cdogg's page

I am unsure about this. I know in 3.5 D&D when your INT increases at higher levels (either due to adding stat points or by using manuals) you only gain extra skill points/level from that point on. (i.e. if you get the increase at level 8, for example, you only start to get the additional skill points for all subsequent levels, not retroactive levels).
I am sure that I read somewhere that in Pathfinder you get all of the retroactive skill points (so if your INT modifier goes up by 1 point at level 8, then you get 8 skill points to distribute).
I have not been able to find where I read this. It is possible that I read it in a forum and not actually in the rulebooks. Can someone let me know how the rules officially work in pathfinder. If they work the way I think they do, can you link where I can find this info?
Thanks

A new shield was introduced in the Ultimate Equipment Guide and I was hoping to get some opinions on how it operates. Here is the description.

This light steel shield is specially crafted with a series of straps to allow a character proficient in shields to ready or stow it on her back quickly and easily. If you have a base attack bonus of +1 or higher, you may don or put away a quickdraw shield as a swift action combined with a regular move. If you have the Two-Weapon Fighting feat, you can draw a light or one- handed weapon with one hand and a quickdraw shield with the other in the time it would normally take you to draw one weapon. If you have the Quick Draw feat, you may don or put away a quickdraw shield as a free action.

Based on my understanding of this, if a character has the quickdraw feat they can don or put away this shield as a free action (as opposed to a swift action). This means that you can put away and don this shield in the same round.

So, for example, can a character start a round holding this shield and a one handed-weapon, quickdraw put away the shield, quickdraw draw a weapon, full attack with two weapons, quickdraw put away the weapon and quickdraw don the shield so that for the rest of the round they have the shield bonus?

I seem to understand that I passed the round again, even though I still had not the chance to watch the video of the rematch. Good.

Well, since I passed I think this does not bear much weight, but I just wanted to say that, sure, there are a few mistakes and that some results may have been different (it was nice though that Sean redid my and cdogg's match), but in general Sean is entertaining us for free. It's a pity for those that spent time making a good characters, but in the end this is a free service and I think we should keep this in mind and appreciate Sean's effort. Since no prize is involved, I think we should simply enjoy the show.

As a side, I don't think that all the character should be played as best as we could. E.g. mine has INT 8: I put in a lot of tactics but if Sean will decide to go for something more stupid it would be ok for me, since Giorgio is as smart as my right shoe.

cdogg, it has been a pleasure to fight with you, I hope no hard feeling is left for the way it went.

No no. Of course no hard feelings

I just want to make it clear that i dont have any resentment toward sean. He seems like a genuinely nice guy who created a cool concept for a tournament-style match up and he made the matches exciting with his solid commentary. I was just disappointed because I felt I made a solid, well-rounded character who would be a solid competitor based on the guide-lines that sean set. But then the rules werent quite respected so I got the short end of the stick. I am sure many ppl feel the same way...

The confusion in the rules is quite unfortunate as is the misuse of character actions. It seems like Sean is fairly busy and is rushing through the fights without properly looking over their abilities.

In the 'rematch' my character Theodore saved against Georgio's command spell, and then he cast the command spell (but Theodore doesn't have that spell, he has cause fear).

After this my character took a punch and five-foot stepped back to cast a spell (reasonable decision). But the spell he cast was glitterdust. Theodore could have used blindness/deafness as a 2nd level spell instead (a necromancy spell) which, since theodore has greater spell focus necromancy, would have been a wiser choice. Especially considering that Georgio clearly had a good Will save but his Fort save hadnt been tested.

This is understandable tho. Maybe theodore was not convinced that georgio had a good will save. Theodore then took some more punches (high rolls: :s).

Next theodore moved out (even though he is an amazing tumbler due to his versatile performance), didnt take an attack of opportunity somehow and then cast glitterdust (at this point there would be no doubt in theodores mind that blindness/deafness would be a better option) defensively [even though he was 30 ft away from Georgio (note: Theodore is a halfling with 20ft movement and should have only been 20ft away)] using a spellcraft check instead of a concentration check. So he failed to cast at got punched to death.

I literally watched the rematch with my jaw dropped watching the degree of character/rule misusage...

And this is aside from the first match in which theodore cast cause fear when Sean did not include my greater spell focus into the DC (Georgio still would have succeeded but still...)

And just to make it clear, my character's abilities are well layed out on my sheet. I wrote each spell underneath its spell level with appropriate DC, and made a note right underneath that there is a +2 to the DC of necromancy spells.

DoctorYesNinja wrote:

Crysknife and Cdogg, you guys are getting a rematch! Very cool. Good luck to you both, this should be fun.

gigidy

Good luck fabio

Crysknife and Cdogg, you guys are getting a rematch! Very cool. Good luck to you both, this should be fun.

gigidy

Hi cdogg, I was surprised by this fight, I never mentioned using command this way (I hadn't thought about an arena built this way): the idea was mainly to use the fall command. This one worked better.

