Zog of Deadwood's page

I have a player who believes my dice have it in for him. Actually, I think most of the gaming group we both belong to thinks that. I dont believe they think I personally have a grudge against this player's characters, but they definitely are superstitious about the dice. I can even see where they are coming from. His PCs do seem to soak up a lot of the crits and do seem to be more often than random chance would allow the targets of dangerous attacks on those infrequent occasions when the targets are randomly determined between two or more party members.

From my point of view, what the players miss is that this particular gamer, when not playing an arcane caster, not only has a predilection for making PCs with high AC values that can very often only be hit on a crit (he gets missed far more often than he gets hit) or a successful grapple attempt by a grapplemonster (some APs are full of them), but is the guy who often acts as the party tank, thus putting his characters in the chaos of frontline melee combat far more than most of the others. Add to that a desire to be the character who is taking the lead or sometimes even scouting ahead and a disinclination to "play it safe", and there is no need for my dice to be imbued with a grudge. A player who puts his PC in harm's way will occasionally get harmed.

Of course, there is a reason he tends to play more martial characters than not these days. One of the events pointed to as proof of the "dice curse" happened years ago when he was not playing a martial character, but instead a fragile wizard whose brains were dashed out by a bugbear warband leader. However, in that game, he unfortunately could not count on the high AC martial characters in his party (some played by people still in our gaming circle) to even attempt to stand between him and the enemy. It is all too easy to land a critical hit on an unarmored mage. He lost faith in the ability/desire of the other players to defend him. He does still enjoy playing PCs who aren't frontline combatants, but nowadays tends to do so more often in games in which I myself am playing and am playing a martial.

So we all laugh about the dice curse (even though they genuinely believe in it to some degree) and I am careful to be very open about all my rolls (in these COVID days all done virtually via roll20), but ultimately this perception of dice bias is a result of player gaming style and intraparty dynamics. At least, I think so. My big black d20, "The Ebon Hammer", does have an undeniable history with that guy...

I am not a gambler. However, a lot of real gamblers--and by "real" I mean those who consistently make money at it--are very cold and calculated about the risks they take. They are excellent at figuring their chances of success and--if they play cards--are also very good at Sense Motive. You could play to that.

Potion of gaseous form? If the tadpole is a separate creature, it might theoretically not be affected by an effect that targets only the host creature. Probably too easy to work, though. However, even if it was affected automatically by spells affecting the host, what about casting particulate form? That might allow it to be removed without hurting you very much.

If this counts as a disease, a paladin with the disease mercy would automatically use it if he or she applied lay on hands, as all known mercies are automatically applied. That might do the trick. So would putting on a periapt of health, which would render the wearer completely immune to disease, Presumably the tadpole would then leave or die.

Or how about Faith Healing (occult skill unlock for Heal skill) to remove affliction?

Intimidate builds. PF1Ed has utterly broken intimidate rules. No save, the DC doesn't scale remotely fast enough, and there are easy ways to increase the fear level past shaken. The most frustrating character of this type I ever saw was a PC whose player utterly refused to even roleplay the fact he was scary. He wanted to be able to make the party's enemies run away by hitting them with Cornugon Smash (for generally unimpressive damage), but insisted against the evidence that he was playing a "nice guy" who no one could find at all threatening. If he hit, the only suspense was in finding out how many rounds the enemy was out of commission, not whether they would be (undead and constructs aside, of course).

...

Multimorph: 2/5 if you like polymorph spells it's pretty good, but polymorph spells are pretty niche for wizards...

No argument here, but as an aside, if that niche is one you want to roleplay, then Multimorph with Improved Eldritch Heritage (shapechanger bloodline) is a definitely a good way to go, as Multimorph combined with the bloodline power Mutable Flesh is a beautiful thing.

Mutable Flesh (Su) At 3rd level, once per day when you cast a transmutation spell with a duration of 1 minute per level that affects only you, you can increase its duration to 10 minutes per level. At 9th level, you can increase the duration to 1 hour per level.

I currently play in a party of three that is on book 6 of Carrion Crown. Aasimar Oracle/Soul Warden (life mystery, blackened curse), half-elf paladin of Sarenrae (undead scourge), and human witch (with a nervous giggle tic that doubles as cackle in combat). My Oracle also carries and frequently talks to the polished and enchanted skull of the witch PC's first character, a Samsaran sorcerer lost early on in Book 2. It has been made into an "Orb" of Golden Heaven.

All of us have maxed ranks in Perform (Sing) because our self identity is that we are a singing troupe that does a little light adventuring on the side. We prefer to draw masses of enemies to us via loud, annoying, and coordinated song than go looking for them one by one. Favorites include "Walking on Sunshine," "Lil Red Riding Hood," and "We are the Champions."

The paladin tanks (with the oracle occasionally stepping up), and the oracle and witch buff/debuff. If it's undead we face, they might be pushed/pulled en masse through Walls of Fire or Walls of Silver via Improved Channel Force. The witch throws Misfortune hexes everywhere.

The GM increases numbers faced and maxes enemy hit points, but as the paladin frequently observes, "Bards exaggerate. This adventuring gig just isn't that hard."

8 days normally, or 4 days if you fast craft, but that raises the crafting DC by 5.

It's campaign specific, but in Carrion Crown I'm currently playing an aasimar Oracle of Pharasma (Life mystery) who has the channeling revelation, is taking the aasimar-only channeling feats, and gets the favored class bonus that gives him an extra +1/2 effective channeling level per class level. He also has the Blackened curse, which will soon allow him to create Walls of Fire that his channeling feats will be able to blast or pull undead into. He's pretty fun.

If wizards were given access to cure spells, it would not be a power-up. What, use their precious spell slots to restore (not buff, but restore) other PCs to factory mint condition AFTER they have taken damage? They've got far better things to do! Or at least they ought to. Any wizard in a party of normal size who wanted the ability to heal others would want it for role-playing reasons, not because healing would represent a pathway to increased power. That's one reason Pathfinder gave clerics the ability to channel healing energy in addition to spells--they were trying to do away with the idea that clerical spellpower was best used as handing out bandaids. Even bards have better things to do with their spell slots in and out of combat than heal, unless no one else is in a position to do so. But as to why they have the ability in the first place, bards started out way back when (before 2nd Ed AD&D) as the first and prototypical prestige class (before the term even existed, in fact), a PrC that required them to work through levels in fighter, thief, and druid before they got any levels in bard, so they always did have the ability to heal and there's never been any game balance reason to take that away from them.

