jasharen's page

If these are still available I'd love a copy.

jasharen at gmail

Hello everyone! :)

Great resources here. I'm starting up a RotR game and I'm hoping to find a copy of the sandpoint map that was floating around with no number keys.

There are a few posts but all the links appear to be broken.

Any help would be appreciated!

Thanks!

Perfect, thanks!

+1 to reading skill :)

I'd like some feedback on a level 20 Mystic Theurge build for an upcoming Wrath of the Righteous campaign. I have to say, Mythic path stuff is insanely powerful.

I've focused on making the build playable at every level all the way up using the FAQ ruling for early entry to Mystic Theurge.

The build stat block assumes many active spells, this is largely due to the fact that as soon as I get to act in a new combat, using Mythic Timestop allows full buffing for the entire group. Also a lot of these spells would be extended.

I've kept the stat block to self buffs only.

In regards to melee I don't see this as a front line tank, but a damage dealer. Much like a rogue, always relying on the group. Anytime I get the attention of the bad guys, I'd use mirror dodge and blip away.

Combine that with dimension door, teleport and greater teleport for complete battle field movement, and the ability to act as a potent caster as well and penetrate spell resistance with +30 caster level (more under some scenarios) and immediate counter spell capability.

I realize that dimensional anchor/lock down would be a serious issue, but in that case I'd fall back on being a traditional caster with plenty of shut down spells.

Edit: updated ascension clarification

Does this spell work for someone that is already mythic?

Lets say a T10 archmage path, casts this and wants the T1 champion abilities on herself.

Would that work for the duration of the spell? or is this just an easy way to make your non mythic companions mythic?

Thanks!

I would say the Cauldron Chronicle newsletters I have made combined with Delvedeep's dreams handouts have been the 2 best things I have added to my Shackled City campaign.

The newsletter has helped Cauldron seem more real, as well as being a great way to introduce and foreshadow plot threads in the campaign. Rumours written up in the paper have been a lot easier for me to introduce rather than me mentioning them to the players when they wander around town or have a drink in an inn. Having everything written down for the players also helps them to remember things between sessions.

The dreams have helped to link the adventures together more so they don't seem so disjointed. The players think the dreams make for a pretty cool story all by themselves too.

Even if my next campaign doesn't have a home base like the SCAP does, I am thinking of keeping the newsletter thing happening anyway. It just helps immerse players in the setting more and is a great way to give them little bits of information about what is going on in the world around them.

Olaf the Stout

Does anyone happen to still have these issues? I've been looking for inspiration and these articles would go a long way. but with therpgenius no longer running I haven't been able to find them.

If anyone can help, please send me a message at jasharen@hotmail.com. :)

Thanks!

Could I also get a word version? :)

I have a question to those that are saying that the Dex bonus is no longer a Dex bonus, and therefore using the ability to add INT to the dex bonus would not work.

Once in play, is that 'still' no longer a dex bonus? Because if its an INT bonus and NOT a dex bonus now, does that mean that the character is immune to effects that deny his dex bonus to AC?

If not, then the INT 'modifier' is now the dex bonus, and should qualify. :)

Actually the hypothesis that they are currently working on is that Zeech is the next big mover and shaker in the AoW, and that he has imprisoned / disposed of Lashona.

They investigated the Ziggurat pretty closely and I didn't think to hide what it was seeing as its laid out pretty clearly. Ironically as soon as I let it out I knew my mistake.

They know that he is the one behind it, and they know it is related to Kyuss returning.

As it currently stands they are a little less then a week away from the events and intend to destroy the Ziggurat before the celebrations.

The only certain way I can see to stop it is to have Lashona get wind of it and decide to meet them early, or perhaps send them a note saying that she knows they want to meet but to be patient and wait till after the celebration. Something about not being safe to meet now.