The DC was 16, I heavily invested in WIS mainly for stunning fist. What was your save?
Now that combat is over, what kind of character was Theodore?

Kybryn wrote:

wargamer wrote:

Kybryn wrote:

Another one bites the dust, fleeing through the illusionary, non-existent arena walls. Could it be that this whole thing is an illusion? If the wall is an illusion, what is the Emporer sitting on? Is he actually flying? Or is he an illusion too? The plot keeps thickening.

No but seriously, fear should just cause you to keep running around the arena until it wares off.

The latest one didn't lose to Cause Fear, he lost to Command. The command could have been 'Surrender' or 'Yield'

Not true, look up command options.

Flee, I guess.

Thats unfortunate. I guess sean made a mistake because theodore should have made his save. He is a halfling with 1lvl fighter 4 lvls bard. I gave him point blank shot and rapid shot as well as spell focus and greater spell focus (necromancy). So my tactic was to use blindness/deafness set at a high DC (CHA score = 20) or cause fear at high DC. With your massive Will save (+14! good job, not sure how u manage such a good save!) u saved against cause fear.

My characters Will save was +7, but due to his bardic ability well-versed he has a +4 vs language dependent spells (command is a language dependent spell). Therefore he should have had a +11 on his save. Sean rolled a 6 so I should have gotten a 17 on my save which would have been a success. I guess he didnt count in my well-versed ability... so my character ran out of the arena and lost. I don't mind losing, but it sux to be declared the loser when my character actually didnt lose...

U have been humble but your character build is actually quite solid. Im rooting for u in this competition! :)

cdogg wrote:

cdogg wrote:

Crysknife wrote:

Got a C, I'm Fabio, the PC is Giorgio, and I don't remember who I'm up against, but if I remember correctly he was a B-.

Well, I thought there would be plenty of wizards, I guess it will be easy for a melee fighter to kill my character.

Im pretty sure your up against my character, theodore

What kind of character do u have? (im just curious, not as if i can make modifications...)

Hi, I've a monk4/cleric1, built mostly for having a great will save: as I said, I expected lot of will-targeting wizards, so I built to screw them.

Main idea is focus on stunning fist (wis 20) combined with 3 attacks with FoB and ki. Against fighters, the idea is to skirmish making use of my high speed, arc of lightning and obscuring mist/blind fight/high perception/healing spells. Deflect arrows for archers. Unfortunately I didn't take into account consumables (I thought they were banned, my bad).
So, I think I've decent chances against wizards, not so against fighters due to low to hit and not stellar AC.

Please, since I don't have easy access to youtube, may I ask you to alert me when the results are out and about the outcome of the fight?
Thank you and good luck!

Hey fabio. During the fight my character won initiative but u resisted his cause fear spell. then u cast command on me and I failed my save and lost the bout. Although this may be an error. What is the DC you set for your command spell?

Well, paladins and monks were there because we all thought that all the others would make wizards... It's a real treat for fighters.

Kybryn wrote:

Great, the next fight is "Fabio VS Georgio"... I'm not sure I want to know the outcome. 'nuff said.

Why?

And actually, I'm Fabio, Giorgio is the name of the character (italian for George, like the christian dragonslayer).
I'm pretty sure I would loose against him with my one level of commoner, so I'm not so curious about the outcome too...

Georgio's up against my character, Theodore bagwell ;)

Also, did any of you understand that whole spellcraft check to be able to cast rule that occurred during rodrick and the unnamed hero's match? I nvr heard of anything about that...

So there were only 2 fights tonight? dam... im pretty sure mine was next :S

Crysknife wrote:

Got a C, I'm Fabio, the PC is Giorgio, and I don't remember who I'm up against, but if I remember correctly he was a B-.

Well, I thought there would be plenty of wizards, I guess it will be easy for a melee fighter to kill my character.

Im pretty sure your up against my character, theodore

What kind of character do u have? (im just curious, not as if i can make modifications...)

Got a C, I'm Fabio, the PC is Giorgio, and I don't remember who I'm up against, but if I remember correctly he was a B-.

Well, I thought there would be plenty of wizards, I guess it will be easy for a melee fighter to kill my character.

Im pretty sure your up against my character, theodore

For the battle descriptions. Will you provide round by round analysis for each fight so that we know how things went down? Itd be sweet if u did ;)

Shields are very useful. They provide a SHIELD bonus which stacks with your other AC bonuses. Plus you can enchant them. It depends on the type of character you want to make. If you want to deal out a lot of damage, generally the two-handed wpn for STRx1.5 w/ power attack and such is sweet.