Oh, and don't forget to occasionally add an illusion masking a real, but invisible danger. They can disbelieve the illusion of the pit, but that won't help much if the illusion covers a true pit trap that hasn't yet revealed itself (optional: mocking laughter from a magic mouth spell when the pit trap is activated).

It seems as if this tactic would be substantially less useful with judicious use of Magic Aura and Phantom Trap spells.

Geas doesn't remove free will the way Dominate Person does. An affected target of this spell can choose not to obey and take the penalties to stats over time. The penalties cannot directly kill you, and don't kick in quickly, so the spell is useless in combat except against the most selfish of PCs in situations in which a geas is not likely to be removed.

Sure, greenwood seems as if it should work to block brilliant weapons, but unless your PC is restricted to light armor, it seems as if living steel would be a better choice, if it exists in your campaign world.

Necromancers of the Northwest have put out quite a few really excellent supplements, although it's probably important to note that their name is misleading. Most of their material has little or nothing to do with necromancy.

A couple of thoughts. First, Lawful in the alignment sense doesn't necessarily imply disciplined, sensible, or neat, EVEN THOUGH those are features of the Outer Planes associated with Law. Similarly, a Chaotic person is not necessarily whimsical or unbalanced or a seeker of immediate gratification, even though those things are associated with the planes of Chaos. Those things are personality traits, that are perhaps more common in people of certain alignments, but are not exclusive to them.

A Lawful alignment denotes a willingness, even an eagerness, to accept obligations and an expectation that others should do likewise. Also, they have an underlying belief that there is or should be a structure to society into which people should fit themselves for the good (small 'g') of all, including themselves. Despite this, a Lawful person could still be a scatterbrained, fun-loving person with a whimsical sense of humor (traits usually thought of as Chaotic).

A Chaotic person could be patient, methodical, and self-disciplined in her daily life (all commonly associated with Law) but her alignment would be reflected in her belief or attitude that many rules simply don't or shouldn't apply to her, either because she thinks she knows better than her society how she personally should act (conceivably true in some instances) or because she believes that society simply has too many rules, laws, and regulations for everybody.

Likewise, Good people are not always pleasant and polite and Evil people the reverse. As C.S. Lewis put it,

"The greatest evil is not now done in those sordid "dens of crime" that Dickens loved to paint. It is not done even in concentration camps and labour camps. In those we see its final result. But it is conceived and ordered (moved, seconded, carried, and minuted) in clean, carpeted, warmed and well-lighted offices, by quiet men with white collars and cut fingernails and smooth-shaven cheeks who do not need to raise their voices."

On an aside, Ebenezer Scrooge was certainly not a fiend in human form, but if he was not evil he at the least had very strong tendencies that way, for he cared nothing for anyone outside himself. Before his nightly visitation, he was indifferent to bad fortune that might come to others, even others in his immediate orbit. Indeed, he was perfectly willing to exploit others for his own gain, despite the fact that he had no real need to do so to live a comfortable life. He also had what I would consider a fairly high Charisma score, measured in force of personality. Charismatic people aren't always likeable--they just are people who very often are able to get their way, by persuasion of one sort or another.

Even if I were an NPC who spent 24 hours a day laying in a trench shooting at people with crossbows, I wouldn't take it over, say, any archery feat or even any of the standard go to feats. Maybe that's just me.

That may just be you. Granted, it's situational to the point of uselessness for PCs, but if we are positing an NPC soldier stuck in some sort of trench warfare role (or rooftop/box canyon lookout, or whatever) then the untyped +2 to AC is better than they'll get from any other feat, which ought to make a real difference to survivability. Of course, it's obviously still somewhat better for creatures using weapons like firearms or grenade-like missiles than it is for crossbow wielders, as they don't have to worry as much about pumping feats into increasing the chance of hitting.

A PC feat it is not. I could imagine PCs being frustrated by a bunch of cowardly/crafty kobolds using it, though.

The rumormonger talent allows a rogue to make a single successful Bluff check to start a rumor. That single check probably stands in for multiple interactions. Mechanically, though, it's easy-peasy.

That doesn't mean only mid to high level rogues have the ability to start rumors, though. Were that the case, any time a PC party wanted to make contact with a local thieves guild, they'd need do no more than find out who the area's biggest gossip was. Anyone can try to start a rumor--rogues with that talent simply can do so with very little effort.

Wish is incredibly powerful, but it is NOT "rocks fall--everybody dies" powerful.

It may or may not be necessary to mention this, as you may be well aware already, but there are a few things to keep in mind regarding Vital Strikes.

First, and most obviously, although they don't combine with the Charge action, they can combine with a move action. At higher levels when your PC gains iterative attacks, that is probably where the feat will see most of its utility. If you have foes separated from you by more than 5 feet, there will be times you will only get one attack after moving or times you expect a single Vital Strike to be sufficient to finish off your current foe, allowing a subsequent move action to the next opponent. That second possibility can matter if you are trying to "tank" the enemy and keep them off the squishier members of your party.

Second, Vital Strike works with ranged attacks as well, although it's usually not worth it for attacks with bows.

Third (and this one is very often overlooked), Vital Strike can be used for a readied attack and is FAR more likely than a normal attack to disrupt a spellcaster during the casting of a spell, because the Concentration check in those circumstances is based upon damage taken in the single attack that forces the check. Too often I have seen this forgotten, even by players who have taken this feat.

It baffles me how people turn such a blind eye to wizards/sorcerers. All these barbarians are OP type threads and when there's a discussion about the classes that already step on the toes of so many classes we want them to step on more toes and get healing bc it "makes sense"? And allow them full armor??

When people want to boost wizards its some logical conclusion to in-world continuity and people don't seem to bat an eye. If you suggest reeling them in some drama princess screams "I. Guess we can't have nice things!"

