darth_gator's page

My players just finished the feast for the Pirate Council, and they deduced Sefina charmed the courtesan to spike Avimar's drink. They then promptly decided to go to bed.

So, I'm trying to decide if it's a tremendous d*ck move to have the Eel start his sabotage while the party sleeps without Sefina firing the skyrocket. It seems to be the most likely/logical course, but, based on the layout the party designed for their fort, by the time they're awoken and make it to the ships, at best they'll be able stop the third bomb (I estimate). I know that isn't a huge hit to their respect total; I just don't want to make them think I'm screwing them over.

I too have always found the idea that CR is almost the sole determining factor in whether or not someone can identify things about a creature. Going back to the comparison of a hatchling red dragon and a great wyrm red dragon, it makes no sense that a 5th level adventurer could look at the hatchling and know it's a red dragon, immune to fire, vulnerable to cold, breathes fire, etc, but look at the thing's mother, literally standing 10 feet away and simply have to shrug their shoulders, because they didn't hit a DC 37 to know even basic information.

In the real world, even people who live in Nebraska can probably tell you the difference between a great white shark and a hammerhead. Even if they've never been to an aquarium or the ocean and seen the creatures before. Per RAW, if the PC rolls lower than 15+CR on the wyrm red dragon, they won't even know it's a dragon (but they'll know the hatchling is!). I mean, there are probably millions of people who have never seen a goblin shark, but if you show them a picture, they'll at least know it's a shark. I doubt every one of them essentially rolled a Knowledge (nature) check at DC 20+ to identify basic information.

When I GM, I take into account how common the creatures are in addition to the thing's CR. I also don't give out stats as information. I don't tell things like the amount of damage reduction, hit dice, saves, BAB, AC, etc. I will say things like, "These/this creature(s) are highly resistant to fire," or, "...a little resistant to acid," or, "if you don't have a silver weapon, you'll be a little less effective when you deal damage." Use descriptors to tell them what they need to know. DR 5/- is something like, "No matter what you attack with, it won't feel it quite as strongly as it should." Whereas DR 15/- gets something like, "You have to hit it very hard to cause the slightest amount of damage." I will also tell players if a creature is immune to certain types of magic, i.e. mind-affecting, specific schools, specific damage types. I will also tell them if the creature is very nimble, very tough, or strong willed. I rarely have players tell me the information I give isn't useful/helpful, and it helps keep them in-character.

I've never understood the point of asking a question, qualifying it with what essentially amounts to, "I don't care what you say, you can't prove it to me," and then continuing to argue the point or ask for an answer. Particularly for no benefit. If you're not going to accept an answer from anyone short of Sean K. Reynolds or Jason Buhlman, why bother coming to the Rules Forum to ask in the first place? To add to the absurdity, you claim no one can even know the answer short of the author, but you're looking for an answer from Paizo employees. The wording for Improved Two-Weapon Fighting was first written in the 3rd Edition Player's Handbook sometime prior to the year 2000. It's been ported nearly verbatim from 3rd Ed. to 3.5 to Pathfinder. The same wording was even used in both the Star Wars RPG and the Revised Star Wars RPG from Wizards of the Coast.

In addition to the standard single extra attack you get with an off-hand weapon, you get a second attack with the off-hand weapon, albeit at a -5 penalty.

In addition to the standard single extra attack you get with an off-hand weapon, you get a second attack with it, albeit at a -5 penalty.

In addition to the standard single extra attack you get with an off-hand weapon, you get a second attack with the off-hand weapon, albeit at a -5 penalty.

In addition to the standard single extra attack you get with an off-hand weapon, you get a second attack with the off-hand weapon, albeit at a -5 penalty.

In addition to the standard single extra attack you get with an off-hand weapon, you get a second attack with it, albeit at a -5 penalty.

If you'll only accept an answer from one of the authors/developers who wrote the rule, you should head over to the Wizards of the Coast website and see if you can get a hold of Monte Cook, 'cause that rule wasn't written by Paizo

The meaning of the rule, including the use of the word 'albeit' is quite clear. When you take the feat Improved Two-Weapon Fighting, you gain a second attack with the off-hand weapon, but you make that attack with a -5 penalty. Greater Two-Weapon Fighting then gives you a third attack at a -10 penalty. These penalties are NOT TWF penalties. TWF penalties are specifically called out (and are the ONLY TWF penalties in the game) in table 8-7: Two-Weapon Fighting Penalties, on pg. 202 of the PFRPG CRB. If you want an official answer, just look at the table heading. By RAW, the ONLY penalties for Two-Weapon Fighting are explicitly listed on that table.

Finally, Hero Lab is a piece of character creation/management software developed by Lone Wolf Development in conjunction with several RPG publishers, including WotC and Paizo. If you build a fighter with ITWF and taking one instance of Precision, the attacks are listed at a -2 penalty for fighting with two weapons and having the TWF feats; no penalty on the second off-hand attack other than the -2 Two-Weapon Fighting penalty. I did a quick build with 12 levels and Strength and Dex of 18. The attack progression is +14/+14/+9 with the main hand and +14/+14 with the off-hand.

That is the closest thing you will ever get to an official answer. Pretty much everyone that's responded here seems to agree that's how it's supposed to work, and they don't see anything confusing about the rule. As others have pointed out, this is far from the first time someone has asked a question looking for some kind of affirmation that their (seeming) refusal to grasp an obviously simple rule's meaning is evidence the rule needs to be rewritten. As I said, if you want the author/developer who wrote the rule to weigh in, you're in the wrong place. Go look up Monte Cook. Jonathan Tweet, and Skip Williams; they're the ones who wrote the rule.

I've been running Skull & Shackles for my group since August 2016 (we only get to play a couple of hours a week, so it's taking us a long time). We're currently working through Tempest Rising, Part 2: At a Lady's Request. The party just arrived at the wreck of the Brine Banshee and swam down to check it out. After encountering and killing the sharks, Ormandar wild shaped into a great white shark and attacked. The party tried to keep away from his bite range, so I opted to have him continue casting spells rather than just chase the PCs around the wreck.

Spell 1: Hydrophobia. Everyone passed their save except the crew's captain (male human bard [sea singer]). So, he took off for the surface.

Spell 2: Baleful Polymorph on the party's divine caster (custom race undine/dhampir oracle of bones). He failed his fortitude save and turned into an electric eel, but passed his will save and maintained his "humanity."

The rest of the party was able to kill Ormandar in three more rounds, or about the time the captain got back to the surface. The oracle then ordered his bloody skeleton (actually the Matron from Mancatcher Cove) to use signal flags found on the Brine Banshee to signal the captain what had happened, and to please drop a bucket for Pearl (the Matron's skeleton's new name) to catch and carry the eel.

EDIT: I forgot to add that Qouli, the oracle, pointed out to the other players that if they manage to change him back to his normal form, he's going to be at least a little p*ssed to, and I quote, "be in a body with too many bones, again."

The act of initiating the ranged attack from a threatened square triggers the AoO, Lady-J, not the dagger leaving the attacker's hand. If that were the case, I could easily make the argument that firing a bow isn't REALLY a ranged attack until the arrow leaves the bowstring, the bolt leaves the crossbow, the bullet leaves the pistol. That's clearly neither the RAW or RAI. If you initiate a ranged attack from a threatened area, you provoke an attack of opportunity (unless you have some ability that allows you to avoid the AoO).

Look at it another way: If someone attacks with a thrown weapon, provoking an attack of opportunity, and that AoO deals enough damage to drop the thrower, do you still resolve the thrown weapon attack? If so, a ranged attack isn't REALLY a ranged attack until the projectile/damaging bit(s) leave the weapon being used (be it a bow, gun, crossbow, tentacle, or hand), if someone attacks with a bow from a threatened area, provokes the AoO and takes enough damage to drop, do you continue with the ranged attack roll? If the answer to either of those scenarios is 'no', then the AoO is clearly triggered by initiating the ranged attack rather than the projectile leaving the thrower/firer's control. If your answer to either of those scenarios is 'yes', you're playing PFRPG with an entirely different set of rules.

