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?

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.

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...

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 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.