If anything I say bring back casting time and a different xp track for wizards. Casting time makes a dms job slightly harder but changes how wizards have to play. The xp track would advance quickly then slow waay down

We have casting times: immediate, swift, standard, full round, special. Most spells are standard action to cast. This is simple and easy to play. That is important because PF, in common with every one of its ancestral predecessors, is not realistic and makes no serious attempt at realism. What you suggest would not only slow down the game. It wouldn't add the realism you desire.

More to the point, adding new and tempting but suboptimal options to an already powerful class isn't strengthening that class. It is a disguised debuff for those that make use of those options. Which is fine. Wizards and sorcerers can stand plenty of voluntary debuffing before they become useless or no fun to play.

Even if wizards were given healing spells at levels exactly on par with clerics (and I wouldn't go that far myself), it would still be suboptimal for them to spend time healing, as clerics would still be better in the role (channels and much better ability to enter the dangerous environment of frontline melee to heal frontline fighters). Would some players do it anyway? Sure, because they liked the concept of playing a healing wizard. But in doing so they would be self-gimping their characters, because they'd be playing a role they are ill-suited for that other classes do far better when they could instead be doing what no other classes do as well. And that's if wizards were just as good as clerics at casting healing spells. If they were somewhat or considerably worse than clerics at casting these spells, guys like Treantmonk would laugh to scorn the idea that wizards should even bother. This would be especially true if those spells were in a school like Necromancy a lot of PC wizards specialists use as one of their opposition schools.

No, the one real alteration to balance wouldn't be from wizards casting these spells from memory. It would be from their ability to use wands and scrolls of low level cure spells. At higher levels, they'd still be essentially restricted to those low level expedients. And there are already (so I understand from reading the forums) plenty of parties that heal via item now. What would it matter in such a party if it were the sorcerer doing the healing? Oh, wait, it already often IS, via UMD. So even this isn't a big deal.

Bottom line, if a GM hates the idea because it doesn't match tradition, then it's not right for that GM's game. But if traditions never changed or evolved, we obviously wouldn't be playing Pathfinder or even 3.5 Ed. We'd still be playing OD&D (just plain D&D at the time) before there were most of the conventions we now take for granted.

It's far from the most spectacular or difficult thing a Wizard can do.

Plus, Wizards can already heal, via the Infernal Healing spells, or by using various methods of poaching heal spells from other lists (Samsaran, Magaambyan Arcanist, etc) or simply by summoning creatures with healing SLA's.

On the other hand, when given the ability to add some spells to their already considerable list, how many Wizards would actually choose healing spells? In-combat healing is generally considered a waste (it's not an MMO, you will not outheal incoming damage, so keep up the offense). Out of combat, save your spells for ability damage and rub yourself with the healy stick if you need HP.

I'd still withhold healing from Wizards out of principle: They do not need any more treats than they already have. Were that not the case, I'd let them have it simply because it does not make sense for them not to.

I would take it out of Conjuration, however; Conjuration is already the most powerful and versatile school. I'd give it back to Necromancy (mastery over the powers of life and death) or to Evocation (evoking Positive Energy the same way as evoking fire, force, etc).

This is mostly where I come down on this question, aside from the 4th paragraph above. I figure that if wizards can heal, but every wizard healing spell is set at 2 lvls higher than the equivalent spell for clerics, wizards who DO heal will either be sacrificing power for flavor, or they will do so only in emergencies. Optimizers would avoid healing as a wizard--why do poorly what several other classes do well?

Also, if healing spells were placed back in the Necromancy school (where they were before 3rd Ed) then Necromancy would actually once again BE the magic of life and death it is billed as. Currently there are almost no arcane necromantic spells that utilize positive energy. Necromancy is frequently chosen as an opposition school. Giving it healing might not change that, but if not would reinforce the idea that very few wizards heal (and none find it easy) while wizards would still not be absolutely debarred from doing something almost every other spell caster can manage easily.

What is the condition to the target be flanked? threat opposite squares.

Melee attack is not the condition to flank.

We may already be on the same page, but the way you worded that makes it sound as if a flanked creature must be threatened on two sides. That isn't the case.

When making a melee attack, you get a +2 flanking bonus if your opponent is threatened by another enemy character or creature on its opposite border or opposite corner.

When in doubt about whether two characters flank an opponent in the middle, trace an imaginary line between the two attackers' centers. If the line passes through opposite borders of the opponent's space (including corners of those borders), then the opponent is flanked.

Exception: If a flanker takes up more than 1 square, it gets the flanking bonus if any square it occupies counts for flanking.

Only a creature or character that threatens the defender can help an attacker get a flanking bonus.

Creatures with a reach of 0 feet can't flank an opponent.

If a creature has PCs A and B on two opposing sides, by RAW it will be flanked by both of them but only if at least one threatens will any flanking bonuses be available. However, IF only one of them (let's say PC A) does in fact threaten it, then it does not receive said bonus. It is PC B, who most often in such a situation won't be able to properly take advantage of the fact, who would get the +2 flanking bonus. PC B (assuming we're not talking about someone with Point Blank Mastery or Snap Shot here) may not be able to do much without a melee weapon or Improved Unarmed Strike, but if he made an unarmed strike anyway (thus provoking an AoO, but the creature might be down to its last few hit points or is casting a spell he wants to disrupt or he's just reckless) he'd still get the +2 flanking bonus for making a melee attack, EVEN THOUGH he is providing no such bonus to PC A. If PC B has PBM, but not Snap Shot, he can make a flanking attack (without a bonus, because it's not a melee attack), but doesn't threaten and so still doesn't allow PC A to make flanking attacks with a bonus. Only if PC B has Snap Shot does he threaten the enemy and thus allow PC A to flank with a bonus, although even then PC B won't get a flanking bonus to hit out of PC A's threatening status because the rules explicitly state flanking bonuses to hit are for melee attacks only. They don't say PC's who flank as a result of the position of other PCs can't get the other benefits of the flanked condition.

Now, it would be possible to infer that rule and many GMs do. But then you are getting into RAI territory. And RAW or RAI, there is no real reason a character with Snap Shot or PBM couldn't get off a sneak attack under these circumstances.