Reksew_Trebla wrote:

Okay. I'll buy this. Now I just need to know what happens if I enchant dragonhide with magic and then cast resurrection on it.

If you do it within the allowed time period it becomes the dragon that was killed. Nothing in the rules says being enchanted stops the spell from working. Is there a reason for these specific questions?

I may be wrong, but it sounds like an attempt to resurrect a dragon with energy resistance to a type of energy to which it's normally vulnerable. Like a white dragon with fire resistance. I can't think of any other reason this question would be asked. EDIT: Rereading the quoted question, it sounds like an attempt to resurrect a creature with magic weapon and/or armor special abilities that a creature would never actually be able to have.

For the record, I don't see anything in the description for resurrection that indicates the raised creature would retain the use of any spells, powers, abilities, or the benefits thereof, used on the body part that's part of the spell to bring the creature back.

This is one of (the many) problems with alignment. The game can't decide if it's objective or subjective. If it's objective, then a non-sapient creature could be good or evil, depending on what it does, because intent and purpose aren't relevant. If it's subjective, then you can do anything want so long as you can justify/rationalize it to yourself and still be good/evil. And there are examples of both being 'true' in PF.

Alignment. It sucks.

Even if alignment is 100% subjective, depriving a sentient creature of its life simply because it has something you want is never a non-evil act. No amount of justification will ever change that. Just because the character THINKS what they're doing isn't evil doesn't mean it isn't. The rules are actually pretty clear on that. That's like saying a Paladin could maintain their alignment and powers while killing every newborn in a town where all the citizens are enslaved and cruelly murdered by demons at the age of 16 if the Paladin convinced themselves it was a mercy to spare the children that horror. That's not how alignment works at all. Sure, there are certainly times the rules can become confusing or contradictory, but the issue presented in the OP isn't one of those times. Killing someone for a piece of gear is an evil act. Period.

As several have mentioned, I think RAW requires you to spend all the points. However, in a home game there's no reason the GM couldn't allow a player not to use all their points. It makes the character ever so slightly less powerful than the other members of the party, but it certainly won't be unplayable or upset game balance. However, I think choosing to do so is poor character design.

His stats are:

STR: 7
DEX: 14
CON: 14
INT: 18 + 2 racial
WIS: 7
CHA: 14

so 24 checks out.

I guess I can't think of any reason to use the specific array unless the player is intentionally trying to build a non-optimized character. With the array above, the character is going to take penalties to melee attacks (unless a feat is burned on Weapon Finesse), melee damage, carrying capacity, and most importantly, Will Saves. Even if the PC is one with a good Will save progression, the character starts with a Will save of +1, unless a feat is burned on Iron Will. So, you have two ability scores that apply relatively stiff penalties for not a lot of gain. A +5 mod to Int at 1st level isn't really necessary. Sure, it makes save DCs for spells/powers a little harder, but that's really only good for the first couple of levels. And the extra skill point per level doesn't sweeten the deal since the PC will get those skill points retroactively when/if they bump their Int from 19 to 20. If the character is intended to be used long term, I would suggest NOT dumping Str and Wis for a starting 20 in Int. A much better starting array that's still similar to the original would be:

Str 8 (-2 pts)
Dex 14 (5 pts)
Con 14 (5 pts)
Int 17 + 2 racial (13 pts)
Wis 9 (-1 pt)
Cha 14 (5 pts)

Though, I'd suggest something more like:

Str 8 (-2)
Dex 14 (5)
Con 14 (5)
Int 15 + 2 racial (7)
Wis 14 (5)
Cha 14 (5)

Just my 2cp...

I was initially going to disagree with Adjoint, but after re-reading the question and the feat, I can't. The description for the witch doctor archetype even specifies that it doesn't stack with the life spirit ability. That essentially makes them two separate abilities. You can use Quick Channel with either, but you can't burn a use of the weaker witch doctor's channel energy to quick channel the more powerful life spirit channel. The feat specifies THAT ability, meaning you select the channel energy source you want to use, and you burn two uses of IT to channel as a move action. If the two "pools" stacked, you could do what you're asking. Since they don't, and they are specifically treated as two abilities, you can't.

Honestly, having reviewed the pertinent data, the question seems like an attempt to game the system, using a lesser ability to overpower another.

My party attempted to win Conchobhar over in the first session. The vanara rogue failed the check by about 12, immediately dropping Conchobhar's attitude to hostile. From that point on, the rogue made it his job to intentionally annoy Conchobhar at every opportunity, even planting stolen goods in Conchobhar's footlocker so he was beaten by Scourge. Of course, he found out the PCs were responsible for his punishment and hated them even more.

During the mutiny (which happened before the storm that wrecked the Man's Promise), Jaundice Jape bullrushed Conchobhar over the ship's bow and the gnome bounced along the ship's hull, essentially keel-hauling himself. The eventual captain was angry with Jape for several weeks for "stealing his kill." Capt. Mez kept the foppish hat as a souvenir.

Captain Mez (surname up to me as the GM), is a human Bard (sea singer) 4. He's a pure face, and adopted Pluck the Parrot as a familiar on reaching L2. He almost can't fail checks to sell plunder and increase the party's infamy. He's also almost entirely responsible for the party turning every NPC on the Wormwood (except the hostile Conchobhar) friendly prior to day 17, making the eventual mutiny way too easy (but still a lot of fun).

First Mate Nuk, a half-orc Brawler 4, is an escaped slave interested in piracy...as long as there are no slaves. Made for an interesting intra-party conflict when I ran them through the Legendary Games AP Plug-In, "Spices and Flesh" and they captured a ship full of slaves. The rest of the party decided it was a great idea to sell the slaves to Shayonna without telling Nuk. He eventually agreed to the sale, but punched Capt. Mez in the face afterwards.

Carpenter/Surgeon Qouli, a custom dhampir/undine Oracle of Urgathoa 4. Qouli doesn't care about being a pirate, he just wants to recruit more followers to Urgathoa's cause. He creates skeletons to keep in the ship's bilge for use as mobile trap finders, when necessary, because the party doesn't have a rogue. He rarely speaks outside of combat, and is covered in tattoos, including a face covering tattoo of Urgathoa's unholy symbol. In combat, he screams nearly nonstop in Abyssal.

Master at Arms Kaerius, a gillman Swashbuckler 4, he wants nothing more than to be a pirate ship captain. He lobbied hard to have the party elect him captain after the mutiny, but was rejected in favor of Mez. He's been quietly resentful of this ever since, and has indicated he's not opposed to finding some way to subtly cause or allow Mez's death so he can become captain. Also, he's a gillman, and I have several ideas on ways to work an aboleth or two into the game to really screw up his life.

Gunnery Master Jayne Cobb, a human Gunslinger (musket master) 4, has an unhealthy attachment to his musket, Vera (mechanically via "Attached'...

UPDATE 7 Months later...

Mez Tarin, Captain; Bard (sea singer) 7. Still the face and ultimate skill monkey. Aside from his player rolling an inordinate amount of ones, Mez handles Infamy checks and selling plunder like a boss.

Nuk, first mate; Brawler 7. He still hates slavers, and recently assisted the party in killing his former owner.

Qouli, carpenter/surgeon; Oracle of Bones (Urgathoa) 7. Qouli has started interacting with the crew more. He picked up a lesser reach metamagic rod so he can animate skeletons during combat. He recently animated a marsh giant (Fishpork) as a skeleton. Unfortunately, he then lost Fishpork in the next combat.

Reynard, Sailing Master; human (Chelaxian) Wizard (evoker) 7. Reynard is a former member of the Chelaxian Imperial Navy who deserted after his family was killed during an attempt to infiltrate Sargava with loyal Imperial citizens. The actual attack that killed his family was carried out by Harrigan, so he was more than happy to join the party.