The problem with the note is the party isn't likely to believe it was truly her sending it. So it goes back to the face to face meeting, in which case I short circuit the celebration and I will if I have to but I'd rather not as there is some cool stuff in that meeting.

My group is currently in Prince of Redhand and I've run into what seems to be a huge problem.

They've obviously recently finished the Spire of Long shadows, and once they saw the ziguarat in Alhaster they are hell bent on destroying it.

I can't think of a reason to get them to follow through on finding Lashona and then heading to the isle, not that convinces them to walk away from the clear and obvious connection to bringing Kyuss back?

Anyone else have this problem or some suggestions?

I agree that you need to be careful of the difference between diplomacy and bluff, and I've failed in that area on occasion.

But often the person believing the lie is more then enough. And if the lie were in fact true, the DM would never require the diplomacy check to ensure something happened.

To use your example above, had the bard changed the lie to be:

Bard: Your captain sent me to round up all the men to fight the dragon on the other side of the city, hurry man get over there!(bluff check, big negatives for circumstances and general disbelief)
Guard: (Believes the lie) Oh man, they need my help, but I am posted here, and I will get in trouble if I leave my post.
Bard: Whatever man, I heard the captain say something about hanging the cowards that didn't get there asap. But its your neck not mine, bye!! (bluff check)
Guard: (Believes the lie) .... is he going to stick around? Especially if the captain has a reputation for abuse?

An example of a use the bard in my game put his bluff to:

Scenario: The spire of long shadows in age of worms.

In the above scenario, the use of bluff was perfect. Where the problem comes in is the fact that he could have done the same thing while Makar was alive and casting(still cool), the problem is he could have said I am not going to bother to roll today I’m bored so assume I get a 1. With a 1 rolled, he would have over a 50 bluff. On a twenty he could have had around a 70.

I have tried making a 15th-20th level character focusing everything they can on sense motive and the best I can do is around a 30 at 15th level and up to a 40 at 20th level.

So by my basic math skills, the target would have to be 10 levels above the bard to have a 50% chance of detecting his lies and the entire character concept would have to focus on being able to do this.

If the nastiest most deadly melee monster in the game at any given level had to be 10 levels above a fighter to have a 50% chance of hitting them the response would be vastly different.

This goes both ways also, it would suck if a player made the entire concept of his character for 20 level being that he can sense what people are thinking before they even know it, and he comes up against a bard and the GM just says...sorry soandso, you rock but you just have no chance.

Where do you get the +20 from alter self? I just checked the PRD and there is no mention of that bonus.(it may be in the hard cover but I am at work)

Also if it did I would expect that the stacking rules would come into play between it and disguise self.(which does call out the +10 in the PRD)

Although I do see that it appears to be untyped for disguise self.

Vocal Alteration gives a +10 but I would rule that it only comes into play for someone determining that the voice was off. If someone knew the target well enough to know the voice was off, I'd give them a chance to detect the disguise on that front instead of on visually. In this case I'd use the common sense rule to give one bonus for visual and give the other bonus for auditory.

A +10 I would be ok with from spell source, as that would mean that two equal level characters, one focused in disguise and one in perception can still compete. It heavily leans towards the person using the spell, but there is still the outside chance of a specialist being able to detect him. A +20 bonus in a system that has a random factor of 1d20 removes the random factor completely.

Of course anyone lower level or not focused as heavily into the opposing skill is going to have no chance. Which for the record I am ok with.

When a 4th level bard can have a +50 or so modifier to Disguise, having a high Bluff is hardly broken.

I'm not sure how the logic that A is broken, therefore B being broken is ok works. :)

Oh and I'll bite, how do you get +50 to disguise as a 4th level bard in pathfinder?

Nadreth,
I understand players want something cool. If you read through and understand the rewrite, you'll see they are still getting something no one else can do.

However an auto win button (such as glibness + bluff focused) is not any fun for anyone.

I will point out that my player is not abusing this. He is actually very conservative about it, however when you literally can NOT make an NPC that can roll against it as written there is a problem.