I'm going to suggest bard, but not the buffing kind. It sounds as if they've got enough of that already. No, archaeologist bard, for the trap finding and disabling and the evasion and the uncanny dodge and the social skills and the spells and the luck bonus (of course the Lingering Performance feat then becomes a must have, even though the theme music is all in your heads).

The flanking condition comes from been threatened, not from hit with a melee weapon. Melee weapons get +2 to hit when flanking, but the condition to flank is someone threaten the other side. Ranged weapons with snap shot flanks too, but without the +2 bonus given to melee weapons.

I think Leonardo has got it right here. If you are a rogue with sneak attack, your ability to get sneak attack damage in this situation only depends on whether the opponent is capable of being sneak attacked at all and whether it is threatened by an opponent on its other side. If this rogue has a bow, he won't provide flanking to his partner because he won't threaten this opponent (absent the Snap Shot feat) and he won't get the +2 flanking bonus regardless because he isn't using a melee weapon. But the flanked condition does not have to be associated with a flanking bonus and is not automatically something both PCs on opposite sides of an enemy creature will automatically be able to take advantage of. Usually, both PCs will flank. Sometimes only one will. And that's okay.

[Incidentally, this is all complicated considerably in situations in which the opponent at least at first does not KNOW it is threatened by an enemy behind it. This situation comes up sometimes with invisibility, stealth, mind controlled allies, and simple betrayal. By RAW, I'm not sure it matters. But if something is flatfooted vs. an enemy because it is unaware of its presence, I'd guess it shouldn't count as threatened until that enemy has actually made its first attack.]

A wall is one way to go, of course, but have you considered having the villain invisible and flying (from a potion), instead? So long as the familiar can fly and knows where to go, it seems as if that could work even better.

Party member A: There's a guy up there somewhere near that corner! I heard him!

Party member B: We all heard him, dumbass! Let us know when you've figured out how we're supposed to hit a guy we can't even see!

Well, unless this is a Blessed Book, and thus a magic item valuable to you in its own right, after you transfer the spells in it into your spellbook, you can sell this thing yourself, right? So you will be able to get both the spells and the "massive value of the tome".

Or am I missing something here?

Not as far as I can see. You did a lot via email, a perfectly acceptable way to RP things other players are not involved in. I know nothing but what you've said about the rest of your group, but it sounds as if they were the ones who kinda fell down here.

We cannot identify with wholly unbelievable characters or with characters who are completely unlikeable (to us). If these players are attempting to help you play your character as someone who considers their characters trusted friends, they clearly failed big in this instance.

But then, I tend to be sorta heavy on the RP myself, so it'll be interesting to read what others might have to say on this.

Artanthos wrote:

A human sorcerer spending FCB on extra spells and using a few other tricks has a spell selection as large as the typical wizard without choosing in advance which ones to memorize.

You must play with some poor wizards. I'm halfway through my second spellbook at level 5...

Keep in mind your character is fortunate to be in a wizard-friendly campaign.

I love wizard characters, but they are far more dependent on GM fiat for their powers than most characters of other classes. My GMs have tended to be extremely stingy when it comes to making spells available. I have a 15th level character I've played across 2 different campaigns with 2 different GMs who is a 12 Wizard/2 Rogue/1 Caster PrC and who has a grand total of 87 spells. 71 of those spells are 3rd level or less (and that's counting 16 cantrips). She has 10 4th lvl, 3 5th lvl, and 3 6th lvl spells. She has zero 7th level spells, filling those spell slots with metamagicked lower level spells. The vast majority of her spells were obtained in her first campaign, when she adventured in the Forgotten Realms, generally considered a very high magic setting.

Since that time...well, when you are a plane travelling wizard who only ever seems to meet arcane casters who are sorcerers or witches, never finds scrolls, very, very seldom can buy scrolls, and doesn't ever have the downtime for spell research, you don't fill up your 1000 page spellbook very quickly.

I'm just sayin'--count your blessings!

Naturally, absorbing cities or other inhabited areas into an existing state via peaceful, diplomatic means would be perfectly alright for a LN character, whether those means involved a certain amount of coerciveness or not (trade wars, arranged marriages, bribery, etc).

But by force? It sorta depends. Your motivation counts for a lot here. Theoretically, even a Lawful Good character could decide that it is necessary for him to take over a city by force, accepting the attendant loss of life, with no alignment repercussions. However, something like that would normally only be possible in very narrow circumstances: if the city's leader was a cruel despot using his power to oppress the city's people or the people of neighboring areas and if the expected loss of life in the takeover and afterward was less than what would happen if there were no such attempt. In other words, the LG PC would be trying to work for the greater good, and with no selfish motivations. If he thought someone else might do a better job as leader, he might work to install that person instead. Likewise, force would be used only if no other methods seemed feasible. The principles of jus ad bellum (defining what constitutes a "just war") would definitely apply.

Obviously, a Lawful Neutral person has somewhat more leeway than a Lawful Good one. Still, accepting the deaths of others in any attempt to become a ruler for completely selfish reasons would still be an evil act. A Lawful Neutral character might conceivably consider himself a better ruler of any given city than the current one, but the disparity in ability would have to be considerable before taking over by force would be morally acceptable to him (they do tend to believe in following the laws, after all). There might be an outside threat (current or imminent) the current ruler is either ignoring or downplaying that the PC believes needs to be addressed. Or perhaps the current ruler is squandering the city's wealth on frivolous personal luxuries during a famine while ignoring the people's legitimate need for food. In other words, the incapacity of the current leader to do his or her job properly would have to be grossly apparent before it would be okay to get rid of that leader.

In everyday life, we don't roll the dice all that often. We most often take 10.