Jayne, Master Gunner; Gunslinger (musket master) 7. Jayne is currently "mostly dead." In a combat encounter last night, he was killed by a magus using spell combat who scored a critical hit with his black blade falcata. After the session, Jayne's player asked me if he could use 2 hero points to avoid certain death, and I agreed. We've spent the day conversing on Slack to determine how the party's going to get Jayne back. So far, two speak with dead and one animate dead spell have failed to have any effect on Jayne's body, and the other PCs are freaking out.

Kaerius left the party after butting heads too many times with the other members. He was far more blood-thirsty than the other PCs, so the player asked if the character could leave and he could introduce a new one (Reynard, above). When Kaerius departed, he stole the money for the plunder he sold on Mez's behalf, then began searching the Shackles for Harrigan to give him all manner of dirt on the party. In every port in which he stopped, he told tales about the PCs' treachery and villany, giving them penalties to Infamy checks in many ports throughout the Shackles.

EDIT: Apparently "Energy Ray" is from a 3rd Party Publisher rather than Paizo; I missed that in my research. That being said, my answer below is likely outside RAW. I would rule it scales in a game I ran, and would further argue that would be RAI, but that's not what was initially asked.

Since I'm not as familiar with Occult Adventures as maybe I should be to answer this question, I won't claim my reading of this is 100% accurate. That being said, however, the Energy Ray is based on a Psionic Power. Psionics and Magic are essentially the same thing, and have been since at least 3rd Ed. In fact, this is what the PRD has to say:

Psychic Magic

Wizards study ancient tomes to unlock arcane secrets of the universe, and clerics pray to distant deities to grant them divine power. Yet there is a third, more esoteric kind of magic, connected to every creature's composite being, from the conscious mind to the deepest desire, from the life force to the spirit, from the very soul to the cosmic self. This third type of magic is psychic magic.

A psychic spell largely functions like any other spell. It's another type of magic, similar to arcane or divine magic—in fact, those who use psychic magic are easily mistaken for practitioners of arcane and divine traditions. Metamagic feats and any other rules that alter or trigger from spells can usually be used with psychic spells (though see the Components section below for a few exceptions). Psychic spellcasters aren't affected by effects that target only arcane or divine spellcasters, nor can they use arcane or divine scrolls or other items or feats that state they can be utilized by only arcane or divine spellcasters.

(Emphasis mine.)

So, it seems to me that Energy Ray is based on a PSYCHIC spell, and would therefore increase in caster level just like the rules for Spell-Like Abilities say it should.

To the best of my knowledge, unless the Spell-Like Ability specifies a caster level, it uses the creature's hit dice to determine the SP's CL. Or, in the case of creatures with class levels (such as a PC) it would be the character's actual caster level, i.e. hit dice in a spell-casting class (specifically the class that granted the SP).

For creatures with spell-like abilities...If no caster level is specified, the caster level is equal to the creature’s Hit Dice.

so if u guys r saying that in order for the request to fully like a (lvl 4 spell) happen it has to be a full wish spell? what if the request come at a price that the divine caster would forsake a divine spell of the equivalent lvl?

What we're saying is:

1. No, you can't use limited wish to allow a divine caster to permanently learn an arcane spell of any level, regardless of any penalties the divine caster's player may tell the GM they would accept (though it then falls to GM fiat; expect most GMs to say, "Nope").

2. You could use limited wish to allow a divine caster to cast an arcane spell of 4th level or lower one time, immediately after the limited wish is cast, but that would be an insane waste of resources, when the wizard could just cast the arcane spell in question.

3. The request specifically would fall into the final sentence of the 9th level wish spell's description:

You may try to use a wish to produce greater effects than these, but doing so is dangerous. (The wish may pervert your intent into a literal but undesirable fulfillment or only a partial fulfillment, at the GM’s discretion.)

And, as Darksol points out, opens the game to all sorts of abuse.

Using wish in this way is going to cause any GM worth the name (particularly if they played D&D and/or AD&D 1st or 2nd Ed.) to twist the request's fulfillment for their own perverse enjoyment. For example, if the request was to allow the party cleric to cast fireball, I'd immediately drop their cleric level by 5 and add 5 levels of wizard, give them a spellbook with 300 pages full of 100 copies of fireball as well as making them a fallen cleric requiring an atonement and a quest to regain their deity's favor. For truly epic-level screwing, the GM could also give the newly minted cleric/wizard a mental block that allows them to ONLY cast fireball, because cleric Terry wanted to take the easy way to casting an arcane spell. (Alternatively, make it sorcerer 6 with only one spell known...)

Sure.

If it was a one time thing that was used on the spot and it is at a reduced level, as described in the spell description.

I don't think that matches the question being asked, though. A wizard could cast a 4th level or lower divine spell using limited wish, but that's not the same as a wizard casting limited wish to allow his cleric buddy to cast something like fireball. I suppose I'd allow that scenario as a GM, because I'm all for my players wasting resources, but I don't think that's what the OP wanted to know, either.

I don'think you're going to get a RAW answer for this. The limited wish description makes this decision entirely subjective and up to the GM.

A limited wish lets you create nearly any type of effect. For example, a limited wish can do any of the following things.

Duplicate any sorcerer/wizard spell of 6th level or lower, provided the spell does not belong to one of your opposition schools.

Duplicate any non-sorcerer/wizard spell of 5th level or lower, provided the spell does not belong to one of your opposition schools.

Duplicate any sorcerer/wizard spell of 5th level or lower, even if it belongs to one of your opposition schools.

Duplicate any non-sorcerer/wizard spell of 4th level or lower, even if it belongs to one of your opposition schools.

Undo the harmful effects of many spells, such as insanity.

Produce any other effect whose power level is in line with the above effects, such as a single creature automatically hitting on its next attack or taking a -7 penalty on its next saving throw.

The last sentence allows limited wish to do anything of comparable power to the other things listed. Since there's no comparable power chart to reference, the GM will have to make a judgement call.

Personally, I would say that is beyond the scope of limited wish, since arcane and divine magic are completely different in virtually every way. I would say a wish would be necessary for a divine caster to learn an arcane spell as if it were divine.

You could skip all the violence and just politely ask if there are any undead hiding in the pile...

I'll go back to lurking now.

Technically yes. But again, this is Vital Strike rules, so it considers the entire roll (2D6) as one dice.

"Roll the weapon's damage dice twice..."

(emphasis mine), it would seem to indicate that you roll all of the dice twice. 'Dice' is always plural, with the singular being 'die'.

I'm not trying to be argumentative, I'm legitimately curious since it seems like a fairly large error for Lone Wolf to make with Hero Lab.

EDIT: I've read through all 5 versions of the CRB Errata and I can't find any mention of counting all of a weapon's damage dice as a single die. It seems to me that Vital Strike is acting like a partial crit, allowing you to roll double the damage dice and then adding other bonuses. Again, I'm legitimately curious and not trying to be a jerk.

About making the vessels more resistent to casters... have you considered running some of those encounters in foggy or rainy environments so your players have a hard time doing ranged attacks? Their visibility wouldn't allow them to have line of sight.

They'd probably end buying fog cutting lenses or crafting them, but you can give them a couple of interesting encounters.

I've considered altering some of the weather conditions from what I generated at the campaign's start. The only issue I have with this is the realism aspect; on a rainy day, visibility is generally going to be reduced to a couple of miles, tops. In fog, it's even less. It's difficult to see a ship on the horizon when you can only see a few feet past the bowsprit.

Why worry?

Let them have a few encounters where they do go nova and see how that works. Learn their tactics.
That'll help you craft you own tactics to use against them.

