cannen144's page

Had a player who joined at the start of the second book of an Iron Gods campaign I was running. Tried to make a character that was way outside the creation rules I had given, which he tried to hide by not giving me a copy of his character sheet until the day of the first session he was in, and then when I called him on it, he tried to argue that it was all within the boundaries given. It wasn't. The character would have had to have had something like a 50 point buy when I had everyone use 20, and started with something like 25000 gp worth of gear, when he should have had closer to 6000, which was what everyone else had, plus he had made it chaotic evil with no backstory provided, despite me telling everyone that I wanted no evil characters without a decent backstory reason for it. When I told him that he had to fix it or I would give him a premade character I had until he could fix it, he spent a good 45 minutes arguing that I should let him play with his horrendously broken character because...well, he never actually gave a good reason. Eventually everyone else got him to play the premade, which he then tried to say had abilities that it didn't have during play. He also entered the game by stealing something from the party and then arguing that they should let him come with them because he had stolen that item. He also argued with every single ruling I made and made numerous sexual comments about two of the female players even after they told him to stop, and I told him to stop or he would be forced to leave. We ended up escorting him from the table and told him he was not allowed to play at our table again. And he still emailed me multiple times asking when the next session was.

Quandary wrote:

This thread is still going? OK, how about this: Alignment should be metric. Discuss.

The fundamental unit of evil is the Jerk, J. 0 J is pure good without the least hint of evil. Neutral characters tend to be in the 33-66 megajerk (MJ) range. Anything over a 66 MJ is full on evil. There is no upper limit, most demon lords are somewhere in the gigajerk range.

The fundamental unit of chaos is of course the Chao, C (pronounced cow). Similarly anything under 33 megachaos (MC) is in the lawful band while the neutral goes up to 66 MC. Chaos is of course also limitless. Anything over a gigachao is pretty much incomprehensible to a human mind.

So now evil acts can be described in their Jerk value. A routine bad act might be worth something like 10 kilojerks, a worse one might be in the megajerks, while truly heinous acts can be hundreds of megajerks or even into gigajerk territory depending on severity.

Batman is undefinable in these scales, and instead will simply punch you in the face for suggesting such a thing. But he does totally make use of the Bat-Alinometer to determine the alignment of criminals. The Joker makes both needles go crazy.

See, I would place Neutral at 0 on both axes, such that good becomes negative Jerks, and evil positive Jerks, while lawful would be negative Chaos and choatic positive Chaos, thereby allowing for both ends of the spectrum to be limitless.

Speaking of which, why did the U.S. fail to introduce metric properly? I've heard rumors about bin Laden's attack on New York invoking fervent patriotism nationwide having to do with its last straw, but surely that alone can't be the whole story...

You need to take in account that there are roughly 4.12 million miles of road (roughly 6.63 million kilometers), and if there is a speed limit sign roughly every mile, plus mile markers on highways (roughly 164000 miles, or 264000 kilometers), that's a lot of signs that have to be removed and replaced. On top of that, there are roughly 263.6 million cars in the US, a decent fraction of which have speedometers that don't read in kilometers-per-hour, which would mean a not insignificant amount of required work that would need to be performed on those vehicles, either at the expense of the owners, who may or may not be able to afford the cost, the government, which would be contentious, or either manufacturers or insurance companies, who may not (read: will not) be happy about being forced to pay for it. Ultimately, it would be a minor logistic nightmare to try and force a switch-over, even if it was phased over a period of time. And that's not even taking into account the states that would sue to prevent such a change from ever taking effect.

I was once asked to come up with a name for a dragon by one of my players. Being that I was unprepared for this as the dragon was more of a setting piece, I ended up coming up with "Spicy Steve".

So not Spicy Steve.

I had a lot of fun playing my Unchained Monk, and a Paladins.

I believe what you're looking for is the Inner Sea World Guide

]because generally they lead to debates, debating is political, there for they are political, as are most things.