I have made a shield and dwarven waraxe wielding fighter before who did very well. Great AC and really good damage. Also, shield are invaluable for bards. One hand free for spellcasting, one hand using shield and off you go. Clerics too.

You influence the actions of the target creature by suggesting a course of activity (limited to a sentence or two). The suggestion must be worded in such a manner as to make the activity sound reasonable. Asking the creature to do some obviously harmful act automatically negates the effect of the spell.
The suggested course of activity can continue for the entire duration. If the suggested activity can be completed in a shorter time, the spell ends when the subject finishes what it was asked to do. You can instead specify conditions that will trigger a special activity during the duration. If the condition is not met before the spell duration expires, the activity is not performed.
A very reasonable suggestion causes the save to be made with a penalty (such as –1 or –2).

There has been a lot of debate regarding how to regulate the suggestion spell. I have heard arguments that make this spell almost completely useless!

One example is that if you say "its quite hot out here. You should jump into that lake to cool off". This would be deemed an obviously harmful act to a fully armored individual who would thus ignore it. Another example "Lets settle this like men and not cast spells for this combat" would also be deemed an obviously harmful act because a spellcaster would certainly lose in this type of fight. There are many other examples where the implication of the suggestion would probably be harmful to the target individual and people would argue that the suggestion should be ignored.

I disagree with these people. The description of the suggestion spell is quite clear. "The suggestion must be worded in such a manner as to make the activity sound reasonable. Asking the creature to do some obviously harmful act automatically negates the effect of the spell". Therefore, the issue should be wording not the more complicated implications that the suggestion entails. Suggestion is a mind-effecting compulsion spell, not a statement that the target can analyze and decide whether or not he/she should follow.

If I say "you should kill your allies", this should be ignored because killing your allies is obviously a harmful act. But if I say "These people you came here with are savages and are trying to kill us because they are bloodthirsty! You should help us defeat them and we will spare your life", this would be a valid suggestion. At this point, if the target fails his/her save, he/she would follow the suggestion until it is completed or until the duration ends. If while trying to complete the suggestion the target encounters resistance (e.g. while trying to dig a hole to bury his allies the target is attacked) the target must do whatever he can within his power to finish the suggestion (it would be reasonable that this person defend the hole he is trying to dig by fighting off the enemy).

Understandably, the description of this spell in pathfinder makes the interpretation a bit abstract. 3.5 did a much better job with the description.... so here it is

You influence the actions of the target creature by suggesting a course of activity (limited to a sentence or two). The suggestion must be worded in such a manner as to make the activity sound reasonable. Asking the creature to stab itself, throw itself onto a spear, immolate itself, or do some other obviously harmful act automatically negates the effect of the spell. However, a suggestion that a pool of acid is actually pure water and that a quick dip would be refreshing is another matter. Urging a red dragon to stop attacking your party so that the dragon and party could jointly loot a rich treasure elsewhere is a likewise reasonable use of the spell’s power.
The suggested course of activity can continue for the entire duration, such as in the case of the red dragon mentioned above. If the suggested activity can be completed in a shorter time, the spell ends when the subject finishes what it was asked to do. You can instead specify conditions that will trigger a special activity during the duration. For example, you might suggest that a noble knight give her warhorse to the first beggar she meets. If the condition is not met before the spell duration expires, the activity is not performed.
A very reasonable suggestion causes the save to be made with a penalty (such as –1 or –2) at the discretion of the DM.

This is a much clearer description which shows that suggestion is a compulsion with a consequence dependent on the wording.

If this isn't argument enough, I have listed a few other reasons as to why DMs should not be so stingy in regards to the suggestion spell:

1) it is a 3rd level spell (here is a list of some 3rd level and lower enchantments which are quite bad ass: confusion, cacophonous call, hideous laughter, touch of idiocy)

2) it is language-dependent. Right there, if you do not speak every language there are many creatures who are automatically immune to this spell. Also, many creatures cannot understand language due to low intelligence, thus making them immune

3) Since it is language-dependent, it can be countered by the bardic performance 'countersong'

4) since it is mind-effecting, many creatures are immune to it. It can be undone with a break enchantment and mind blank makes a person immune for 24 hours (i.e. since so many are immune to these spells, they should be more bad ass in general)

4) dominate person is a 5th level spell which allows you to completely own a person for 1 DAY/level (note: dominate person is also a mind effecting compulsion spell... just saying) while suggestion allows you to dominate someone for one activity and lasts less long (3rd level vs 5th level difference in power. Seems legit)

For these reasons I feel like DMs shouldn't be so stringent on this spell. I would like to get feedback from people to hear your opinions, but please read my full argument and give it some thought before you start to criticize.