I don't know about your games, but in my experience over the last three decades of gaming is that the most memorable moments in a game were when you achieved something that no one thought you could. Not because it was an auto win, but because you beat the odds and succeeded.

When a level 15 bard is getting mid 60's bluff checks, nothing that would ever be a challenge can compete. Ever. It would have to be mid range epic CR to have a sense motive to compare.

By changing the effect as I have, high level bards can still accomplish something others would never be able to. In fact, 13+ they are still managing to get that +20, its just being used to counter the negative circumstance, so its as easy to convince someone that the sky is red when its blue as it is to convince them that you were robbed in a city of thieves (when you weren't). Thats a pretty big advantage in my books. :)

Hello all,
I've been having problems in my campaign with Glibness and spoke out against it in beta as well.

In short, my problem is that Glibness goes well beyond the scope of any other spell in the game. No other spell that I am aware of offers +20 to an opposed skill check, and does so for 10 minutes per caster level.

Very quickly it becomes impossible to have any chance to detect the bard using glibness (short of arcane means), and even then its possible for the bard to convince the poor wizard that his detect magic is wonky ;)

At the end of the day I don't think any character should be able to have an auto win opposed skill check, even against someone fully optimized (in this case for sense motive).

At the same time I don't want to just remove Glibness, I do think the bard should be the best at this. So I designed this alternative to glibness.

Some background required to fully understand the spell, I have removed the auto fail on bluff clause and replaced it with a -40 modifier. Under normal circumstances this is still and auto fail, but it opens up the door for some more advantages to glibness.

So without further ado:

Glibness
School transmutation; Level bard 3
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components S
Range personal
Target you
Duration 10 min./level (D)

Your speech becomes fluent and more believable, causing those who hear you to believe every word you say.

You gain the ability to ignore certain negative circumstance penalties dependant upon your level.

Caster Level Circumstance New Modifier
7 The target believes the lie is unlikely. +0
10 The target believes the lie is far-fetched. +0
13 The target believes the lie is nearly unbelievable. +0
16 The recipeint believes the lie to be outright impossible, -20
or has evidence to the contrary before her eyes.

If a magical effect is used against you that would detect your lies or force you to speak the truth,
the user of the effect must succeed on a caster level check (1d20 + caster level) against a DC of 15 +
your caster level to succeed. Failure means the effect does not detect your lies or force you to speak only the truth.

Also note that Glibness can be detected as normal via spells such as Detect Magic, Arcane Sight, etc. If the caster of these spells identifies Glibness on the target the advantages are nullified for that caster.

-----
Edit: This means that at 7th level caster level, the -5 penalty for a lie being unlikely is negated. At 10th level the -10 penalty for far-fetched is negated, at 13th the -20 for a nearly impossible lie is negated and at 16th level my own -40 modifier is reduced to -20.

I have to chuckle to myself anytime I see responses like the ones above.

The simple fact is that 3.0/3.5/PFRPG have little in the way of believable economics. They just simply don't work.

Suggesting that a store clerk at the corner store and a wizard selling potions make the same profit with the same roles as an alternative is just impossible to grasp, its like suggesting a rocket scientist and a McDonald's clerk make the same money today. It doesn't matter how good that clerk is at his or her job, the rocket scientist will blow the earning potential of the clerk away.

Basically most games gloss over this, but the simple truth is that doesn't sit well with some players. Some people want to do things during downtime, or have something to fall back on when not adventuring. Sandbox play doesn't always have the adventurers running hell bent between one fight and the next.

Anyway, to the OP, I don't really have any suggestions to fix the economics. I wish I did because I have several games where it would be really nice.

If anyone knows of any guides or books out there that address it I know I'd buy it in a heart beat.

Here in Canada the difference is massive, agreed hogarth.

I just ordered a game screen and Ultimate magic and got a $75 price tag. I could have gotten it free shipping from amazon and paid final price of around $38 give or take.