That's just patently untrue though. Debating is simply arguing opposing sides of an issue in a public forum. For example, court cases are debates. Hell, if one were to go to any number of fansites, you could find all sorts of debates over any number of issues, from Kirk v. Picard, to whether or not Pokemon battling is cruel and abusive. So to say that an alignment debate is political because it's a debate is patently false.

I greatly enjoy playing Paladins, Rangers, Fighters, most martials really.

And I'm loving my Unchained Monk I have going right now, especially since he gave me an excuse to call a character The Screaming Dragon.

If one really wanted to justify it, they could always argue that a monk's abilities require a certain level of inner peace and focus that a non-lawful person can't quite attain, while a barbarian's rage requires a certain level of inner turmoil that a lawful person can't obtain.

but wouldn't 'dah-mon' be spelled "Damon"?

Nobody tell Matt...

All opinions are not worthy of respect, right to an opinion is but not the opinion itself. Racism is an opinion for example that I would reckon vast majority of people would not find worthy of respecting.

And tradition for traditions sake doesn't rank any higher on that scale. If the tradition can't stand on the merit of it's own value it should be discarded as needless. And DnD has a whole lot of those holy cows that need to be taken to the slaughterhouse.

Okay, I'm sorry, but did you just put people wanting Paladins to stay Lawful Good on the same level as Racism? Because that's, to make an understatement, a bit of an reach, not to mention rather offensive. If were talking about, say, excluding certain races or genders from having ability scores above a certain point, then maybe it'd be a fairer comparison. But people wanting a certain class to keep what the identity that they attach to it? That's too far.

If I remember correctly, there were alternate versions of the Paladin for each of the corner alignments in the 3rd edition unearthed arcana. You could always have your players use the Chaotic Good one (I want to say it was called the Paladin of Freedom, or something like that), if you're GMing, or ask you GM about using it if you're playing.

I'd have to go with Ragathiel, Damerrich, and Arqueros.

Corathonv2 wrote:

Dave Justus wrote:

I aim to misbehave - Captain Malcolm Reynolds.

Pretty much perfect chaotic neutral philosophy.

A chaotic neutral character wouldn't have returned the stolen medicine in "The Train Job". It would've been something like "Its terrible the way those folks are suffering, but its in my interest to get paid and to not cross Niska."

Yeah, I think Reynolds is CG masquerading as CN. Jayne, on the other hand, is pretty solidly CN, occasionally borderline CE. He's got a conscience that pops up now and again, but mostly is just out for himself.

During the show, sure. But during the movie, from which said quote comes, he's a much angrier and more cynical man. Take for example his actions during the escape from the Reavers at the beginning of the film: He shoots the man begging for help instead of taking him with them. Ultimately, I would argue for much of Serenity, he is pretty firmly in Chaotic Neutral Territory, and only once they visit Miranda does he drift back to Chaotic Good.

So I looked through a bunch of different images of Half-Orcs, and...many of them do not show the eyes clearly. The best I could find was this and this.

Based on these samples, I would probably guess that the typical eye colors are probably browns, greys, and/or yellows irides, with duller sclerae.

If you want to look at some more images, I used this gallery to find the above samples.

Hope this helps.

I can't look up today, but isn't there a chart in Gamemastery Guide or Ultimate Campaign/Equipment that indicates what has metal or cloth etc?

Yeah, in Chapter 5 of the Gamemastery Guide, table 5-5: Random Shields, the special materials listed for Shield, tower is Wood.

I would have to say Torag and Erastil from the Core 20, with Sarenrae and Shelyn coming in right behind them, and Ragathiel of the non-core.

If the Flurry of Blows make your whole attack in my turn become a kind of Flurry of Blow，it could be.

However,if only the additional attack which come from Flurry of Blow is Flurry of Blow ,it could not be.
I do not know which one is right.

So basically what you're asking is if you can designate the first attack in a Flurry of Blows, made at your full BAB, as your style strike?

Yeah, as long as it's an unarmed strike, there does not appear to be anything in the rules that says it can't be your first attack.