For instance, most of the time when kids try to climb a tree they are not particularly likely to fall to serious damage. The average "climbable" tree (i.e., one with a climb DC of 15) can be automatically climbed by most children with a single rank in Climb, which happens to be a commonly taken class skill for the Kid class. In fact, not only is this a class skill for Kids, but they should probably get a size bonus of +2, making up for their relatively low Strength scores. Furthermore, many times they'll either be climbing the same tree they've climbed before, getting a circumstantial competence bonus, or will be climbing a new tree after watching another kid do it first, getting the aid another circumstance bonus. True, they will still fall from time to time. Some kids are low Wisdom enough to climb more difficult trees; balance checks using Acrobatics (no size bonus) won't always succeed on a 1; branches sometimes unexpectedly break, and it can happen while getting that first rank in the skill (usually acquired climbing on really easy trees). But after that point it won't be 5% of the time. Kids aren't actually that reckless. They just look as if they are to Adults, who have no size or class bonuses and who have usually retrained any skill point(s) they once had in Climb away into other things like Drive or Knowledge: Local (both class skills for Adults).

Zog of Deadwood wrote:

Isn't the Catch Off-Guard feat, in the CRB, what this guy needs?

Later, if desired, he could take Improvised Weapon Mastery.

Hi! Not really. He does not care very much about weapons. He just wants to be able to create, for example, a rope out of a sturdy leaves or a makeshift torch out of a essicated mushroom. Or ink out of the juice of a tree.

Oh, okay. In that case, darkwarriorkarg's suggestion above looks like the way to go. As it's only a trait, it's pretty cheap. Of course, if it turned out that the player really wanted his PC to have a zero penalty instead of a -2 improvisational penalty, you could allow him to take a homebrewed feat (traits are only half a feat) for the PC that completely eliminates the improvisational penalty.

Strannik wrote:

PFSRD wrote:

Skills: For each skill in which either the master or the familiar has ranks, use either the normal skill ranks for an animal of that type or the master's skill ranks, whichever is better. In either case, the familiar uses its own ability modifiers. Regardless of a familiar's total skill modifiers, some skills may remain beyond the familiar's ability to use. Familiars treat Acrobatics, Climb, Fly, Perception, Stealth, and Swim as class skills.

The italicized part above shows where skill points come from (not from Intelligence stat of familiar).

The only thing a higher Intelligence would effect is the bolded section above, so no, the familiar would get no additional skill points.

You posted the correct information but bolded the wrong text. The important text for this question is "use either the normal skill ranks for an animal of this type or the master's skill ranks". The argument that they are a magical beast is a non-starter as that statement is limited to effects and skill points are not effects.

Except that the italicized text does not, in fact, unequivocably answer the question of how many skill points a familiar gets. It answers the related but different question of how many skill ranks a familiar gets. The first clause, "For each skill in which either the master or the familiar has ranks, ..." tells us nothing about exactly how many skills a familiar might have independent of its master, although the remainder of the sentence tells us that familiars are no better at those skills than a standard animal of its type (except in such cases as they can piggyback off the master's ranks in the same skill).

Mathwei covered most of it, but Scent is actually even better than Mathwei indicated.

It is true that Scent gives a +8 to Perception checks (within its range) that can be used to pinpoint the location of an invisible or Stealthed person (assuming they have any smell; ghosts and similar creatures arguably don't), but--and this is just amazingly good--it AUTODETECTS within its range for free. For FREE, no action required. To determine the direction of the source of the smell is a move action that AUTOMATICALLY succeeds (again, within its relatively limited range). It is only even necessary to roll a Perception check (at +8) if you are trying to pinpoint the location of the hidden source of the smell, and not even then if that source is within 5'.

Well, I'd allow it, with two caveats.

First, stat bonuses granted by Wishes count against WBL. It seems fair that feats granted by Wishes should do likewise. Not that this is a consideration for the PC and possibly not for the player, but it should be for the GM.

Second, it's not very flavorful or logical to just hand over a feat in exchange for a draw of a card. There are more story possibilies in making HOW the feat is granted important. For instance, perhaps after wishing for Eldritch Heritage, Improved Eldritch Heritage, and Expanded Arcana (x2) the sorcerer involved gains an vial of blood/ichor originally drawn from a the source of a legendary sorcerous bloodline. This vial acts in a fashion similar to an Ampoule of False Blood, except that instead of replacing the sorcerer's bloodline, it adds those two feats and knowledge of the relevant spells.

On the surface, this gives the PC nothing more or less than what he or she wanted, but it opens up story possibilities. Perhaps the PC now has interesting and fragmentary dreams of events long past that can be story hooks. Perhaps this particular legendary bloodline is long extinct because of a hereditary supernatural feud the PC has now inherited. You don't want to screw over the player or PC, but you don't want miracles to feel purely mechanistic either.

Depending on the way your cosmology is set up, who is to say the demodands (or demons, or devils, or whatever) HAVEN'T conquered the Material Plane...or at least some material plane(s) somewhere? I don't recall off the top of my head all the differences between Pathfinder and 3.5 cosmology, but IIRC there are still multiple material planes. Maybe even an infinite number of them.

If there are an infinite number, perhaps it simply isn't feasible to conquer every single one. Or, alternatively, perhaps it's just a matter of time before any specific reality is attacked, but eons might pass before that time comes. To slightly mangle a famous quote by John Maynard Keynes, "The long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run we are all doomed."

Lord Pendragon had an idea for a campaign based in a world of his own creation; a world 'tainted' by being previously saved by the shedding of innocent blood.

That is actually a really cool idea for a campaign! But it is not how each fantasy world works by default! He made that up! It is not something that applies as a general rule!

First, I totally agree with you on this. It IS a cool idea and it is NOT generally applicable.

Further, unlike our general real life viewpoint dominated by monotheism, our fantasy worlds are generally polytheistic. This affects our mind-set.

In a monotheistic mind-set, there is only one God and if you're not with Him then you must be against Him. He created the world and is in ultimate control of everything that happens, with the possible exception of Free Will. In this mind-set, it is possible to believe that if the entire world is threatened with destruction, and this threat is averteted by means which do not meet God's approval, the His world may be tainted by that.

But in a polytheistic mind-set, no single god is responsible for the entire world. No single god expects to have the entire world worship him. Most gods understand that all the gods have their fair share of worshippers, and their own ethos. In such a world, if it is 'saved' by means which some gods don't approve, the rest of the world won't be tainted at all! The more prissy gods might not like the way the world was saved, but I bet they're glad it was! Do you really thing that the prissy gods will collectively take their proverbial bats and balls home just because something happened that they didn't like?