There we go. I've submitted. sweet :)

Ill be sending my character soon ;)

You can make a bad ass bard if you do it right. May I refer u to http://paizo.com/forums/dmtz5loz?Character-build-concepts-Give-us-your

But poisons do depend on the size of the creature. You provided a very specific example of a poison which would kill pretty much anything that comes into contact with it because it is so potent. This poison would be able to kill 1000 people but only, say, 2 dragons. Shouldn't the human have a 500x harder FORT save to make since his body is trying to deal with such a proportionately higher amount of poison? Right there size of the animal plays a role. You also mentioned a poison that is fatal to children but not to adults... therefore size plays a role.

We ignore this fact when we use a FORT save to determine if something is affected by the poison and we do not modify this FORT save with a size modifier. We do this because FORT save is the measure of a creatures fortitude. But we modify alcohol consumption with a size modifier?

Another example is in regards to the example maouse gave above. Shouldn't a smaller creature get a size bonus to his reflex save because he is small. The obvious answer is no, because the system already considers size into the equation. Small creatures (such as goblins and halflings) tend to have a high DEX and good REF, whereas larger creatures tend to have low DEX and bad REF. At higher levels however, with proper class selection, the large creature could very possibly have a higher REF save as a same level small creature. This makes no sense because obviously a 3ft tall halfling should have an easier time avoiding swinging blades, falling ceiling, etc, then a 10ft tall troll.

I think we are just going to disagree on this subject. We are both clearly stubborn in this regard. You don't see why I relate poison and alcohol, and don't understand how you don't see that applying a size modifier to alcohol consumption is in contradiction with the way the pathfinder system operates because there are a number of examples in the rules where size should influence saving throws but it doesn't.

maouse wrote:

You should have argued to do "shots" with the dwarf. This SHOULD have allowed you your full FORT save, as the volume of liquid has NOTHING to do with the amount of alcohol poisoning recieved. Or perhaps made it even more deadly and just challenged him to a straight up POISON drinking competition. Each touch to the tounge made equal that way. You have a stupid GM, IMHO. Your stats reflect the HUMAN EQUIVALENT. Thus your fort is your fort is your fort between races, regardless of size.

If what the GM was saying was true, you would only get half reflex saves for human (or dwarf) sized traps (after all you have itty bitty legs). And only half wil saves for anyone with a bigger brain than you. You shouldn't arbitrarily be nerfed for size when size has already been taken into account with your stats.

I am not saying you wouldn't have to PEE before the dwarf, but you wouldn't get drunk any sooner either. Your body might not be able to hold as much liquid, but your FORT/CON to handle it is EQUAL if your STATS are equal.

Except alcohol intoxication is measured by blood/alcohol % content... the question isn't how tough are you, it is how much alcohol do you have in your body vs how big your body is. THEN, then next question becomes at what % of blood alcohol do you succumb to the effects (Fort saves... higher fort save means you stay up longer even though you have had a lot of liquor, more than maybe most of your kind could handle)

By going back to blood/alcohol content you are making my point. The extent to which poison influences something is equivalent to its concentration in the blood. A human bitten by a snake will have a higher blood/venom ratio then an elephant. In pathfinder, they make the same save. If the human has the same FORT save as the elephant, he has equal chance of succeeding. So why is alcohol any different?

I am not arguing with your logical point that a smaller creature should get drunk easier. I'm arguing that that smaller person should also be more susceptible to poison, but in pathfinder that smaller person is not more susceptible. FORT save is the determinant. Therefore it should be the determinant for alcohol as well. Size in itself doesn't matter. Size is taken into account in the sense that smaller creatures tend to have lower FORT saves in general, but size should not create a modifier in its own right.

I understand your point stubs, and it is reasonable. I just feel that it is a contradiction to somehow treat alcohol with special rules even though it clearly is a poison (a dilute poison but a poison none the less). Even though there aren't rules for terpentine or any other kind of harmful ingested substance doesn't mean that it won't provoke a FORT save to not suffer consequences.

I just find it strange because there are ways (such as through multiclassing) to get a creature as small as 'fine' to obtain a FORT save equivalent to a creature which is massive. If this creature somehow ingests, or is in some other way put into contact with a poison (a volume which if internalized would probably explode his body) he would have the same odds as a massive creature at avoiding harmful effects. This makes no sense since the 'fine' creature probably has a pinch of blood, whereas the big creature could have litres. Yet, although this makes no sense in the real world, this is how the pathfinder system works. Adding some kind of size modifier against poisons would break the game causing big creatures to be immune and smaller one's to be very vulnerable. With the same reasoning, although it makes no sense in the real world, alcohol should follow this same set of rules built by the pathfinder system.