Thats not a minor discount, thats darn near %50 off. However, for me getting it quickly and supporting Paizo end up worth the trade off, with supporting Paizo being the top of my list.

Rogue bleed combined with Critical focus bleed I believe combine based on the statement in the critical focus where this effect stacks.

All I can think of everytime I read that is a dual wielding kukri dex based fighter with improved critical. At 11th level thats potentially 6 attacks criting on a 15+, for upwards of 12d6 a round of 'bleed' damage. On top of the base damage. And thats only the first round, round two you reach a potential of 24d6 a round (this is going from memory that the crit bleed is 2d6 per crit)

Now I admit the odds are much more likely to 'only' cause 4d6 damage cumulative a round in the above scenario (1/4 of attacks are potential crits)

As for the feat requirements, fighters get essentially a feat every level all said and done, so 2 or 3 feats is not much of an investment by 11th level (although I admit the above example requires a fair amount more, 6 I believe).

I personally don't find it overpowered, I find it downright broken.

I have two characters in my group that cause bleed damage, and after a couple rounds the cumulative bleed is rediculous.

As for a Heal check, a) full round action, b) provokes attacks of opportunity(which cause bleed lol). Enough said, I think my players would be overjoyed if the bad guy made an attempt to stop the bleeding.

And not every encounter I toss at my players can have a handy healer nearby to stop the bleeding.

I have been debating making the bleed damage more like the flame effect on a weapon, ie yes you do 1d6 (or however much the effect states) extra damage, once. It doesn't continue round to round.

One thought I had was having the MT itself have its own spell progression. Instead of increasing both the divine and arcane levels, have it give 1 3rd level spell at 1st level that can be used for either a divine or arcane spell.

What this would do is allow a character to have a slew of first and second level spells, but as soon as they hit MT, they continue on a consolidated spell list, but approx 1 full spell level behind the rest.

1 spell level lag is not a show stopper at any level, and in addition by merging 3rd level + spells onto one casting list you control the multitude of extra spells that many seem to offer up as a strength of the class (one I can say from my experience that I never got to enjoy as others have also stated)

So your spells would look something like this as a 1st level MT:

Arcane
4/2/1

Divine
4/2/1

Hybrid
0/0/0/1

Having played a MT in a group with both a pure cleric and a pure wizard in 3.5 up to level 10 or so, I can honestly tell you that from 7 (entry point) to 10, it REALLY blows.

As has been stated in the posts above, having a lot of spells is nice if you are the caster of the group. It is also a big boon to the group as they can adventure longer.

However, in my situation we always stopped the minute one of our other casters ran out of higher level spells, completely negating my one advantage every time.

As far as versatility goes, yes it was nice to be able to do a little bit of everything. But it was just that a LITTLE bit of everything. And they get no abilities near as good as someone else in the group can do.

Any buff I could do, someone else in the group could do better all around, or way sooner.

Also when I had access to 2nd level spells, my group mates had 4th level spells. If you think that’s no big deal, picture being a 7th level party and fighting 2 3rd level orcs (1 a wizard, the other a cleric) or one 7th level wizard…any sane person is going to acknowledge that the 2 3rd level orcs are no comparison to one 7th level wizard or Cleric.

Also CR are balanced on the assumption that an X level group is going to have access to X level spells, not X-2 level spells.

Now for the record, I DO think that in the upper teens this discrepancy is hugely mitigated to the point that the versatility gained balances the costs as whether a buff lasts 17 rounds or 13 rounds usually isn't that big of a deal, and the number of extra castings sits the MT in good stead.