Oh, I'm not worried, just trying to plan ahead. This is the longest running campaign we've been able to play since a Forgotten Realms game I ran for about 4 years, and half our players (then) were new. Now, nearly a decade later, those same players are far more experienced gamers, but I've not GM'd much in that time. Basically, I just want to make sure I keep up with the players' interests (and, yes, I do talk to them about those sorts of things; I ask for and provide feedback after sessions). But I was curious if anyone else had run into similar issues with Skull & Shackles specifically, or any other AP in general.

Ships aren't the only thing you'll find in a fantasy ocean wanting to kill you, you could start throwing monsters at them.

I've considered this as well. However, I'm trying to stick to the AP as much as possible, and there really isn't a lot offered in terms of sea monsters. But, I will definitely keep this in mind if they start getting tired of the same routine.

The item crafting just started. I'm generally pretty strict about players/characters actually having the things they're required to have. I also told them what would happen if they didn't keep their crew(s ) supplied with plunder.

Allow me to preface this by saying a couple things:

1. All the players are having a good time, and no one seems to be bored or overshadowed (or at least no one is upset when overshadowed)
2. I'm not upset or uncomfortable with the situation as it stands, primarily due to the point above: As long as everyone's having fun, we're cool.

That being said, I want to make sure everyone continues having fun. As such, I'm curious about things I can change/modify to make sure the martials don't get left behind as the casters get better.

Our party is as follows (all 6th level, 20-pt buy with all purchased stats at 10 minimum [racial penalties are allowed to drop the stats below 10]):

CN Human Gunslinger (musketmaster)
CN Half-Orc Brawler
N Human Bard (seasinger)
LE Human Wizard (evoker)
NE Dhampir-Undine hybrid Oracle of Bones (Urgathoa)

I'm a little too nerdy about some realism aspects, so I've generated a year's worth of weather, researched actual tall-ship sailing mechanics and speeds, researched visibility distances at sea level (and from crow's nests), and require the party to tell me where they're heading and how they plan to get there so I can calculate the actual time it will take them to arrive. I also keep ship traffic at a realistic level. The ocean's a big place, and unless you're close to a port, you're just not going to see other ships every couple of hours. (Based on sailing speeds, it's also fairly difficult to catch a ship you spot 15 miles away...and it takes several days.)

So, the party composition and my need for verisimilitude have resulted in two interesting situations.

1. While pirating, there is almost no chance the party will encounter multiple ships in a single day, allowing the party casters to nova every encounter. I'm trying to find a way to make the NPCs more resistant to the casters without making every pirate and merchant ship have 2 clerics, 2 sorcerers and a bard as part of the crew.

2. Item crafting. The wizard literally has days of downtime because of the travel times and distances. So far he's only crafting potions and writing scrolls, but he's mentioned getting Craft Wondrous Item and Craft Magic Arms and Armor in the future. The bard has also mentioned taking a crafting feat or two. I know how the crafting feats can throw the entire WBL calculation out the window, so I'm looking at this with trepidation, waiting for it to start to get out of hand. (The players are actually really enjoying this aspect of the campaign, too, since we've never played a game with enough downtime to make it worthwhile to take crafting feats.)

So, any advice on what I can do in the future (if necessary) to keep combat encounters during acts of piracy more interesting for the players without heavy-handed tactics like spell-resistance for everyone, increased saves for everyone, anti-magic zones, etc.?

Didn't they change the age categories on human-outsider hybrids so that they don't outlive their parents by a few decades?

That argument would make little logical sense, since humans often outlive their parents by a few decades.

Have kid at 25, life expectancy is 75, your kid is 50 when you die. They then die at 75, 2.5 decades after your death. As such, I never had much issue with planetouched living to be 120-150. Their celestial/fiendish (i.e., immortal) heritage extends their lives by a bit. No big deal.

BretI wrote:

Rysky wrote:

Joana wrote:

I think, overall, discouraging people from getting involved in parts of the game (i.e., a barbarian in negotiations) isn't ideal from a player perspective: "Okay, I've got a 7 Cha so rather than risk alienating every villager in this town, I'll go watch TV until you guys are done talking to the Council."

That would be on the player of the barbarian then for dumping their CHA down to 7. So yeah only really rare circumstances should cause them to try to help out in negotiations, unless they make up for it by investing in Diplomancy.

To put it another way, person A and B are talking. Person B's friend jumps in and shouts F!#! you!" at person A. That's not going to endear person A to any of person B'a group.

Sounds like B's friend just attempted an intimidate check, not a diplomacy check.

Or rolled a 1 on top of their 7 CHA :3

The last line bugs me. Rolling a natural 1 on anything other than an attack or save is NOT an automatic failure. Too many GMs with insufficient rules acumen make this same mistake when they claim to be running, "a totally RAW game." No, you're not. If you tell everyone who rolls 1 on a skill check they auto fail, you're doing it wrong.

Secondly, as most other posters have mentioned, applying a penalty to the Diplomancer's check or decreasing the target's attitude because someone failed an Aid Another roll on the check isn't RAW at all. Failing a Diplomacy check to change someone's attitude that fails by 5 or more results in target's attitude decreasing. Aid Another is NOT a roll to change an attitude, so the decrease was absolutely contrary to RAW.

This ruling falls squarely into the houserule category, and while I'm not necessarily opposed to it from a realism perspective, if you want to play a 'strictly RAW game', you can't make this call.

Captain Mez (surname up to me as the GM), is a human Bard (sea singer) 4. He's a pure face, and adopted Pluck the Parrot as a familiar on reaching L2. He almost can't fail checks to sell plunder and increase the party's infamy. He's also almost entirely responsible for the party turning every NPC on the Wormwood (except the hostile Conchobhar) friendly prior to day 17, making the eventual mutiny way too easy (but still a lot of fun).

First Mate Nuk, a half-orc Brawler 4, is an escaped slave interested in piracy...as long as there are no slaves. Made for an interesting intra-party conflict when I ran them through the Legendary Games AP Plug-In, "Spices and Flesh" and they captured a ship full of slaves. The rest of the party decided it was a great idea to sell the slaves to Shayonna without telling Nuk. He eventually agreed to the sale, but punched Capt. Mez in the face afterwards.

Carpenter/Surgeon Qouli, a custom dhampir/undine Oracle of Urgathoa 4. Qouli doesn't care about being a pirate, he just wants to recruit more followers to Urgathoa's cause. He creates skeletons to keep in the ship's bilge for use as mobile trap finders, when necessary, because the party doesn't have a rogue. He rarely speaks outside of combat, and is covered in tattoos, including a face covering tattoo of Urgathoa's unholy symbol. In combat, he screams nearly nonstop in Abyssal.

Master at Arms Kaerius, a gillman Swashbuckler 4, he wants nothing more than to be a pirate ship captain. He lobbied hard to have the party elect him captain after the mutiny, but was rejected in favor of Mez. He's been quietly resentful of this ever since, and has indicated he's not opposed to finding some way to subtly cause or allow Mez's death so he can become captain. Also, he's a gillman, and I have several ideas on ways to work an aboleth or two into the game to really screw up his life.

Gunnery Master Jayne Cobb, a human Gunslinger (musket master) 4, has an unhealthy attachment to his musket, Vera (mechanically via "Attached' drawback). He's become a pirate for an excuse to shoot things with Vera. And to shoot people with Vera. And to sleep in a hammock with Vera. And to sail the Shackles with Vera. Really, he just wants to do everything with Vera, the piracy is just a fun way to get more shiny, Cap'n.

No longer in the party:

Chief Rigger Khanu, a vanaran Rogue 3, is a mischievous jerk who likes nothing better than to play two people off one another until one of them snaps. One of his first acts aboard the Wormwood was to steal a fan from Aretta and plant it in Conchobhar's footlocker, resulting in the gnome being flogged for theft. He decided to do this after badly failing his initial influence check against Conchobhar and turning him hostile. He then made it his mission to keep Conchobhar hostile, taunting him after another PC would improve his attitude. After the first few sessions, Khanu's player had to drop out of the campaign. The party enjoyed the character so much, though, we kept him in the crew as an NPC.