Here, though, we're starting to run up again against the difference between morals and ethics discussed earlier. Divine Command Theory, which is a real thing and which holds that morals are immutable and knowable (rulebased, hence deontological) because they are laid out in the holy writ of the religion adhered to by the believer is very definitely not universally accepted, even by monotheists. It is even less commonly accepted by polytheists. The question usually posed as a challenge to Divine Command Theory is "Does the fact that XYZ commands it make it good, or is it good because XYZ perfectly understands the standard of what is good and evil? The first option is often seen as unsatisfactory, and the second means (or at least appears to mean) that Good and Evil/right and wrong are independent of the divine. This may seem like semantic trickery, but it has serious repercussions. For instance, if you have some people trying to divine the will of Heaven and make public policy regarding a relatively novel moral challenge (e.g., cloning) from ancient holy texts that don't (at least on the surface) seem to have much to say regarding it while at the same time others are attempting to work out what the right and wrong choices are using other standards, such as greater good (consequentialist), Kantian ethics (another deontological system), and/or virtue ethics (aretological), you will see lots of heated disagreement. Rather like this and every other paladin ethics thread.

The important thing to keep in mind, though, is that as written, paladins are not consequentialists. They have a code. Consequentialists don't go that way; they care about results (well, barring "rule" utilitarians, but they don't believe in their rules the way paladins do). Paladins also don't go the middle way of virtue ethics, in which actions are judged by intent (Disclaimer: I have deontological leanings, but this is my personal preferred option). Paladins are always followers of some variety of deontological code, whether it be imposed by one or more gods or devised by mortals.

And in any deontological system, immoral means are immoral completely regardless of the possible or certain results of using those means. You cannot even argue otherwise within such a system, but must go outside it to another type of ethics altogether.

No justification is necessary to say no. It is the GM's world, or in the case of published material it is the GM's interpretation of a world. Players can decide for themselves whether they think they can have fun within whatever the GM-set limits may be. If they can't, then either the limits are too restrictive or the players should be running a game themselves that allows them to create the kind of world and stories they envision.

In my game, I don't allow PCs from any races but human (including two variant fantasy human subraces, one arctic and one subterranean), dwarf, gnome, and half-elf. Other races do exist, but aren't suitable for gameplay, being more antagonist than protagonist characters. So yes, there are elves. They aren't friendly and in the current campaign are opposed to the interests of every other race. There are orcs too, but they are firmly antagonist, and only came into contact with humans within the last few years, so half-orcs will be a future campaign option but are not a present one. There are no halflings. I've never seen the need.

Nor do I stop there. I don't allow gunslingers. There are certain published equipment types that simply do not exist. I mean, I put all sorts of restrictions on the players' choices. Somehow, the six of them manage to have fun anyway.

It certainly is possible to be too restrictive. But if the game is going to rise above beer and pretzels level (and those are fun too), some limits are necessary and the GM is the person who gets to (has to) make the call as to what they are.

However, it's entirely reasonable for that situation to show up in a game world, at least in some sort of limited short term scenario. Or for some smaller-scale issue to come up where a minor transgression of the paladin (lying) will achieve some greater good (saving lives or even souls). So this is worth talking about. Yes, being honest is Doing The Right Thing, but so is saving lives or souls, so you can't just say "the paladin always wants to do the right thing." There's a conflict there sometimes. I appreciate that there's a bit of a slippery slope going on here, but if a paladin isn't allowed to prioritize at all between "minor evil" and "great good" then he/she isn't going to be viewed as a paragon of virtue, at least not to those who are harmed by the paladin's singleminded obsession with honour.

Honor is one thing. Law is another, closely related concept. Good is yet another thing. Of the three, Paladins should have the least leeway when it comes to Good. But that is not the case. No, they cannot deliberately commit an Evil act, but they can be neutral when they should be good at least some of the time.

However, a single breach in the code of honor and that's it. Fallen paladin. That's crazy. It is also, so far as I know, unprecedented. Earlier editions of the game had considerably more leeway. See here, Chapter 3, for the old 2nd Ed requirements. There's a whole chapter laying out what they can and cannot do, rather than a couple blanket statements that leave no wiggle room at all.

I haven't played a PF paladin yet, but I've GMed for one and really like what Paizo did with their powers. They shouldn't have paid so little attention to the thing that truly sets them apart, though.

Zog of Deadwood wrote:

and keep in mind that paladins know that there is an afterlife, so a world that is killed is not equivalent to the end of all those in it.

In pathfinder, the outer planes draw power from the material plane. Us going extinct would result in the good planes going extinct as well. However, thats unlikely. Demons don't want to wipe out humans(Daemons do though)

Most likely: Demons take over the world. They don't drive humans extinct. instead they set up human factories where new souls will be acquired. All souls(good, neutral and evil) are consumed by the demons to create new demons and empower the current ones. Eventually, the demons spread out to other planes. All life is driven extinct except for the chaotic evil.

Let's see if I've got this right:

***********

The GM tells me about a literally no win situation in which my paladin MUST fall or humanity goes extinct, the heavens are destroyed, the angels are eaten, and the gods are killed.

Me: Does my character have any in-game reason to doubt this is the certain outcome of not propitiating evil?

GM: No, none. Evil is too strong for Good, because Good kinda sucks, so that's what would happen, alright. Beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Me: Right then. See ya. Too bad about your campaign world, I guess.

***********

In a situation like that, the GM is just screwing over the player for playing a character with higher ideals than the GM has personally. "Wouldn't it be interesting and dramatic if the underlying premise of your character concept was completely trashed?"

Have you ever joined a group of players and wound up playing a character opposite your personality, and that's the first impression of you these potential new friends have?

Well, yeah, sorta. It wasn't a happy experience.

I joined an existing game back in the 2nd Ed days and created a LN Cleric of the god of War and Duty. I decided I'd play him a bit over the top, a fanatic. At one point on the day I joined, my superior in the priesthood called me in to give me an assignment and after he'd done so asked what I thought of it. In character and IRL, I was already standing at attention, but upon getting that question I stood to parade ground attention, banged my fist upon my breastplate, clicked my heels, and said,

"Sir! I have not yet been instructed to think about my orders, Sir!"