Well as i understand it, as a witch, he gets spells instantly, as long as he has a spell slot to use it, boom he can use it if its in that slot prepped.

Not exactly. So what I think the confusion here is is because of the phrasing of "bonus spells". So technically, yes, you and your friend with the witch do have bonus spell slots of levels 2-4, but because your characters aren't at the appropriate level for those spell slots, they are locked. The easiest way to look at this would be to take the chart for your character class, and look at the spells per day section. If there's a number in a column for your character level (so for example, at level 1, there are numbers in the 0th & 1st level spells columns), you can cast spells of that level. If there is a dash (not a 0, but a dash), then that spell level is locked to you until such a level as there is a number in that column. So for example, as a sorcerer, you can start casting 2nd level spells at 4th level, and add your bonus 2nd level spells-per-day from your charisma at that point, while your witch friend can start doing so at 3rd level.

What this means for the Favor Class Bonus is that your highest level is determined by that same chart of spells-per-day under your class features not your bonus spells from your charisma modifier. Therefore, until you reach level 4 and can start casting 2nd level spells, you can only use that Favored Class Bonus to learn additional 0th level spells.

I hope this helps clear up any confusion.

There's always the Pathfinder society pre-generated characters. They aren't built specifically for the beginner box, but I believe they should work. There's one for every class.

They can be found at this link.

I would also recommend the pathfinder wiki. While it isn't perfect (but really, what wiki is?), it's pretty good, and has more concise info on all the same stuff as the Inner Sea World Guide. I would also recommend taking it in pieces, focusing on those parts that are important to your character first, and going from there.

How do you screw up a Ratfolk Alchemist? Every rule and every bit of lore bends over backwards to make it functional from level 1.

And in Iron Gods as well. An AP deliberately designed for nerd tinkerer PCs to shine.

Tsk.

I'm honestly not sure. and I'm a bit baffled as to why he had such a mediocre intelligence, given he had no qualms about breaking every other character creation rule I gave him, especially when it came to wealth. He didn't even give himself a headband...

In the Iron Gods game I ran, there was a player who joined halfway through book 2 for one session and played a Ratfolk alchemist and had a 13 in intelligence, and a 5 strength, but insisted on carrying a greatsword for some reason and charged into every fight. He even had the gall to chastise the Wizard for having magic missile prepared because it was "sub-optimal". There was a reason he wasn't invited back after that session...

Technically I believe that only extends to "rightful monarchs", so depending on whether or not Razmir qualifies as a rightful monarch, he may be a valid target.

Can anyone think of any other spells or magic items (not horrifically expensive) that will help with touch AC?

Depending on how you qualify horrifically expensive, you could get a ring of protection, which gives deflection bonuses to AC, which count towards touch AC.

To my knowledge, you cannot take VMC sorcerer if you are already a sorcerer, as you can't multiclass in a class you already have or an alternate class thereof (again, to my knowledge). With Eldritch Heritage, you would just get the first level Bloodline power, but there should be no other conflict. Though you can only use that power as if your sorcerer level is 2 lower than it actually is.

Hey all,

I'm looking at creating a (likely) Aasimar battle cleric of Ragathiel for a CotCT game I'm going to be in, and was looking for some advice from you all on how to make an effective front-ish liner out of such a character. The only real thing to be aware of for this is that I have two traits, one of which must be a campaign trait for CotCT, and that stats are generated with a 25 point buy. Other than that, I am looking at using a bastard sword, potentially with some form of shield.

From my brief investigations into such matters, it looks like the Crusader archetype could be useful, and that for domains, the Destruction Domain, with the Rage sub-domain would be a good fit.

Any input or advice on this matter is greatly appreciated.

Thanks in advance!

I believe in canon most of the Pactmasters are that four armed race that can catch magic missiles. They're in one of the Bestiaries but I can't remember their name >_<

Witchwyrds

Presumably, you could also smash a gemstone to create the dust, but since diamond is one of the hardest materials known to man, that would seem problematical to me, on the surface of things.

