karkon's page

With the power level of P2e characters... how do I justify a world where mundane nobles/kings/aristocracies run the world/government and not level 20 warlords/wizards?

Because there are surely high level people who are invested in the current status quo. The PCs try to topple the king? Well, a high level group of patriotic NPC adventurers take on the group. Perhaps this patriotic group are already well known as "Defenders of the Kingdom" due to previous heroics.

Maybe the group is not patriotic but they worry that if the current king is toppled that it will lead to civil war or a huge orc invasion or whatever troubles exist.

Perhaps the Divine Right of Kings is actually a real thing in Golorian. Without the literal blessings of the heavens your attempt at taking the crown is doomed to failure as no one respects your right to rule. The gods themselves will fight against you.

A group of 5 PCs will have some real trouble holding on to a kingdom. You need an army of soldiers and bureaucrats to enforce your will throughout the land or parts of it will break off into their own fiefdoms.

Exploding the king with a spell does not just make you the king now. Those with a right to inherit already have armies and will probably not be shy about spending gold to hire other high level adventurers to help them seize the throne.

Kick the ranger out of the group and get a new good aligned ranger who happens to have the same stats.

Your DM was an idiot for allowing an evil character in a non-evil group.

Let the ranger player know that his evil guy is not working out and he needs to play nice with the rest of the group or find another game. Pathfinder is a social game not a competitive game.

If there is some crap about the evil player being the DMs girlfriend I don't care. Find a way to clean the mess up. Tell the DM he needs to run the game for everyone's benefit.

If you put in traps your players will look for traps and the paranoid trap finder response is fairly common. Back in 1st edition traps were so common and deadly that it was the normal way of things.

I think that a cumulative penalty is the wrong way to go about it.

The way I handle it is to have the players make ten perception checks in advance and write them on a sheet. We assume they are being moderately careful and when they approach a trap I use a pre-rolled check to see if they notice anything. I cross off that roll and tell them what they see.

By telling your players that you assume they will be moderately careful and at least looking out for unusual things you save on game time lost to paranoid trap finding. The pre-rolls let them still have a chance to notice traps when you feel it is appropriate.

A few alternate ideas:

1) You could have the players give you their perception and you roll when appropriate. If you do a lot of secret unexplained rolls this is actually nice. It also lets you roll when you just want to make them a little paranoid.

2) You could make the rogue Trap Spotter talent a feat. Sure, rogues already have it tough but it might help with your issue.

3) You could make a few traps more obvious but tougher to disarm. I have seen puzzles, knowledge checks, requiring certain spells, requiring disguising yourself to approach. You will need to telegraph this a bit. Maybe leave certain robes in a room before the trap that requires disguising yourself as a dwarven cleric.

4) Have a few traps that you can place anywhere. When your players get paranoid then stick the trap in after a high roll. They feel like they found a trap and relax or become even more paranoid.

Play what you want. Make healbot someone else's problem. That is what I did after years of taking cleric for the good of the group. If no one takes cleric then eventually someone dies and becomes a cleric or another healing class.

To be clear the charge rules say, '"you must move to the closest space from which you can attack your opponent."

That means with a reach weapon like a lance you complete your charge from 5' away. With a weapon that lacks reach you just need to line up properly so that the closest space is along a line where you can continue your ride by.

I actually run a pretty tightly 'railed' game but have been criticized now and then by other GMs. I find the idea of a 'sandbox' game impossible unless you completely flesh out an entire region before play or can somehow make up a consistent, detailed and in depth world from scratch on the fly.

If your players are having fun with the tightly railed game then tell the other GMs to sit on a ten foot pole. Different groups have different play styles.

I run a sandboxy game with some rails at the beginning to give them some momentum in the right location. Sandboxy games don't have to mean the whole world is the sandbox it can just mean that maybe one city is the sandbox or one forest. Perhaps they are given a mission and this gives them some momentum when they are uncertain about what to do.

I am fine with PCs resting in a dungeon. I ask what preparations they have made and how they will set guards and then make a decision from there how the remaining occupants react.

Depending on the dungeon that can be a nearly suicidal act or very safe or just a tough night. It also depends on the number of survivors of PC attacks.

Not every dungeon will react quickly. Disorganized dungeons populated by competing groups may think it is some sort of trap and be very slow in sending in a large force. They may not even have contact with a particular faction until a small group of survivors comes running that some adventurers wiped out their tribe. Even then they may be reluctant to face these obviously competent people and just try to shore up their own defenses.

In dungeons run by a strong central power and that are well organized counter attacks may start as soon as one guy escapes a battle. (Which sort of seems to have happened in your case). Depending on the organization they might harass the PCs throughout the day with constant attacks and send competent groups to attack in the night after the PCs think they are safe.

TL;DR: Depending on the organization of the dungeon and the relationships between the different factions resting in the dungeon can be easy or not.

My general rule with cheating players is to let them cheat. If it is so important to "win" that they need to resort to cheating then you cannot cure the underlying problem.

I only act if their cheating is affecting the experience of the other players. If it becomes too egregious then I just stop inviting them to the game.

I share my knowledge with other player’s and GMs at the table whenever a rule dispute pops up. I only do this so everyone has a clear & fair standing, but this annoys a lot of people.

Have you considered not sharing the rule unless asked? Sometimes people like to work their own way out. Sometimes they don't want to take the time to figure out the rule because the on the fly method is faster and every one is still having fun.

As a rules lawyer myself I have learned to keep my mouth shut unless the DM is being consistently unfair in his rulings.

This has come up in several of the games I play in where people have started to take Leadership. Note: I’m not interested in how your group bans Leadership or how you, personally, don’t like it.