Also, as I mentioned above, to a certain extent pathfinder does consider alcohol and poison tolerance in a realistic way. A basic human (who starts off at 1HD, has average CON and maybe a good FORT) would definitely lose a drinking competition to a larger creature (which start off at higher HD, tend to have good CON and almost always have good FORT). But once you get to high levels, and with multiclassing and such, the epic nature of the system pulls away from what makes sense in the real world. Because of this, the fact that it is possible for a halfling to out drink a giant (or to be better at resisting poison) is not far-fetched... and is even funny.

There are other examples of things that occur in pathfinder that make no sense in reality(like a character taking a full attack and 6+ attacks of opportunity in a six second period, or a person escape artisting through an area smaller than his head for example).

That's why I disagree that somehow saying alcohol consumption should be realistic, when there are so many things that aren't, is a contradiction to the way the system works.

Gah, I swear I responded to this thread... but alas, my post was eaten by some insatiable monster hell bent on making me look... afk?

The amount you drink should have a direct effect on how drunk you get, based on size. Small sized PCs don't need to eat or drink as much normal food as a medium sized creature, and the bigger you get, the more you consume on a daily basis.

By challenging a medium sized creature to a drinking contest when you are small, and insisting you drink the same amount ounce for ounce (drink for drink), you are effectively doubling the intake of alcohol by game definition that the medium sized creature is imbibing.

Medium drink (1) =
(2) drinks for a small creature
(4) for a tiny creature
(8) for a diminutive creature
(16) for a fine creature

divide going the other way ~

(1/2) drinks for a large creature
(1/4) for a huge,
etc etc.

You should not be hit with a con penalty that isn't called for based on # of drinks you had, as long as you are calculating drinks based on the above numbers.

This means that you WILL get to the point where you have to start making CON checks in half the time the Dwarf does due to your decision, but your CON score might very well be quite a bit higher than his, and he very well might drop before you do (not very likely since you are effectively taking 2 drinks to his 1)

So you don't think that alcohol should be treated as a poison? Or would you say there should be a size modifier for poison as well?

That's what I figured. I think drinking capacity should be a measure of Fortitude, not a measure of size...

In a recent campaign session, my character (a gnome bard) challenged another character (a dwarf rogue) to a drinking competition. We have a house rule that you can drink a number of drinks equal to your CON modifier, and after that we have to make FORT saves starting at DC10 and increasing by +2 for each additional beverage consumed (a beverage consists of either a glass of wine, which is equal to a pint of beer, which is equal to a shot of hard stuff). For every fail you essentially get a negative level in terms of rolls and such. If you fail a number of time equal to 2x your Con modifier, you black out.

After I made the challenge, the DM asked me if I was drinking a beverage of size appropriate for a small creature. So I said "no, I will drink the same size beverage as the dwarf", because if I drink less then I can't really say I won the competition. So he told me that if I drink the same size beverage, I will start having to make FORT saves after drinking half my CON modifier in drinks, and all those FORT saves would be at a -4 penalty.

My DM said that the logic behind this was that with the amount of blood in my blood stream relative to a medium size dwarf, it makes no sense that I shouldn't have a penalty. I then argued that alcohol is a poison and should be treated as such.

An elephant has 11HD and FORT=+13, and a warrior-type halfling for example with the same number of HD (which would have 7 base + CON modifier) have a similar FORT save. In fact, if you multiclass the halfling he could easily have a higher FORT save than an elephant with the same number of HD. If these creatures are subjected to a lethal poison (poison which is taken up by the blood stream) then the halfling would have an equal or greater chance of succeeding the save, even though it make no sense that an elephant with 10x the volume of blood as a halfling could be more vulnerable to poison.

I then mentioned that if we apply a size modifier to drinking alcohol then we should apply it to all poisons, or not at all.

Fundamentally everyone agreed with the DM and I had to take the -4 penalty, which pissed me off a bit. I tried to argue that there is very little that is realistic about Dnd (or pathfinder) and that it is like a videogame. Trying to include 'realistic' scenarios for very specific instances is contradictory to how the rules work.

I even mentioned that for low levels the 'realistic' drinking system makes sense. For example a human (who starts off at 1HD and has average CON) would definitely lose a drinking competition to a larger creature (which start off at higher HD and tend to have good CON), but once you get to high levels that logic breaks down.

I know it is silly because its a drinking competition, but I feel that my point makes sense and I was a bit annoyed that noone even seemed to consider that my argument made sense. They just kept saying "but he is small. Something small like that just cant drink as much"

I was wondering what you guys' take was on this issue...

He wields his axe one-handed is why I didn't go with power attack. Plus, I figured that he could move in, land a big shot, and then just pin down people and full attack.
Not to say PA isn't still worth it, but this was the character build I went with.

The gestalt idea isn't a bad one. It is guaranteed though that the difference between a casual player's character and a power gamer will be more pronounced with this system.

Also, it will be more difficult to estimate the threats of encounter. It is guaranteed that you will be using higher CR creatures to put up against your PCs and this will make them level up faster as well.