I've been running S&S for a while now and have a few pointers.

Rules Modifications:

1. I also believe any pirate-centric game requires guns (something I'm generally averse to using in PF games). As such, I made "simple" guns (muskets, pistols, blunderbusses, etc.) simple weapons and more complex guns martial, so (most) everyone can use some sort of gun without additional feats or penalties. Prices are also drastically reduced and pretty much every pirate and sailor carries a couple of basic or MW pistols. This is great for the setting, but hitting touch AC and doing x4 damage on crits can instakill PCs for the first few levels. To help counteract this, I also use the racial bonus HP rule from the PF Beta Playtest. It's helped keep everyone alive.

2. We also use wound thresholds from Unchained. It hasn't seriously affected anything yet, and has actually benefited the players several times by knocking a tough enemy down a little just as the party is starting to wear down.

3. We use the background skill system from Unchained, too. Because so much depends on the PCs being able to work as sailors and have various social interaction skills that aren't always useful in a "normal" PFRPG game, the background system allows the characters to have those skills without harming their ability to make adventuring skill rolls. I seriously recommend giving it a try.

Additional Modules:

I have 5 PCs in the group, and the challenges as presented in the books are a little underwhelming for a party of more than 4. So, to keep them at a reasonable level, I've added in a few extra adventures to allow them to gain additional experience without needing to increase individual encounter difficulties (much).

1. I have added all of the adventures from the Legendary Games Adventure Path Plug-Ins "Islands of Plunder" Series: "Spices and Flesh" between Books 1 and 2, "Tarin's Crown" between Books 2 and 3, "Raid on the Emperor's Hand" during the investigation portion of Book 3, and "Scourge of the Steaming Isle" between Books 3 and 4.

2. I'm adding modified and reduced portions of Paizo's "Plunder and Peril" module(s) during the "Piracy on the Fever Sea" portion of book 2. I increased the time to squib the Man's Promise to d3+1 weeks (because 8 days seemed like a ridiculous amount of time to completely change a ships superstructure), and had Capt. Peggsworthy offer to take the party to the Rum Punch festival as amends for barging in on them at Rickety's.

3. I'm adding 3 other Paizo modules, also: LB1 - "Tower of the Last Baron," moved from Andoran to Sargava to help reinforce the Cheliax invasion subplot and provide some non-piratey type adventure. LB2 - "The Treasure of Chimera Cove" to finish the LB1 story. And "From Shore to Sea," because one of the PCs is a gillman.

I'm a little worried these additions may allow the PCs to progress beyond where they should be in later books, but I'm ok with adding a couple of additional class levels to the BBEGs in books 4-6. I'd like the PCs to be around level 19 when they face the Hurricane King, I think. However, I have too much AD&D 2nd Ed. in my history and I calculate XP exactly rather than use the more free-form method suggested in the rules.

Things to Look Out For:

1. The Wormwood Mutiny can drag or become a drudgery. Specifically the grindylow dungeon crawl in Riptide Cove. I recommend either warning your players of this when they start, or heavily modify it. In our game, the PCs mutinied early and were already in control of the ship before they were shipwrecked on Bonewrack. I rolled randomly to see which NPC the grindylows snagged in addition to Sandara and got Rosie (whom the party loved and had made their new quartermaster). Be warned, following the scenario as written is likely to result in at least one of the NPCs captured by the grindylows drowning. It is difficult, if not downright impossible, for the PCs to save both once they're dropped into the water. I played through the scenario myself a couple of times before running it for my group, and only once was I able to save both (using the party's PCs). They were only able to save Sandara, and were pretty broken up when Rosie died. That added some nice reality and emotional development for the characters, but if your players aren't likely to handle that well, it could go poorly.

2. Because PCs are PCs, expect them to completely screw up the storyline in book 1. Like, seriously jack it up. I warned my players before we started that it was important they befriend NPCs (our group is generally a lot more focused on roll-playing rather than role-playing). Of course, they took this advice to heart, one of the PCs is a face bard focused on diplomacy and perform skills, and spent every free moment influencing NPCs. They never even explored the ship and barely recovered their gear from Grok. They literally converted every non-officer NPC (and three officers) to friendly before "Day 17: Unpleasant Duties." Conchobhar was the only NPC they didn't convert, actually making him actively hostile, which I've read other GMs indicate was especially hard to do. This led them to mutiny early, as mentioned above, and a pretty simple fight against Plugg, Scourge (who they nicknamed 'The Goodwife'), and the few sailors brought on from the Man's Promise's original crew.

3. The ship-to-ship rules suck. I'm currently in the process of deciding which alternate version to use instead. Start planning your conversion now, before you start the campaign.

4. Be ready for lots of unheroic actions. I was at GenCon the year this AP released and sat in on a Paizo seminar with Eric Mona and Lisa Stevens who suggested this AP was the first where GMs were told it was OK for players to be evil. Not required, but allowable. That was one of the many reasons I decided to run it, and it certainly doesn't hurt anything to have non-good PCs. However, it can present an entirely different set of issues for a GM when running a game for evil characters. No problem if you've done so before or decide to disallow evil characters. I just thought it worth mentioning.

Sorry for the novel...but I hope at least some of this is useful to you! Enjoy the AP, it's a lot of fun!

I don't think I've ever taken toughness in PF. My group has almost always used the PF Beta "Racial HP" rule.

Races with racial Con bonus get +8hp.
Races with no racial Con bonus get +6hp.
Races with a racial Con penalty get +4hp.

It really helps make levels 1-3 more survivable, and has little to no impact on PC power levels after 3rd or 4th levels.

It sounds to me like you have it all pretty well thought out. My specific responses:

First, in order to land on an enemy in such a way that would deal damage, you'd have to enter their threatened space. If they're aware of you, would they get an attack of opportunity on the falling creature?

Yes. Nothing in the rules says Attacks of Opportunity are only triggered by movement on the 2D map grid. If your player wants to "Death from Above" an enemy, that enemy gets an AoO when the PC falls through the threatened 5' square (cube) above the enemy.

Second, since you're entering a character's square should an Acrobatic check be made similar to tumbling (5 + enemy's CMD) to see if you can even enter into it.

There's not really anything to cover this in the rules. The Acrobatics check to enter an enemy's square rule was written for voluntarily moving into such a square under the PC's own power. In this example, the PC is moving into the square due to gravity. Rather than an Acrobatics check, I think it's more appropriate to use the rest of the rules for hitting someone with a dropped object

Dropping an object on a creature requires a ranged touch attack.

So, your PC will need to make a ranged touch attack against the target. Since he/she isn't proficient with using his/her body as a weapon, and said body isn't designed to BE a weapon, the -4 improvised weapon penalty seems appropriate. And, since it's an improvised "thrown weapon", the range increment is only 10', so that's another -6 attack penalty. (And the target STILL gets to try the Reflex save to only take half damage.)

Third, again, to land on an enemy, you would have to end your turn on their square, which you can't do.

Not necessarily. Such a collision (IRL) is going to cause both parties to move in unpredictable directions. (Though, IRL it would be possible for the "falling" party to finish the move atop the "target", with both prone.) With no RAW to cover this, you'll have to make something up. I would suggest using Acrobatics checks and Reflex saves along with the thrown weapon scatter diagram to determine where the characters end up. Maybe something like the following:

1. Acrobatics check (DC 20+; your call) to allow the PC to choose which square he lands in adjacent to the target. Failure means you roll randomly on the scatter diagram.
2. Reflex save (DC 20+; your call) to remain standing after the "attack." Failure indicates the PC falls prone in whichever square he ends in.
3. Reflex save (DC 20+; your call) for the target to remain standing after the attack. On a successful save, the target remains standing in its square. On a failure, it falls prone in a random square determined by rolling on the scatter diagram.