My thoughts on the MT is this, anything in the way of increases should be at the lower end of the scale, but not so big that someone would just dip for that advantage (not likely due to the entry requirements, this is likely one of the higher requirement classes to get into in terms of sacrifice and not something that you would just stumble into).
One thing that I know would have helped me as a MT at the lower levels is the ability to blow 1 spell to mitigate 1 level increase of metamagic (and only 1, ie no removing 2 levels for 2 spells). This would allow a 1st level MT (cleric/wiz) to have a duration of 8 rounds on any buffs he did for example. Putting his duration (but not power) at the same approximate level of other characters. Keep in mind though he’s still 2 full spell levels behind the pure casters. So pure wizard is doing haste and fire shield for example, while the MT is doing Bull strength. Hardly directly comparable power wise, or web vs black tentacles.

Also, with wizards and clerics gaining access to really nice domain and school powers now (and sorcerers bloodlines) losing access to these is also notworthy even at higher levels. No capstone power hurts no matter how you look at it.

I might (and I stress might) even think that giving a 2nd level MT a free single level reduction in metamagic cost would go a long way to balancing out things at the low level, while avoiding seriously overpowering things at the higher levels.

In closing, towards the higher level I think MT are “ok”, say once the MT gains 6th level spells. But the disparity of 2nd level spells vs 4th level spells at same level does not balance out by having a few more at half the duration of anyone else. 4rnds of a buff is not much.
One further thing I’ll point out, if PF goes the route of significantly increasing the durations of buff spells I believe this discussion is not nearly as important. If I can cast bull strength for a 1 hr / level duration for example as 3.0 had, the difference is not as significant anymore and the MT can at least go a long way towards keeping the group buffed while the ‘real’ casters use their spells for more direct short term results.

Swim: Page 75 - Underwater holding breath: Indicates you can hold your breath for 1 round per point of constitution.

Also any standard or full round actions reduce this by half again.

Drowning: Page 331 - Any character can hold her breath for a number of rounds equal to twice her constitution score.

No mention of the limitiations on action types.

I apologize if I missed this in my search...

I'm running a Pathfinder game and my players noticed before I did (I bought a couple of copies and printed one) that there is no longer an xp cost with crafting magical items.

Is this intended/as designed? I think it's grossly overpowerful if there is not some other cost to making a magical item than just gold.

Having played a crafting wizard in a party before, I am so happy to see the experience costs removed.

The problam I ran into wasn't my own personal crafting, sure as posted above the experience wasn't horrendous if you only worried about yourself.

Where it got crippling was when you considered the implications of creating items for other party members. I think someone pointed out 2.5 levels behind if you only worried about yourself, but when you started factoring in a party of 6's wealth, turning that into items for a high level party became crippling, and to boot no way to spread the experience hit between the party.

The responsibility should fall on the DM to mitigate factors in item creation (ie reagent availability, time, gold, etc) not on the poor wizard to eat the cost of everyone elses toys.

No wizard in their right mind would ever have made a +1 sword he couldn't use before, their are easier ways for a wizard to make money that don't cost loss of his memories (exp).

I always thought any artificer had to be somewhat insane in 3.x to want to create items at all, let alone make a career out of it.

Why do people not actually READ the PF rules before they reply on rules questions and then quote the original 3.x rules. It can get truly confusing. /sigh

Cleave
Benefit
You can strike two adjacent foes with a single swing.
Prerequisites: Str 13, Power Attack, base attack bonus +1.
Benefit: As a full-round action, make a single melee attack
against a foe within reach. If you hit, you deal damage
normally and can make an additional attack (at the same
bonus) against a foe that is adjacent to the first and also
within reach. Both of these attacks are made at your highest
attack bonus. You can only make one additional attack
per round with this feat.

Great Cleave
You can strike a number of adjacent foes with a single
mighty swing.
Prerequisites: Str 13, Cleave, Power Attack, base attack
bonus +4.
Benefit: As a full-round action, make a single melee attack
against a foe within reach. If you hit, you deal damage
normally and can make an additional attack (at the same
bonus) against a foe that is adjacent to the previous foe and
within reach. If you hit, you can continue to make attacks
against foes adjacent to the previous foe, so long as they
are within your reach. You cannot attack an individual foe
more than once in a round with this feat.