The game style works though, and is definitely not a recipe for disaster.

I have an idea for a dwarf fighter which I haven't had a chance to make yet. Basically he is a dwarven waraxe specializing Shield focusing fighter who fundamentally messes with spellcasters.

Feats
level 1: Shield focus and missile shield
2: combat reflexes
3: Wpn Focus (waraxe)
4: Wpn specialization (waraxe)
5: Standstill
6: Disruptive
7: Vital strike
8: Greater shield focus
9: Greater Weapon focus
10: Spellbreaker
11: Ray shield
12: Pin down
13: Greater Wpn specialization
14: Penetrating strike
15: Improved vital strike
16: Greater penetrating strike
17: Greater vital strike
18: Devastating strike
I have only thought this far. Was considering teleport tactitian, death or glory, covering defense, or saving shield as other feat options

With the vital strike feats he is able to deal big damage if he takes a standard action to make an attack (such as when he moves and attacks).

Penetrating strike helps to ignore enemy DR.

Standstill and pin down are awesome for controlling the battlefield as well as for screwing over spellcasters (e.g. no one can tumble past him to attack your allies. Spellcasters can't get away from you and therefore must cast spells defensively --> disruptive and spellbreaker)

Otherwise, big damage with dwarven waraxe due to the specializations. Furthermore, with the fighters weapon mastery class features, he becomes even more adequate with axes.

Also, ray shield and missile shield provides an edge against ranged weapons and ranged touch attacks.

Give me your opinion :)

Normally weapons can have a +5 enhancement bonus and a +5 modifier for other abilities, making it a +10. a +10 costs 200,000gp. This is below epic status. For epic weapons, you basically have to have a +11 weapon or greater. +11 weapon costs 2,420,000go. +12 costs 2,880,000gp, and so on.
The equation is basically the total bonus (e.g. +6) squared and multiplied by 2000gp. Therefore a +6 weapon costs 72,000gp. For anything beyond +10, you use the same equation but add another zero at the end. Incredibly expensive!!!

I made a gnome who has the magical linguist alternative racial trait and I was wondering if anyone knew the list of spells which create glyphs, symbols, or other magical writings...

I forgot to mention my cantrips DC=22:
Detect magic, light, message, read magic, summon instrument, unwittingly ally

Basically my strategy is to use suggestion, a very versatile spell. I can heighten it to level 9 to force a DC 37 WILL save, or I can quicken it without augmenting its level. I can also use two or more metamagic feats to change the spell level, which allows me to cast it many times per day. Also, since this character can speak every language he can effect most creatures who aren't immune to mind effecting.

For damage purposes, this character has weird words which is very effective. He also has some handy bardic masterpieces which give him some versatility.

Aside from this, he can take 10 on any knowledge test, take 20 2/day, which means that he is always well-informed. Aside from this he can still buff allies with his performance.

Furthermore, with versatile performance, Bleebert has a wide set of skills and is amazing in social aspects.

Bleebert Olffwocket, gnome bard (sound striker) 15, middle-aged
Material used: core rulebook, advanced players, ultimate magic and ultimate combat
Ability Scores:
STR: 6 (-2) (9 base, -2 race, -1 age)
DEX: 18 (+4) (15 base, -1 age, +4 item)
CON: 12 (+1) (9 base, -1 age, +2 race, +2 item)
INT: 14 (+2) (13 base, +1 age)
WIS: 10 (+0) (9 base, +1 age)
CHA: 34 (+12) (17 base, +2 race, +1 age, +3 level, +6 item, +5 innate)

HP: 88 HP (15d8+15)

Saving Throws:
Fort: +11 Ref: +18 Will: +14

AC: 31 (35) - Touch 17 (21), Flatfooted 27 (+2 mithral breastplate, +2 mithril H-steel shield, +4 dex, +2 Amulet of Natural Armor, +2 Ring of Protection, +1 size, +4 dodge w/ dance of 23 steps)

Attacks: No weapons

Special Attacks:
Bardic performance:
Weird words - 10 ranged touch attacks +15, 1d8+12 damage each, FORT half (DC 29)

Racial features:
Academician (Know-arcana)
Gift of tongues
Keen senses
Low-light vision
Magical linguist
Weapon familiarity

Languages:
ALL

Class Abilities:
Bardic knowledge - 1st
Bardic performance (free action) - 1st
Cantrips - 1st
Countersong - 1st
Distraction - 1st
Fascinate - 1st
Inspire courage +3 - 1st, 5th, 11th)
Versatile performance (keyboard --> diplomacy/handle animal) - 2nd
Well-versed - 2nd
Wordstrike - 3rd
Lore master 2/day - 5th, 11th
Weird words - 6th
Versatile performance (sing --> bluff/sense motive) - 6th
Dirge of doom - 8th
Inspire greatness - 9th
Jack-of-all-trades - 10th
Versatile performance (dance --> acrobatics/fly) - 10th
Soothing performance - 12th
Frightening tune - 14th
Versatile performance (act --> disguise/bluff) - 14th
Inspire heroics - 15th