Actually, surprisingly enough, diamonds are relatively easy to shatter:

Unlike hardness, which denotes only resistance to scratching, diamond's toughness or tenacity is only fair to good. Toughness relates to the ability to resist breakage from falls or impacts. Because of diamond's perfect and easy cleavage, it is vulnerable to breakage. A diamond will shatter if hit with an ordinary hammer. The toughness of natural diamond has been measured as 2.0 MPa m1/2, which is good compared to other gemstones, but poor compared to most engineering materials. As with any material, the macroscopic geometry of a diamond contributes to its resistance to breakage. Diamond has a cleavage plane and is therefore more fragile in some orientations than others. Diamond cutters use this attribute to cleave some stones, prior to faceting.

reference link (scroll down to toughness)

Edit: ninja'd

96. Too many ducks

It can't be both ways. It's still an initiative check. It's just now charisma-based. It's not a charisma check.

actually, strictly speaking, since Initiative is a dexterity check, it should be modify to a charisma check:

An initiative check is a Dexterity check.

for reference

As to why this is? The guy who created the AD&D Paladin, Gary Gygax, decreed it so. This was carried into D&D 3.x and, since Pathfinder is built from 3.5, it is so here.

While I can't argue that, ultimately, this is because Gygax decided that's how he wanted to Paladins to work in D&D, I would argue that there is some precedent for this, given the historical origins of the Paladin, namely in the Knights of the Round and the Twelve Peers of Charlemagne (from which the word Paladin comes (well, kind of, there's Latin origins, but that's a different topic)). I mean, those knights were upheld as the most pious, righteous, and just warriors of their times and kingdoms, occasionally to the point of being empowered by it. I mean, Roland managed to split a mountain in half, fought off (sort of) an army with a very small number of allies, and blew a horn so hard his head exploded, while the Knights of the Round Table could also do some pretty remarkable feats, including the laying on of hands, if I remember correctly. Furthermore, these knights were extremely loyal to their respective kings (for the most part) and their God, and at the time, the laws of king and god were The Law.

Basically, my point is that, while Gygax made the ultimate decision on how Paladins work, it wasn't without some serious inspiration.

Kileanna wrote:

Rysky wrote:

... do we need to just make a "Is alcohol Evil?" thread?

And most important of all: must alcohol make the paladin fall?

Only if he's had enough

What if he can still say the entire alphabet backwards?

Looks like I was wrong about Torag. This is what Mr. Jacobs had to say on the subject:

I think that fits with the dwarven hatred ability quite well. I think that orcs, as presented in Pathfinder, are intended to be a bad guy race and have been for over 10,000 years. If they suddenly have a shift and become less about trying to murder all the time, it'd be a shock but at that point I suspect Torag would shift his position from "kill them all" to "negotiate peace but keep wary." But at the current time, that's not an option, and he's about protection and protecting his worshipers, and if that means wiping out the tide of evil orcs that have been trying for thousands of years to destroy those people, so be it.

Now of course this stance does cause some of the other good gods, particularly neutral and chaotic good gods, discomfort, and they do use the words genocide to talk about it, but I doubt Torag would. From his stance and the stance of the dwarven people, not killing out orcs will eventually result in their own race's genocide, so there's not really a choice.

It's certainly a complex issue, and it's one that gives a lawful good deity an interesting gray area to play with in a way that does NOT undermine the whole core concept of that deity. That's a tricky thing to pull off, and we've failed at it before, but I think we got it right with Torag.

cannen144 wrote:

Yeah, that's an extrapolation.

Well, Erastil hating women and Ragathiel encouraging the execution of litters and I won't even get started about Cayden. But that didn't stop those from becoming apparently becoming default assumptions about the gods.

And I disagree with those interpretations as well. I mean, the issue with Erastil being sexist/misogynist has been stated as being incorrect repeatedly, that interpretation of Ragathiel is in the same vein as the interpretation of Torag that I've addressed already, and in regards to Cayden Cailean, I'd need you to be more specific on what exactly you're referring to.