Personally, I think it's a terrible tactic. From a realism standpoint, falling 30' onto anything other than water is likely to result in death (and hitting water is likely to cause significant injuries). Jumping from that height does lessen the chance of injury. If you land on another person, you're both going to suffer serious injury or death. (200# falling is going to hit the target with about 6,500 lbs of force.) So, the PC will suffer an Attack of Opportunity, 1d6 lethal damage, 1d6 nonlethal damage, have a -10 penalty to even hit the target, then has a chance of ending up prone beside the target. All for a maximum of 24 points of damage? (12 max if the target has a decent Reflex save.) I'd think it would be better to fly to that height and use a bow...but I fully support any player's desire to play a character their way.

So we're going to see stats for Steve Helt, Steve Rowe, Dan Dillon, and Tim Hitchcock? Awesome...I mean, I've killed Helt before, but this way everyone can join in the fun.

darth_gator wrote:

Greataxe is a melee. There isn't a single phrase in the rules that explicitly states throwing it makes it a ranged weapon

I get your view.

I couldn't disagree more.

You won't be convinced by rules post I believe says its ranged.

Can we both agree to leave it as "Ask your GM"?

Again, cite the actual rule that says throwing a melee weapon changes the weapon's type to Ranged Weapon. You can believe there's a rule that says it's ranged, but I'm not finding it in the CRB. Common sense and logic don't apply to PFRPG rules; this has been established multiple times.

Neither the rule on CRB Pg. 141 regarding thrown weapons, nor the rule on CRB Pg. 144 regarding improvised weapons explicitly states that throwing a melee weapon makes it a "Ranged Weapon." Those rules explain properties and uses of official thrown weapons and improvised weapons; they say nothing about changing a weapon's type from melee to ranged. Assuming those weapons would change type is logical and reasonable; it isn't codified as RAW.

I'll reiterate one more time and I'm out: I don't believe that's RAI, and in no game I run would I treat thrown melee weapons as anything other than a ranged weapon for determining if Precise Shot, Point Blank Shot, or penalties for using a ranged weapon against a target engaged in melee apply to an attack with a thrown melee weapon. Everything I've posted on this is commentary on how it would be asinine to use the specific phrase "Ranged Weapon" in various rules to mean that those rules are limited to applying ONLY to items that appear on the official Ranged Weapon list. The examples I cited are only a few of the examples where it's pretty clear those rules are intended to apply to any ranged attack a character makes.

darth_gator wrote:

If you can't use Precise Shot on spells requiring a ranged attack roll, then you don't suffer the -4 penalty to those attacks when your target is in melee.

Of course, if you want to use the strict wording "ranged weapon," then if my barbarian chooses to throw his greataxe at an enemy in melee, he'll only suffer the -4 improvised weapon penalty, because a greataxe isn't a ranged weapon. So, it's no less effective to throw a greataxe at a character in melee than it is to shoot an arrow at the same character when you don't have Precise Shot.

Additionaly, the Throw Anything feat muddies the water even more. It essentially states that anything you use to make a ranged attack is, by default, a ranged weapon (which actually makes pretty solid logical sense).

d20pfsrd wrote:

Throw Anything (Combat)

You are used to throwing things you have on hand.

Benefit: You do not suffer any penalties for using an improvised ranged weapon. You receive a +1 circumstance bonus on attack rolls made with thrown splash weapons.

Normal: You take a –4 penalty on attack rolls made with an improvised weapon.

I think RAI is that both the penalty and the feat apply to spells requiring ranged attack rolls, but it isn't perfectly clear from the wording used.

This -4 penalty discussed here is for attacking with an improvised weapon -- not for attacking into melee. So this language in no way stands for what you said it stands for.

Please reread my entire original post. I understand the wording for Throw Anything is referencing the improvised weapon penalty, not firing into melee. Actually, the part of the rule I was interested in has nothing to do with the penalty listed under "Normal." It was actually, "You do not suffer any penalties for using an improvised ranged weapon." This seems to indicate that making an attack with ANYTHING from range makes that thing a ranged weapon. Which, as I said originally, makes sense.

The point is that a greataxe is a melee weapon. There isn't a single phrase in the rules that explicitly states throwing it makes it a ranged weapon...except the rules text in Throw Anything. Therefore, if one is going to be pedantic about the exact wording in Precise Shot, i.e. it only applies to "ranged weapons," then every other rule that specifically references "ranged weapons" (such as using a ranged weapon against a character engaged in melee) ONLY applies to ranged weapons...which the greataxe is not. Even if you throw it. Because it's a melee weapon.

Again, I do NOT take that position. It's intended as a demonstration how taking the phrase "ranged weapon" in Precise Shot to mean ONLY those weapons that appear on the list of codified Ranged Weapons can cause nonsensical issues with other ranged attacks.

darth_gator wrote:

If you can't use Precise Shot on spells requiring a ranged attack roll, then you don't suffer the -4 penalty to those attacks when your target is in melee.

Of course, if you want to use the strict wording "ranged weapon," then if my barbarian chooses to throw his greataxe at an enemy in melee, he'll only suffer the -4 improvised weapon penalty, because a greataxe isn't a ranged weapon. So, it's no less effective to throw a greataxe at a character in melee than it is to shoot an arrow at the same character when you don't have Precise Shot.

When used that way the greataxe becomes a thrown improvised weapon, and would take a -8 without precise shot

Please quote the specific rules text that says throwing a melee weapon changes the weapon's type to Ranged or Thrown. From a basic understanding of English, yes, that is absolutely true. And how many times have we found that basic English meanings aren't necessarily applicable to PFRPG rules? In PFRPG, "ranged weapon" is a specific list if tangible things, and greataxe does not appear on that list, ergo, a greataxe is not a "ranged weapon." Additionally, because the greataxe isn't a "ranged weapon," Precise Shot wouldn't apply to the attack anyway.

For what it's worth, I agree that a character would take -8 to the attack roll when throwing a greataxe at a target engaged in melee, because RAI pretty clearly intends it to be so (and I would allow a character to apply Precise Shot, because I interpret "attacks with ranged weapons" to mean "attack rolls made from range"...but that's interpretation, not RAW). But the question is whether or not Precise Shot applies to ranged attacks made with spells that are not specifically identified as 'ranged weapons'. If someone is going to be so pedantic as to limit a feat's applicability because it specifically says "ranged weapon," then they have to apply the same pedantry to each instance that specific phrase is used. Hence my (somewhat ridiculous) example: The -4 penalty to attacking into melee at range ONLY applies to those items that are specifically identified as "ranged weapons."

If you can't use Precise Shot on spells requiring a ranged attack roll, then you don't suffer the -4 penalty to those attacks when your target is in melee.

Of course, if you want to use the strict wording "ranged weapon," then if my barbarian chooses to throw his greataxe at an enemy in melee, he'll only suffer the -4 improvised weapon penalty, because a greataxe isn't a ranged weapon. So, it's no less effective to throw a greataxe at a character in melee than it is to shoot an arrow at the same character when you don't have Precise Shot.

Additionaly, the Throw Anything feat muddies the water even more. It essentially states that anything you use to make a ranged attack is, by default, a ranged weapon (which actually makes pretty solid logical sense).

Throw Anything (Combat)

You are used to throwing things you have on hand.

Benefit: You do not suffer any penalties for using an improvised ranged weapon. You receive a +1 circumstance bonus on attack rolls made with thrown splash weapons.

Normal: You take a –4 penalty on attack rolls made with an improvised weapon.

I think RAI is that both the penalty and the feat apply to spells requiring ranged attack rolls, but it isn't perfectly clear from the wording used.

Nothing grants the attacking incorporeal creature the ability to see through the wall, and nothing about the attacker being incorporeal ignores the other rules associated with being incorporeal.