BAB: +11 CMB: +8 CMD: 22

Feats:
Spell Focus (Enchantment)
Greater Spell Focus (Enchantment)
Spell Penetration
Greater Spell Penetration
Silent Spell
Heighten Spell
Quicken Spell
Spell Perfection (Suggestion)

Skills -ranks-ability-other-total
Perform-act - 15+3 - +12 - = 30
Perform-dance - 15+3 - +12 - = 30
Perform-sing - 15+3 - +12 - = 30
Perform-wind - 15+3 - +12 - = 30
Know-arcana - 12+3 - +2 - +9 = 26
Know-dungeoneering - 1+3 - +2 - +7 = 13
Know-engineering - 1+3 - +2 - +7 = 13
Know-geography - 1+3 - +2 - +7 = 13
Know-history - 1+3 - +2 - +7 = 13
Know-local - 1+3 - +2 - +7 = 13
Know-nature - 1+3 - +2 - +7 = 13
Know-nobility - 1+3 - +2 - +7 = 13
Know-planes - 1+3 - +2 - +7 = 13
Know-religion - 1+3 - +2 - +7 = 13
Linguistics - 9+3 - +2 - = 14
Perception - 15+3 - +0 - +2 = 20
Spellcraft - 15+3 - +2 - = 20
Use magic device - 15+3 - +12 - = 30

Special: can take 10 on any Know skill that have ranks in. Take 20 2/day

Spells:
o-
1st (8/day) DC=23
-cure light wounds, grease, hideous laughter, saving finale, timely inspiration
2nd (8/day) DC=24
-cure moderate wounds, glitterdust, mirror image, suggestion
3rd (8/day) DC=25
-confusion, dispel magic, exquisite accompaniment, terrible remorse
4th (7/day) DC=26
-dimension door, dominate person, greater invisibility
5th (5/day)DC=27
-deafening song bolt, greater dispel magic, mass suggestion, shadowbard

DC --> +2 for enchantments, +1 for language-dependent/glyphs

for suggestion spell, +6 DC (+4 enchantment, +2 language-dependent), +8 spell penetration, can apply one metamagic feat without augmenting level or casting time

Bardic music masterpieces:
Triple time - 1st level spell
The dance of 23 steps - 2nd level spell
The dumbshow of Gorroc - 2nd level spell
At the heart of it all - 3rd level spell
House of imaginary walls - 4th level spell

Gear:
+2 mithral breastplate
+2 mithral heavy steel shield
Gloves of DEX +4
Headband of CHA +6
Belt of CON +2
Amulet of Natural Armor +2
Cloak of Resistance +5
Ring of Protection +2
Ring of sustenance
Tome of leadership and influence +5

I noticed in the 'olympics' that I've come across that the emphasis seems to be put on DPR. Although this is a very quantitative way of evaluating characters there are many other build concepts which are very effective, often more effective. Therefore, anyone who wants to show a character concept they have developed can post it here to share your ideas.
The rules are:
Use the 'purchase' system referenced in the core rulebook when determining ability scores, but we'll use 20 points because 15 doesn't cut it ;).
Make a character of any level you want
Do not spend more than level-specific starting package money.
My first post will provide an outline for how the information should be layed out. Note: if you post a build for a spontaneous spell caster, mention the spells selected.

Ya, the one word/two levels is a pretty reasonable modification, I may include it myself. As a side note though, Weird Words is a bardic performance so it can't be used with inspire courage. By that I mean, previous Bardic performances must be ended before a new one begins. Therefore, using inspire courage as a move/free action before using weird words is a waste. It is nice to use Inspire Courage after weird words though, to boost your allies. Finally, although Weird Words is a supernatural ability, I always apply DR because it states that it does piercing/slashing/bludgeoning damage. So I basically apply it as nonmagical weapon damage of one of these types.

You make a good point Krinn and 'weird words' may seem abusive, but you are generalizing too much. First of all, if you limit 'weird words' to one attack per opponent the ability becomes completely useless because it pretty much never occurs that there are ten enemies within 30 ft.

That fact aside, 'weird words' can be very devastating but it is not ideal in many situations. When fighting a rogue or a monk (characters with high touch AC), the odds of missing the ranged touch attacks can be very high. This is aside from magic bonuses, such as deflection.

Secondly, even if the characters are hit, against warrior types, which pretty much always have excellent FORT saves, damage from each attack is likely to be divided in half. Furthermore, magical bonuses to saving throws (which are quite cheap) further augment FORT saves. Not to mention the fact that DR severely reduces the effectiveness of this ability.