You will note the distinct lack of having to reduce a cerature to 0 hps anymore. All that is required is a hit.

Now in regards to the adjacent comment, I would hazzard an educated guess that the spirit or intention of the wording was not to be able to hit one foe in front of you, and cleave to the foe behind you.

I would say cuddos to the OP for allowing this, to me as a DM it seems a relatively straight forward call and completely within the spirit of the wording of the actual PF rules. :)

jasharen wrote:

Gives ability to avoid lies(even magical detection of said lies), gives +30 (or potentially revamped +20) to bluff skill, stacks wtih your own bluff skill, and the only limitation is that it can't be used for several abilities that most characters dont' use it for anyway. And can be used repeatedly on the same target for the entire duration.

The reason it has such a long duration is because it is a "buff" spell. But unlike a typical combat spell, it's not likely that you're going to be able to get to the target you want to use it on within 1 minute/level. And I'll once again reiterate that if you drop the bonus to +10 or remove the bonus altogether, it becomes a much more manageable and reasonable spell.

I agree completely, reduce the bonus to +10 and leave the rest of the spell as is, and I would be comfortable with it. Its still an extremely nice spell, but not 'broken'.

Either that or a +20 Skill check, that does not stack in any way would also work. Eventually the spell would only be useful for its protection from lie detection, but again by that level it will still be useful. Either approach works.

Hopefully someone is looking at this and taking it to heart.

I have no problem with the level of the spell - it's supposed to be the natural counter for Discern Lies. It's one of the reasons why Bards are the top dogs when it comes to social interaction. That being said, even I have to wonder why Glibness grants a +20 to your Bluff check. Keep in mind that the largest penalty that you can receive on your Bluff check is -20 for lies that are "way out there, almost too impossible to consider". This bonus basically eradicates that penalty and allows Bards to make regular rolls for impossible lies. However, I don't think that dropping the bonus to +10 would be too powerful. But hey, maybe I'm missing something here. If there's a reason for such a high bonus, I'd love to know what it is.

On a related note: I prefer the more in-depth description of the Bluff skill that was in the original SRD. I also believe that the description in the Beta document is a little oversimplified. Finally, I think that it needs to be made clear that some lies really are completely impossible (i.e. telling someone that the sky is red when it is clearly blue) and will automatically fail no matter how high your Bluff skill is.

And I still believe that Reincarnate is more broken the Glibness.

I agree that this is a counter to Discern Lies, however compare:

Discern Lies
4th level cleric / 3rd level paladin
Duration: 1 rnd per level concentration

Detect lies when concentrating.

Glibness
3rd level bard
Duration: 10 minutes per level (100 times longer duration)

Gives ability to avoid lies(even magical detection of said lies), gives +30 (or potentially revamped +20) to bluff skill, stacks wtih your own bluff skill, and the only limitation is that it can't be used for several abilities that most characters dont' use it for anyway. And can be used repeatedly on the same target for the entire duration.

Picture this, 7th party encounters a (insert nearly any level of BBEG) on the side of a volcano (for whatever reason) the bard opens up with glibness.

BBEG: What did you just do?
Bard: Nothing important.
BBEG: oh ok...well prepare do die scum
Bard: You don't want to fight us, we aren't the droids you are looking for.
BBEG: ...you aren't? hmmm I guess you are kinda pathetic and hardly worth my attention.
Bard: Thats right, we are completely harmless. Hey, say the water over there looks warm, you were just thinking about having a swim weren't you?
BBEG: Swim?!?! Thats laval!! I'd die instantly!!!
Bard: ohhh you must be the weak willed BBEG, thats a paltry illusion, its actually a healing lake and the guardian puts an illusion over it to protect it from people like you. If you go swim in the lake, you will become immortal!!
BBEG: hmmmm, a swim DOES sound nice....