Unbeknownst to me, one of the players was Jewish with family who had died in the Holocaust. Further, although I'd been aiming for a vaguely Prussian officer sort of feel, I'd apparently RP'd all the way over into Nazi territory. Very soon afterward he dropped out of the game because he was so uncomfortable around me, but I didn't find out why until considerably afterward. I still feel bad about that.

The distinction between "ethics" and "morality" is difficult to make primarily because the first definition of "ethics" you're likely to find in a dictionary will be something like "a system of moral principles."

However, if you dig into the subject the primary difference between the two for most people is that "morality" is presumed to be something that supersedes human definition, while "ethics" is exactly that which is defined by humans.

Well, yes, but that is more than a little misleading. It is true that for most people morality is taken as a given while ethics are derived and defined. However, that actually means that any given system of morality is seen as subjective from those outside that morality, because it is received truth from an impeachable source (a society, the holy writ of a particular religion, parents, etc.). Meanwhile, ethics are also subjective (at the very least in defining a framework), but derive principles within that framework that are logically consistent and with hopefully clear arguments as to why some things are or are not proper types of action.

Morality is gut. Ethics is head. The head can most definitely let you down (false assumptions, shoddy reasoning, incomplete knowledge, and so on). It is a mistake to consider gut as more "real" or valid, however, because it is not identically inherent to all people. It is ingrained into people and will vary according to upbringing.

TL;DR: Morality is the rough map we all have that varies according to how and where we were raised. Ethics is the sextant and navigational tools we use to try to improve the map.

Edit: It is necessary to mention that ethics, the practice of creating and defining proper courses of action, is not identical to its end product, often also called ethics, which if widely popularized becomes morality.

Zog of Deadwood wrote:

Kill an infant to save the world? No. A paladin could not do that and remain a paladin. He or she would be putting the continued existence of the world before doing what is right. The continued existence of the world may be highly desirable, but it is not a moral good.

Besides, that slope is greased all the way down. What if killing one baby is not quite enough to do the job? What if it takes two? Only two and hundreds of millions are saved. That's still a relatively small sacrifice... Or maybe it takes ten. Or maybe that infant needs to be tortured to death.

This end justifies the means thing has been covered a million times, but as no one has yet mentioned it yet, I'll post a link to The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas. I don't have any doubt about how a paladin would feel about that situation either.

A true paladin could kill the child to save the world and selflessly sacrifice his paladinhood.

Unbelievably unimpressed with the hypothetical paladin's selfless sacrifice of class features + innocent child. The exact same logic that gets you that far will take you as far as you want to go. Ten babies, one hundred, one thousand, ten million. We're talking the whole world here! Heck, you could sacrifice most of the human race, to "save" it. In Watchmen, Adrian Veidt was a hero who succumbed to that logic and in so doing became a monster. It certainly wasn't "selfless" of him.

10+ years ago I ran a kinda fun side adventure for my players in which they had the opportunity to foil some enterprising merchants who were selling meat that was Stone to Fleshed from stone chipped off the petrified giant bodies of long dead and forgotten gods floating in the Astral. Not only was it delicious, but it acted as a long-lasting potion of heroism, so it sold for a lot. The PC party cleric was supremely unamused, despite the fact that no living beings were physically harmed by this in any way.

Great, next it will be: "So... what's the problem if we EAT them? All that meat's just going to waste..."

It may be that you are confusing morals with ethics.

Eating dead people is morally wrong in most human societies. Most have a code of morals that defines "right" and "wrong" and that defines cannibalism as wrong.

Ethics, however, is not concerned with right and wrong except as those terms relate to good and evil. Eating the flesh of dead people is not evil in and of itself, although murdering people for their flesh would be. There are many things that break the moral code of one society that another society would be wholly unconcerned with.

Needless to say, showing wanton disrespect for the feelings of intelligent living beings who have done you no harm, even if you do not share those feelings, is hardly the mark of a good person. And in general, unless you come from one of those exceedingly rare societies that doesn't disapprove of cannibalism and thus have a nonstandard system of personal morality, eating dead dragons would appear to indicate that you do not consider them truly to be people, that you consider people very unlike yourself to be lesser beings. So someone uttering the line you have postulated would usually be nongood, but for those reasons, not for seeing the practical side of what to do with a dead dragon. The act itself is neutral.

So if I want to kill something for the craftable body parts that is bad but if I want to kill something to get my +2 longsword that is adventuring.

Of course you are being facetious. Both would be "bad" reasons for killing intelligent beings.

OTOH, wearing an orcskin vest crafted of the flayed skins of the orcish marauders that killed half your village is only tasteless, assuming you killed them to stop them from committing more evil acts and not to get the niftiness that is soft, supple, orcskin.

Kill an infant to save the world? No. A paladin could not do that and remain a paladin. He or she would be putting the continued existence of the world before doing what is right. The continued existence of the world may be highly desirable, but it is not a moral good.

Besides, that slope is greased all the way down. What if killing one baby is not quite enough to do the job? What if it takes two? Only two and hundreds of millions are saved. That's still a relatively small sacrifice... Or maybe it takes ten. Or maybe that infant needs to be tortured to death.

This end justifies the means thing has been covered a million times, but as no one has yet mentioned it yet, I'll post a link to The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas. I don't have any doubt about how a paladin would feel about that situation either.

Interesting question. It would clearly make it impossible to enter the extradimensional spaces by sealing the outside of the magical exit for the duration of the Antimagic Field. It might make it impossible to leave the extradimensional space or see out of it. I think that would be a GM call.

It would not affect the interior of those spaces, though. See the language for Rope Trick, below (emphasis added):

When this spell is cast upon a piece of rope from 5 to 30 feet long, one end of the rope rises into the air until the whole rope hangs perpendicular to the ground, as if affixed at the upper end. The upper end is, in fact, fastened to an extra-dimensional space that is outside the usual multiverse of extra-dimensional spaces. Creatures in the extra-dimensional space are hidden, beyond the reach of spells (including divinations), unless those spells work across planes. The space holds as many as eight creatures (of any size). The rope cannot be removed or hidden. The rope can support up to 16,000 pounds. A weight greater than that can pull the rope free.