It can sense the presence of creatures or objects within a square adjacent to its current location, but enemies have total concealment (50% miss chance) from an incorporeal creature that is inside an object. In order to see beyond the object it is in and attack normally, the incorporeal creature must emerge. An incorporeal creature inside an object has total cover, but when it attacks a creature outside the object it only has cover, so a creature outside with a readied action could strike at it as it attacks.

The creature within the wall has total cover and full concealment, whether the attacker is incorporeal or corporeal.

darth_gator wrote:

No, that's a specific campaign world where steel has intrinsic value because EVERYONE values steel. Local market variance is Kobold Tribe Bloodgut values pink shells more than blue shells, but Kobold Tribe Ripskin values blue shells more than pink shells. Neither has great intrinsic value because only one group values them while the rest of the world considers them essentially worthless.

So where are you drawing this line? I go to another kobold tribe's village and the spell works fine, yeah, sure.

But I go to another planet and the spell functions differently?

What about planes? If I go to the elemental plane of earth or hell can I make things I can't on the PMP?

Or does origin matter? If a wizard from Golarion went to Krynn could he make steel?

The line is drawn by the general perception of value, not the specific perception. You can create shells of any color no matter where you are because they are inherently worthless, no matter how much a particular group of Kobolds may value them (the GM would need to determine if the Kobolds from one tribe or another have different limitations). On Krynn, literally EVERYONE values steel...it's used as currency. So, yes, the spell functions differently on Krynn than it does on not-Krynn.

Since the denizens of various planes place different values on items, the spell may well work differently in those areas.

darth_gator wrote:

But by putting a definitive GP limit on what you can create, you do two things:

1. You eliminate the imaginative element by turning the spell into a simple creation factory rather than a story-telling device.

Not really. The only difference is that you're being more explicit. I don't see how making a spell have more table variance and be the victim of arbitraty adjudication makes it any more of a narrative device.

Yes, really. Because now to use the spell the player has to consult charts and tables to see if what he/she wants to create is allowed. That's limiting imaginative uses. For example, "I'd like to polymorph the iron door on my cell into a cube of hardwood of a different shape so I can get out of the cell. *checks table* Oh. That block of hardwood would be worth 56gp, and I can only create items worth 55gp. Guess I can't do it."

I don't really see a problem with that question either. And it's a question you can already ask, just, again, while being at the mercy of fickle decision making and incredible variation.

Except if you ask the question now, your GM can say, "You can't create gold," and it's supportable because there's no allowance in the spell to create anything of a specific value. By tying specific values to the items one can create, there is no support for saying the player can't just create the sale price in gold. The spell isn't intended to be a means to generate revenue.

darth_gator wrote:

Local market variance shouldn't make a difference,

You say that, but

Quote:

For example, you can create something made of steel on essentially any campaign world in the Pathfinder and/or D&D multiverses, but on Krynn, no dice - because steel is inherently valuable there.

That's pretty much the definition of local market variance.

No, that's a specific campaign world where steel has intrinsic value because EVERYONE values steel. Local market variance is Kobold Tribe Bloodgut values pink shells more than blue shells, but Kobold Tribe Ripskin values blue shells more than pink shells. Neither has great intrinsic value because only one group values them while the rest of the world considers them essentially worthless.

Dunno, feels like saying "can't create items worth more than X gold" or "X+Y*Level gold" wouldn't be excessive or obtuse or nearly as vague as the current statement.

But by putting a definitive GP limit on what you can create, you do two things:

1. You eliminate the imaginative element by turning the spell into a simple creation factory rather than a story-telling device.

2. You create a situation where the inventive player will say, "If I can create items worth up to 20gp which I can then sell for 10gp, why can't I just create 10gp?"

in·trin·sic

adjective
belonging naturally; essential.

It means anything that is, in and of itself, in general, valuable. Local market variance shouldn't make a difference, nor should temporary limited supply or artificially inflated demand.

For example, you can create something made of steel on essentially any campaign world in the Pathfinder and/or D&D multiverses, but on Krynn, no dice - because steel is inherently valuable there. If you were on not-Krynn and needed to create a steel spatula to save the village from rampaging werepancakes and someone had stolen all the towns iron and carbon stores, you could still create the blessed spatula because steel doesn't have 'great intrinsic value' on not-Krynn, despite the incredible market price the steel would demand in that specific situation.

As Rub-Eta said:

The spell can't provide a full system or chart...

You just can't create things that most reasonable people would agree are valuable in and of themselves.

BerinHardt wrote:

By using marbles of about 1/10 of an inch...

I don't know why, but using 1/10 of an inch as a measurement really bothers me. Usually you have either 1/10 of a centimeter, or a millimeter, or you have an 1/8 or 3/32 of an inch. This mixing of metric and imperial measurement seems like some kind of unholy abomination.

sorry, I do a lot of measuring in my job

OFF TOPIC - It's not mixing metric and imperial, it's just breaking the imperial units into more useful subdivisions. Any time you use precision measuring tools (micrometers, calipers, etc) you have to use decimal subdivisions. I work for a US based medical device manufacturer and many of our products have tolerances of +/- .001" (one thousandth of an inch). When you're working with fine details, standard fractional subdivisions just don't work.

Listen to Reven Ent. If you're low enough level and your party absolutely refused to take a masterwork weapon, you should certainly take it to sell. That's like seeing a piece of jewelry lying on the ground and your friends refusing to pick it up because they don't wear jewelry. Pick it up, sell it to a pawnshop, enjoy your free money.

I see no rule that says they can't. Using cackle is a move action, so as long as the spell you want to cast isn't a full-round action, cackle and cast away.

But Steal only applies to in combat checks and has nothing to do with picking someone's pockets.

You can only substitute your Steal CMB for Sleight of Hand if you take Graceful Steal. That's a pretty closet case, and not likely to be something Hulk (or a Colossal Red Dragon) would do. So, technically, yes, Hulk COULD, by taking a very specific feat that doesn't match his character build, be better at stealing things in combat than Black Widow. Maybe.

And who says you can't pick someone's pocket in combat? I'm unaware of any limitation on Sleight of Hand that says you can't use it in combat. I'm pretty sure Black Widow can make herself invisible, and she's sneaky as f***. So, combat starts, she goes invisible on her initiative (isn't that a +20 to stealth?) and sneaks up behind the baddie with the item you want. Then she picks his pocket and takes it. It's another issue if baddie is holding it, but if he's holding it in combat, you can assume it's probably providing him/her a combat bonus. So if you've allowed the situation to get to the point where you have to enter combat, yes, the big dude is better able to take the item away. And if the item is in the baddie's pocket, the actual mechanics may allow the big dude a better modifier to Steal (assuming a bizarre/unusual feat choice for a "break all of the things tank") than the sneaky character. But it's still going to be a closet case. If someone's building a high strength, large+ size martial type and spends a feat on Graceful Steal on the off chance that the party will be in a situation where they have to take something from an enemy that their Neidermeyer isn't able to steal outside of combat, I'm going to question their character building acumen.

In case you're unaware: d20PFSRD is essentially the Core Rulebook and all the expansions without Paizo specific character or IP references.

You can't learn 8th level spells as a wizard until 15th level, actually.

No matter what your Intelligence score, your maximum spell level is limited to the table in the CRB:

Level 1-2 = 1st level spells
Level 3-4 = 2nd level spells
Level 5-6 = 3rd level spells
Level 7-8 = 4th level spells
Level 9-10 = 5th level spells
Level 11-12 = 6th level spells
Level 13-14 = 7th level spells
Level 15-16 = 8th level spells
Level 17+ = 9th level spells

EDIT: Ninja'd by CampinCarl

Edit Edit: If you happen to find a wand of a higher level wizard spell, you can use the wand regardless of your level. So, if you found a wand of Fireball in your first session, you can start using it immediately.

