' backside, regardless of what specific mad ravings of grandeur they ascribe to themselves. Or perhaps a combination?

So I wonder if Razmir's cult is viewed by most as Scientology is viewed in our world - where a lot of people know it's not even debatable as a "real" religion as the ancient, well-established ones are, but rather a get-rich quick scam made by a hack of a sci-fi author... but it's still a thorn in the side of society because of the awful things that cult does.

Just look at Thronestep! Razmir's cult is literally a pyramid scheme! :)

First of all, I'd like to say I *really* like the Downtime rules - as a player and a GM. Having my character be able to be a part of a community rather than a wandering murderhobo forever or being able to hand out abstract awards to my players ("The construct wasn't carrying any treasure... but from it's shattered remains you manage to scavenge 2 Magic points worth of magic dust") is fantastic.

Anyway...

I'm sorry if this was already asked and answered elsewhere - I searched, and couldn't find anything on it.

My question: How much hp/hardness does a typical room have?

I know the general description says “A room can be as simple as a 10-foot-by-10-foot area surrounded by wooden walls, or as complex as a stone-walled guard tower with a heavy wooden gate.”, but that’s nto very specific. That’s like the difference between a level 1-fighter in scale mail and a level 10 fighter in mithril plate.

We get a little bit of specifics in this section:

“Exterior doors are good wooden doors with simple locks. Interior doors are simple wooden doors with no locks. You may install different locks by paying the normal price for locks.” (Keep in mind some specific rooms already have strong wooden doors or better included in their price.)

There's a section on there mentioning that rooms get the "Broken" condition if they take more than half their hp in damage:

"Broken Rooms: If a room takes damage in excess of half its hit points (or is otherwise rendered sufficiently damaged by a downtime event or at the GM's discretion), it gains the broken condition."

But despite combing the Downtime rules both on the PFSRD and in my Ultimate Campaign book, I've not been able to find any definite statement of how much hp a room is supposed to have, or even what it's made of (wood? masonry? stone?). What if I want to know if my building survived a monster attack or not? Why leave it up to GM fiat?

So without explicit info, I had to rely on the implicit.

1) The "Fortification" Augmentation says:

"This upgrade can be applied to any room, reinforcing walls, improving doors, and treating or replacing flammable materials. Upon buying this upgrade, the room's walls have their hardness increased by +2, the doors are improved to strong wooden doors (hardness 5, hit points 20), and walls and floors gain fire resistance 5."

So that tells us that most rooms are *not* flame-resistant by default. This seems to rule out materials like brick and stone for default room walls.

2) “Defensive Wall
This simple *wooden* wall, fence, or hedge surrounds your structure and provides a modicum of security.”

Wood seems to be the default material for defensive walls, as was common for stockades until castle engineering became more advanced (although wooden forts were still used by those who could not afford castles of stone, or as temporary military encampments). If such stalwart defensive structures are made of wood, it seems doubtful that the default for ordinary bedrooms and barns would be much sturdier.

3) “Shack
This no-frills wooden shelter contains a simple table, pallet bed, and stool. One person can build a shack with simple tools and basic materials. For an additional 1 point of Goods and 2 points of Labor, you can construct a brick or stone hut instead of a wooden shack.”

Again, wood is the default material, stone costs extra. We know wood has a hardness of 5 and 10 hp /in. of thickness.

But how *much* wood are we talking about for a typical wall? The PF Downtime rules don’t say. Looking through my D&D 3E Stronghold Builder's Guidebook, page 36 (hey, PF was designed with backwards compatibility in mind, so I’m counting this as relevant) gives us 6 inches of wood for a typical wooden wall, hardness 5, 60 HP, Break DC 20, Climb DC 21. A wooden freestanding wall (like one going around your fort) is 1’ wide, 5 hardness, 120 HP, Break DC 26, Climb DC 21

So there you have it folks:
Until the good people at Paizo tell me otherwise, I’m assuming that the typical room stats look something like this:

[Conjecture]: 6” Wooden walls; [hardness 5, 60 HP, Break DC 20]/5-foot square
[Official]: “Exterior doors are good wooden doors with simple locks. Interior doors are simple wooden doors with no locks.”

So if I have a 4-square room, it’ll have 240 HP (60x4). If it takes 120+ damage, it’ll be broken.

What do y’all think?