Again, using 'common sense' this is rediculous. But by the rules as they are written, its completely feasable. And the above example has no finesse whatsoever, a player with some real skill to weave in real truth with falsehoods, and all I can say is all the bad guys better be deaf and pray the bard doesn't gain a helm of telepathy.

Of course, the issue with Bluff (and Diplomacy and Intimidate) is that they have to be heavily adjudicated by the DM. When you run games with social skill monkey characters, you always have to be aware of what the stopping point is for the NPC. For most people, there's only so much they're going to believe unless you're able to prove it in some way.

In my campaigns, someone who is consistently rolling 40+ on their Bluff check isn't convincing every NPC of anything he wants; he's convincing them of the most they're willing to believe.

For people who want some good examples of Bluff (and Diplomacy and Intimidate) in action, do yourself a HUGE favor and rent a couple seasons of the BBC's Hustle, a TV show about a group of con artists. What I see there are people who have a massive Bluff skill, but are smart enough not to try to over-bluff their marks (well, except for Danny).

The difficulty with this approach is that the wording of bluff is pretty clear, in fact it goes into the wording saying that you could let the player know that his bluff was just to far fetched to be believable (and then gives the numbers indicating that the roll fell between the normal success numbers and the DC due to situation).

So accounting for just the bluff skill, its pretty clear it was intended to not be adjusdicated on a case by case basis. So in principle you can fall back on the "I'm god, and I say so approach", which to me just simply says you are acknowleding how broken the situation is, and instead of fixing it, you're using common sense to rule that its impossible.

I'd rather not have to fall back on heavy handedness to stop innocent abuse of a skill thats clearly created to do exactly what it says, bluff someone.

If they changed it to be +20, and added the clarification that it does NOT stack with the bards existing bluff skill then I don't think it would be broken and would be happy with it.

In essense, a 20 *skill* (not a +20 to the skill) means a 0 bluff roll to try and convince someone of something totally off the wall and impossible. Which is still pretty impressive, in addition they gain the benefit of being able to dodge magical detections of lies and the targets get no saving throw, and an unlimited number of targets.

A 3rd level spell (even accounting that a bard has to be 7th level for that), allowing you to dodge magical detections of lying, while adding +30 to your own bluff skill, means that without any stretch a 7th level bard is pushing +44 (30+10 ranks+4 chr) bluff skill at 7th level. And for 70 minutes, unlimited targets during the duration (cause lets face it, they can say its affecting the bard, but the reality is its affecting the people he's using the bluff on).

I hope someone from the development team of Pathfinder looks at this, in my opinion its single handedly the most broken spell in the game. As long as you can communicate, you can do pretty much anything you want.

An extreme example, as spell resistance does not apply, there's no saving throw, a 7th level bard could concievably take an ancient dragon and tell him whatever he wanted and the ancient dragon would buy it if you figure 20 HD, roughly 23 skill + stat of say 5 or 6, for around 30 total sense motive, that same bard who hasn't crunched the heck out of the spell (ie skill focus, greater skill focus etc) has a +14 net d20 against an unmodified d20. Now pitty the poor bard that fails that roll, but still no other spell in teh game would give that bard (or any caster for that matter) even a remote chance.

I've always wondered if I was missing something about that spell, but everyone I've ever talked about it to, in person or on boards, feels the same way.

What do you all think?

Two notes regarding Glibness.

1) One of the short descriptions of the spell indicates +30. The full description indicates +20. I assume the +20 is correctÉ

2) One thing I had hoped for in the update was for glibness to be updated into what I might consider to be the realm of other spells its own level. Am I the only one that considers this spell to be brokenÉ And if not, how do other GM`s handle a bard with +30 bluff, let alone factoring it into his or her own bluff skill as an add? Even if +20 is the way that pathfinder is going, that is still unbelievable, unless perhaps this doesn't stack with the bards own bluff.

Cheers!