To be fair, from a statistics standpoint, the idea that you will fail once in every 20 attempts is inaccurate. The mechanics of probability only work out to the 1/20 failure rate after thousands of attempts. Probability tells us each individual roll has a 5% of being a specific number, not that you're going to roll one of each number on 20 rolls. If you've rolled a d20 19 times without rolling a 1, you are no more likely to roll a 1 than you were on the first, third, tenth, or eighteenth roll.

Don't believe that? Record all of your d20 rolls for an entire campaign, segregated by groups of 20 consecutive rolls. Then check groups of 20 rolls randomly. It is extremely improbable that you will have both a 1 and a 20 in each of those groups. It is unlikely you will have a 1 OR a 20 in every group. However, taken as a whole (assuming several thousand rolls for the entire campaign), you will likely be close to 1/20 of the total being 1s and 1/20 being 20s.

So, this is an even MORE convincing argument for not treating 1s and 20s as autofails or autosuccesses on skill checks. Because the highly trained adventurer wouldn't fail to climb a ladder once out of every twenty attempts; they'd succeed 150 times in a row, then fail several times in a short period.

IMO, if you want to houserule it to allow greater variability for the 1s and 20s, treat it like the old West End Games d6 system wild die. If you roll a 20, add it to the total then roll again and add the total, continuing to add 20 until you don't roll a 20. If you roll a 1, roll the d20 again and subtract that number from the total (treat another 1 as a -20) and continue to reroll until you don't roll a 1. This will allow you to have the occasional wild success or failure, but rarely. So, when Michael Phelps has a Swim skill modifier of +45 and he rolls a 1, then rolls a 10, he still scores a 35 on his check, handily swimming better with his worst effort than most of us will ever hope to swim on our best effort. Once in a very great while, he'll jump in the pool, clip his toe on the edge of the deck and flounder for the first few seconds he's in the water (rolled a 1, then a 1, then a 1, then a 5 for -45 and a 0 on his first swim check).

The -2 CR adjustment for NPC class levels only applies to characters with ONLY NPC class levels. As soon as you add a PC level, the CR is Character Level -1 (barring adjustments for races with racial hit dice or other CR adjustments). See quoted rule above.

So, this character would be CR 5, by RAW.

Something tells me this fighter isn't as OP as you think. What's his specialty?

I didn't see an answer to this...I too am curious what this fighter is doing to make him seem so OP? Unless the GM is specifically selecting monsters that are weak towards melee. I mean, unless the player has solid system mastery, a CR 7 Succubus beats the fighter. (I've yet to meet a rookie player who chooses fighter that fully understands the power of the Will save; this fighter's probably rocking what, a +4 Will?)

That being said, rather than trying to figure out a character that will allow you to "beat" the GM and the fighter, why don't you all sit down and discuss the situation before or after a session? Does anyone else in the group feel like this fighter is OP and killing people's fun? If you're the only person who thinks the fighter is over the top and causing problems, why not build a character to make the fighter better? Play a cleric and buff the crap out of the fighter, then, when your GM finally sends something the fighter can't handle, maybe you'll have the perfect spells(s) ready to go.

All that being said, the suggestion of Gunslinger (Musketmaster) with alchemical charges, rapid shot, and rapid reload is ridiculous. I've played with one of these, and while it may not be the most broken character ever, shooting a target 3 (or is it 4 @ 10th level?) times per round from well outside charge range and using touch AC gets pretty crazy.

I fail to see how ignoring all non-living material makes BE overpowered. If it's a sword, it has a total blade (significant portion) length of 1.5 to 3 feet for medium creatures. Exactly that much of the item can pass through a wall (for example), damaging any living matter it strikes. Since most dungeon maps show walls as 5' thick, the sword won't even pass entirely through the wall because the hilt/crosspiece/etc will stop once it makes contact with the wall. Even if the walls are only 6-8 inches thick, the weapon doesn't give the wielder any way to actually SEE what's on the other side of the wall.

And who's to say the target is within 2.5 feet or less of the wall anyway? These issues become even less problematic when applied to other weapons because of the extremely truncated "significant portions": Arrows = about 2 inches, spears = about 8 inches, polearms = about 12 inches. Things like quarterstaves and spiked chains could present a greater issue, but the wielder STILL has no way to actually see a target on the other side of a solid object.

The list of conditions that have to be met for a character to actually use a BE weapon against an opponent on the opposite side of a solid barrier are so specific, they will rarely come up in a game setting. And even if they do, unless the character scores a one-shot kill, it won't matter at all...because the opponent hit will simply back one square away from the barrier and stay completely out of range of any BE weapon the attacker cares to use.

False. "Share Spells" specifically states that you can cast spells with a target of "YOU" on your eidolon, even if the spell wouldn't normally affect a creature of the eidolon's type. Enlarge Person doesn't have a target of "YOU," it has a target of "One Humanoid Creature." See the difference?

See Invisibility has a target of "You," allowing you to share it with an eidolon.

This is a pretty simple concept. Spells target specific things. "Share Spells" allows you to cast spells on your eidolon you otherwise can't cast on any other creatures, because other creatures aren't you. If there weren't a large number of spells that have a target of "You" specifically, then the "Share Spells" feature wouldn't specifically state that shared spells must target "You."

Like it or not, that's RAW.

It does exactly what the spell says it does:

This spell causes instant growth of a humanoid creature, doubling its height and multiplying its weight by 8. This increase changes the creature's size category to the next larger one. The target gains a +2 size bonus to Strength, a -2 size penalty to Dexterity (to a minimum of 1), and a -1 penalty on attack rolls and AC due to its increased size.

Height doubles.

Choose one of the creature's natural attack forms (not an unarmed strike). The damage for this natural attack increases by one step on the following list, as if the creature's size had increased by one category. Damage dice increase as follows: 1d2, 1d3, 1d4, 1d6, 1d8, 2d6, 3d6, 4d6, 6d6, 8d6, 12d6.

A weapon or attack that deals 1d10 points of damage increases as follows: 1d10, 2d8, 3d8, 4d8, 6d8, 8d8, 12d8.

But this topic should really be in the houserule forum, because enlarge person doesn't work on eidolons.

The summoner may cast a spell with a target of “you” on his eidolon (as a spell with a range of touch) instead of on himself.

Targe: One humanoid creature

Not a target of "You."

Grease affects solid surfaces and, if the counter-argument is that the spell doesn't specifically allow the effect to turn at a 90 degree angle, that also means the spell doesn't specifically allow the effect to turn at any angle. But it would be ridiculous to presume that Grease must be cast upon a mirror-flat surface or that you cannot grease a set of stairs.

But dropping grease on a set of stairs doesn't require you to bend the area of affect; the grease coats the top of the steps only, not the kickplate at the front of each step. If it does coat the kickplate, you're going to lose around 6" of width for each step. So, with a 10" step, you're going to use 16" of grease. You had 120" to start with, so you're only going to get 7.5' x 10' on the stairs, and since we round down in PF, you only get 5' x 10'. I think we can agree that there's no intent in the rules to reduce the area greased when cast on steps, so the area of affect doesn't actually bend around the steps; it merely coats the step portion. Neither does it automatically bend 90 degrees perpendicularly to coat 5' of floor and 5' of wall per RAW. In actual practice, I can see very few situations arising where allowing the greased area to spread onto the wall would cause any problems at all, and if a player asked, I'd allow it. However, the OP wanted to know if he could cast the spell in the 5' wide corridor at all, which we both agree he can.

Glitterdust is a spread (detailed in the Magic chapter)

Yes, glitterdust spreads into 4 squares in the 5' wide corridor, coating the floor, walls, and ceiling (provided it's no more than 10 or 20' high, depending on where the spell was centered).

So burst means it spreads, but if it doesn't have any space on the 10 ft you don't get a 4 line glitterdust, right?

Actually you will have a line of 4 squares with glitterdust, because it has a 10' radius which equates to a 20' diameter.