Again, I understand how people have come to these conclusions about these deities. I disagree with those conclusions, very vehemently in regards to some of them, but I understand where they come from.

What are your thoughts/feelings/opinions/etc on the idea that Torag endorses/supports/encourages/approves of the genocide/eradication of Orcs and other races who are typically considered enemies of the Dwarves?

cannen144 wrote:

Furthermore, where is the fact that Torag approves of genocide of orcs et al. coming from? is it actually written down somewhere, or is it an extrapolation? Because I find it hard to believe that Paizo would actually put that down as something a Good deity would encourage or endorse, especially given their track record.

Paladin code of Torag

Against my people’s enemies, I will show no mercy. I will not allow their surrender, except when strategy warrants. I will defeat them, yet even in the direst struggle, I will act in a way that brings honor to Torag.

I know that genocide is.. well. About the worst thing you can do in our world. But try to imagine a D&D world where someone's species actually DOES make them almost irredeemably evil. The orc tribe that surrenders now is just going to wind up raiding you or someone else and then good people are going to wind up dead.

Yeah, that's an extrapolation. Again, I can understand coming to that conclusion, but I disagree with it. There is a difference between not showing mercy, and outright slaughter and genocide. Furthermore, it only says "the enemies of my people". That could mean the tribe of maruading orcs that are burning down villages and destroying crops. Or it could mean the humans who have enslaved kinsfolk. But it doesn't necessarily mean EVERY orc/giant/human/whatever to exist, and I'd be willing to bet that Paizo would agree on that point.

That's what I figured. Though I can understand, to a degree, where that conclusion would have come from, as much as I disagree with it.

Furthermore, where is the fact that Torag approves of genocide of orcs et al. coming from? is it actually written down somewhere, or is it an extrapolation? Because I find it hard to believe that Paizo would actually put that down as something a Good deity would encourage or endorse, especially given their track record.

Yeah, I have to agree with Captain Yesterday and Rysky. As it is, people still see Erastil as "the sexist god", despite that having been stated by the development team (I want to say James Jacobs, specifically) as being an error and not something they want to associate with a Good deity. I'm all for having deities being flawed and having shortcomings, but to given a good deity such a flaw is really just not productive.

Check out the Aura line near the top, right before Defense.

Aura chainstorm (15 ft., DC 25)

Thanks. I must have starred at that stat block for a good 20 minutes.

So I was reading through my copy of Inner Sea Gods last night, looking at the different heralds of the various deity, and I noticed something off about the stat block for The Prince in Chains. The stat block lists the following ability:

Chainstorm

Chains and flesh tendrils constantly lash at anything that approaches the herald. A creature that enters the area or begins its turn within it takes 1d12 points of bludgeoning and slashing damage. The chains entangle any creature so long as it’s in the area (Reflex DC 25 negates). The save DC is Constitution-based.

But I'm having trouble figuring out what area to use for this ability.

Thanks for your help

(Link to The Prince in Chains Stat Block)

Is it too subtle.

Yes

Iomedae, because I played with a guy who kept going on about how perfect she was.

Urgathoa & Lamashtu, because I'm just not big on the body horror.

Irori, because he seems kind of like the "monk god" and not a whole lot else.

Human
Half-Orc
Oread

Honorable Mentions to Hobgoblins and Aasimar

Monk of the four winds might work.

Torag, Erastil, and Apsu - because they mesh well with my favorite character archetypes

Achaekek - because I love the red mantis assassins

cannen144 wrote:

Once had a player argue with me, while I was GMing, that Wizards had to be lawful and could fall just like a Paladin and lose their abilities if they committed a chaotic act...I'm still not sure where that came from.

well thats one way to fix caster martial discrepancy

That was a whole different can of worms with him....

Ya don't say? :3

I, too, was shocked.

My condolences.

I felt more for the chaotic good wizard at the table who had to deal with some of it as well. Fortunately, the argumentative player didn't last at our table very long. Let's just say there was trouble meshing with the rest of the group.