Spells cannot be cast across the extra-dimensional interface, nor can area effects cross it. Those in the extra-dimensional space can see out of it as if a 3-foot-by-5-foot window were centered on the rope. The window is invisible, and even creatures that can see the window can't see through it. Anything inside the extra-dimensional space drops out when the spell ends. The rope can be climbed by only one person at a time. The rope trick spell enables climbers to reach a normal place if they do not climb all the way to the extra-dimensional space.

Quote:

Energy Drain (Su) A succubus drains energy from a mortal she lures into an act of passion, such as a kiss. An unwilling victim must be grappled before the succubus can use this ability. The succubus's kiss bestows one negative level. The kiss also has the effect of a suggestion spell, asking the victim to accept another act of passion from the succubus. The victim must succeed on a DC 22 Will save to negate the suggestion. The DC is 22 for the Fortitude save to remove a negative level. These save DCs are Charisma-based.

The way I see it, there's two ways to interpret the bolded passage.

1.) The target must have the grappled condition. It doesn't say the succubuss has to have the grappled condition, so it appears the succubuss could Energy Drain any target with the grappled condition.
Furthermore, the ability is non-specific as to whether the succubuss has to be adjacent to the target, so it appears that the succubuss could drain any target to which she has line of effect.
Actually, the ability is non-specific as to whether the succubuss needs line of effect... problematic.

Since, as a general rule, I dislike interpretations that are vague and nonsensical, I'm gonna go ahead and discard this one.

2.) The target must be grappled by the succubuss. This interpretation makes more sense. Several posters have already written that they believe this interpretation is RAI, and since it is also a valid interpretation of RAW, I'm gonna go with this one.

So, in the OP's example, the PC was grappling (not grappled by) the succubuss, so the succubuss could not have used her Energy Drain.

Interpretation 1.) doesn't look that vague. The line of effect issue would not come into play, because even if you took advantage of the lack of a stated range, the succubus is not going to lure an unwilling grappled victim into an "act of passion, such as a kiss" from across the room. Conceivably, the succubus might be able induce desire from any distance at which the victim could perceive her, but that does not equate to an act on the victim's part or an act in which the victim is a part. It doesn't say that the act of passion the victim is "lured into" has to be initiated by the victim, but as the victim has to be a part of the act, I'd think bodily contact would almost always be required. I suppose in the case of an unwilling grappled victim with BDSM tendencies, a whip could be employed in some instances.

It talks about the grappled condition being required for unwilling victims. What about unwitting victims? Someone in a bawdy house might get a lapful of squirmy level-draining fun that never requires a kiss or a grapple. Afterwards, the weakness and light-headedness might be rationalized away as the result of, well, something else entirely.

It does not say that succubi must kiss to energy drain. It's fairly clear from a close reading of the power that the word "kiss" is standing in for a range of activities:

Energy Drain (Su) A succubus drains energy from a mortal she lures into an act of passion, such as a kiss. An unwilling victim must be grappled before the succubus can use this ability. The succubus's kiss bestows one negative level. The kiss also has the effect of a suggestion spell, asking the victim to accept another act of passion from the succubus. The victim must succeed on a DC 22 Will save to negate the suggestion. The DC is 22 for the Fortitude save to remove a negative level. These save DCs are Charisma-based.

ANY "act of passion" could presumably be used for this ability. Some take longer than a single standard action to complete (one would think or at least very much hope), but it looks likely that a succubus could drain energy from a victim in all sorts of ways. Some wouldn't even require a grapple check, if the victim was unwitting of the demon's true nature and thus was not unwilling. A simple caress could probably do the job, although in truth that would most often not come into play with PCs as it's doubtful you can caress someone in combat unless they are grappled.

Many roleplayers play adventurers and that's fine. Even if my opinion on the subject mattered (and it doesn't, much), I've got no problem with adventurers if that's what people like to play. It's certainly not without precedent in fantasy fiction. There are a small number of works featuring "adventurers" that spring to mind. Robert E. Howard's Conan books and Fritz Lieber's Lankhmar books featuring Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser are two examples. There are others.

However, most classic fantasy fiction does not have adventurers, defined as characters who set out to make their living by adventuring. Most classic fantasy is more akin to the LoTR, the Belgariad, anything by E.R. Burroughs, or the Elric of Melnibone books. They feature heroes and antiheroes who happen to have adventures in the course of pursuing their own interests. Even The Hobbit, in which Thorin and his companions are certainly portrayed as adventurers, shows that they are dwarves who have saved up through years of hard work for what they plan to be one single adventure.

After that we went away, and we have had to earn our livings as best we could up and down the lands, often enough sinking as low as blacksmith-work or even coalmining. But we have never forgotten our stolen treasure. And even now, when I will allow we have a good bit laid by and are not so badly off”-here Thorin stroked the gold chain round his neck-”we still mean to get it back, and to bring our curses home to Smaug-if we can.

And their plan in the end isn't to fight Smaug, but to send in a burglar to steal their wealth back, after which they meant to retire. Not many PCs ever retire or plan to retire after a single adventure, no matter how profitable or how much sense it might make for a profit-driven character.

Optimized or not, PCs should have motivations for what they do. For some few, it may only be wealth. These characters can be fun to play, but they aren't heroes and can become unrealistic murderhoboes if they do not have some expenses that rapidly deplete their wealth once gained. In at least some games many more PCs will be motivated by events in the game world that closely involve their characters, events that entangle them in adventures whether they wish for an exciting life or not. That last clause is vital, of course. Will they be heroes like Gandalf, Aragorn, and Boromir, who have deliberately devoted their lives to fighting an evil that overshadows their world with no regard for reward (and who probably have not a clue how to weave baskets)? Or will they be characters such as Samwise Gamgee, a real but accidental hero who knows far more about how to cook and garden than how to swing a sword? In some ways it doesn't matter. The first backstory lends itself well to a high degree of optimization and the second does not, but either backstory can define a true hero, one well worth being played.