Another drawback is that, although warriors use weapons and must take full attack actions to land several strikes, as well as the fact that they are targeting a higher AC, weapons can be made magical. This means that weapons can be made to bypass various DRs, can obtain enhancement bonuses and can be given other special magical properties whereas 'weird words' cannot be upgraded. At high levels the effectiveness of 'weird words' becomes severely diminished comparatively.

Aside from these details, there are many other character builds which are equally devastating. If a strong warrior type wins initiative and grapples the bard, the bard will most likely lose the combat. If the grappled bard attempts to use 'weird words' while grappled, he will provoke an attack of opportunity and be pinned. Another example is if a sorcerer wins initiative, he can cast various enchantment spells which can end the match right there. Also, like in your description, a rogue with sneak attack can pour on the damage as well. In fact, I made a rogue which had the archetype "Knife master", which basically allows the swap of d6 sneak attack damage with d8s when using daggers, who can do way more damage in a shorter period of time.

I admit, that between levels 6 and 10 'weird words' is quite powerful in terms of potential damage output, but it is not foolproof. A character who builds his bard specifically to be a master at using this ability will have a lot of drawbacks.

Err..I'm not sure why people are still talking about DR.

> Weird sounds is an Su.(Supernatural Ability).

Weird Words (Su): At 6th level, a sound striker can start a performance as a standard action...

>Thus the damage it deals are damage from supernatural abilities. Yes they are B/P/S damage but still, they are damage from a supernatural ability which is called Weird Words.

>Creatures with DR take normal damage from supernatural abilities.

Damage Reduction (Ex or Su) A creature with this special quality ignores damage from most weapons and natural attacks. Wounds heal immediately, or the weapon bounces off harmlessly (in either case, the opponent knows the attack was ineffective). The creature takes normal damage from energy attacks (even nonmagical ones), spells, spell-like abilities, and supernatural abilities. (Universal Monster Rules from B2)

>Therefore DR does not apply to Weird Words.

It seems very clear imo

I definitely agree that Weird words is a supernatural ability, and that supernatural abilities bypass DR. But in this instance I feel that the rule-makers intended for DR to apply because otherwise mentioning S/P/B has no relevance since their only application is in the bypassing of DR. Also, if DR does not apply this ability is quite abusive. Almost no warrior can compare to this kind of damage unless they are incredibly strong and massive.

I figure it basically acts as weapon damage (either piecing, slashing or bludgeoning) which can be divided in any way you want (so yes, multiple shots per enemy if you want). So DR should apply, otherwise they wouldn't have mentioned piecing, slashing, etc.
I am also pretty sure that it can't be maintained in subsequent rounds, because in the "bardic performance" section of the sound striker, it states "A sound striker gains the following type of bardic performance. Neither performance can be performed more quickly than a standard action." So basically, each round you want to use it, you have to spend a standard action and a round of bardic performance. It also says that "a sound striker can start a performance as a standard action, lashing out..." suggesting that it qualifies as your performance for the round, and cannot be combined with other performances.
But still, even with DR this ability is badass! at 10th level you shoot 10 1d8+CHA (by level 10 my gnome had 23 CHA + 4 Enhancement = +8) damage. All range touch attacks with 30ft range! Lets see a two-weapon fighting specialist compare with that...

"Wordstrike (Su): At 3rd level, the sound striker bard can spend 1 round of bardic performance as a standard action to direct a burst of sonically charged words at a creature or object. This performance deals 1d4 points of damage plus the bard’s level to an object, or half this damage to a living creature. This performance replaces inspire competence."

The fact that there are no details on the range of the attack is kind of annoying, and hopefully people working for paizo can put out some kind of errata. The way I play it is that I assume it has range 30ft (like inspire competence) and I play it like a target spell, similar to magic missile. I also believe that the type of damage is sonic damage, therefore ignoring DR. Also, the ability says "the sound striker bard can spend 1 round of bardic performance as a standard action to direct a burst of sonically charged words at a creature or object." Based on the phrasing I don't feel that this ability should be treated like a bardic performance in that it should not interrupt ongoing performances. For example, I often start an inspire courage as a standard action. The next round I maintain it as a free action and also spend a round of bardic performance from my total, as well as a standard action to use wordstrike. The phrasing doesn't suggest that ongoing bardic performances should be affected in any way.
In terms of strategy, I never found wordstrike to be very useful against enemies. For the most part, weird words is by far superior. I do however find it very useful against enemy equipment at higher levels. For example, by level 10 this ability does 1d4+10 against objects. A short sword has 10 hardness and 2 HP. So for example I can pop off a rogues sword and then he is left unarmed. So while inspiring courage I tactically pop off weapons and shields and help control the battlefield.