In each case there is a disagreement about whether the cohort should get an equal share of the treasure, or only get a cut from his Leader.

I understand the out of game reasons why wealth wouldn't be split evenly, one player getting two shares, etc. I can see that point of view. In game though, the cohort is his own person. He risks his life the same as the rest of the party. He may contribute as much to combat as, if not more than, other party members.

The fact that he’s the “secondary” is purely out of game mechanics. You hire the Bashem Brothers, who’s the Leader and who’s the “Cohort”.

I could see not paying the cohort if he only ever helps his Leader, but if he helps everyone, takes the same risks as everyone, takes a share of the watch like everyone, then why shouldn’t he be paid like everyone?

The cohort is there because he is a loyal follower of one PC. The other PCs did not invite him into the group thus the cohort's share of the treasure is the burden of the PC who took the feat.

When I craft I charge other players the cost to craft. I tell them that tips would be nice but I don't charge extra. I tend to get quite a bit in tips, enough to make it worthwhile.

I have a player who has been playing an Urban Druid for a while and is a bit unsatisfied. Fortunately, I offer one free rewrite for a character and he is planning to take advantage of it. While discussing his rewrite he mentioned that he was having trouble finding something that fits his character concept and I suggested he take a stab at writing an archetype to fit his idea.

He took the Urban Druid as a starting point.

I took out his notes to give you guys fresh eyes. My major concern is around the Sentient Forms power. Is it too powerful? Also is the archetype well balanced? What are your suggestions to fix any problems?

I, also have the 'never saw my item' dreads, and I voted a LOT. There were several I saw over and over again, but just as I would despair, fresh new items would appear. I saw a lot I liked, many I would never allow at my table and some with good ideas and poor execution. I'm sure the judges have a tough job ahead of them!

It may be a good thing. As I understand the voting system items with the least votes are presented as part of a pair.

If your item was good and was very frequently voted for over other items then it would be rarely presented for voting. Bad items would be repeatedly presented as they would constantly lose votes to other items.

At least that is what I keep telling myself after not seeing my item after 500 votes (almost exactly because I was Star, voted on about ten things and was Dedicated.

Simulacrum?

I think if you want to teleport into the air with nothing supporting you you can for the reasons Hecknoshow said.

Now you cant teleport something else to the middle of the air unsupported for the reasons Gauss mentioned.

No. Because if you read the rules in the magic section for Conjuration Teleportation spells it says you can't do that with teleportation style spells. You can't ignore the school rules based on a specious reading of the text.

What?

I think it is safe to say it will be nippely cold.

As cold as a witch's tit?

Just spit balling:

To the Ends of the Earthscar

Iomedae and Sarkoris When Aroden Fell

Alas, Poor Sarkoris

Sarkoris and Aroden are Dead

Host of the Locust King

Saga of Sakoris

I find the Aboleths to be terribly interesting. The kinda come across as a sort of mind flayer except they don't actually have a mouth with which to eat the brain. It is clear they consider most other forms of life to be food so without mouths what do they eat?

I have taken a bit of a page from mind flayers and Dr. Who and decided that they consume the potentiality of life. The choices a person made in their lives and the choices groups of people make in their lives. Sorta like the Crying Angels from Dr. Who except they can consume the zeitgeist of an entire nation or world for sustenance or even just the thoughts of just one person.

That is why they even suffer other sentients and why the power of the Aboleths grows with the power of the creatures on the world they share. Much like vampires they prefer sentient creatures to feed but they can make do with any creature that must make choices. Chasing a school of fish and consuming their choices to swim one way or the other is a delightful aperitif but doing the same with a group of humans is a sumptuous feast.

To feed Aboleths require choices to be made by others. To feed well the Aboleths manipulate the world to create large scale changes. Why? The smaller the group affected by a choice the closer an Aboleth must be to feed. They must touch a single sentient but they can feed from an entire city from hundreds of miles away. An entire nation can feed every Aboleth on Golarion. In a perverse reflection of the creatures of Monster's Inc the Aboleths greatly prefer choices that lead to suffering than choices that lead to happiness. They discovered this after Earthfall and all the suffering it brought the world.

So they work to manipulate events to cause suffering on a large scale. In some places they are more successful than others. Galt's failure to form a government is a result of Aboleths manipulating people and events. In my game the Aboleths engineered the fall of Aroden hoping to complete the work of Earthfall and enjoy a feast.

Good advice
I am gonna go with the old classic of talking to this guy. Subtlety is not the best way because some people just won't take the hint and then you are upset because you think he is ignoring your subtle clues.

Bad advice
Take it even further than he does. Take his choices and try to make them worse. Execute the bandit chief? That's too good for him. Cut off his hands.

Why the hell are people arguing that having a charisma of 1 makes party members treat you evilly, regardless of their alignment?

Being struck so low will mess you up, but it doesn't fundamentally alter the fact that the party knows who you are and is likely to recognise the fact that you are impaired.

How would you treat a friend that suffered a personality-damaging brain injury?

Steal all his crap and then leave him bleeding to death in a dark alley?

How I treated him would change. But it would change to deal with the new reality and my affection for that friend. I would not take advantage of him and would try to help him get along in life.

I don't see anything in there that precludes me from charging. The attack at the end of a charge, is a single attack.

You cannot charge because you do not move. Your mount moves. The charge section says YOU must move. but you didn't move the mount moved. To help you get a charge while mounted the mounted combat section give you the benefits of a charge when your mount charges.

To be clear when we say move we mean using the move action to actually move spaces. Since you are not doing that you cannot charge. The language is unclear because they use move to both mean the character rides along with the mount to a new space and move action.

He will act in a way that no one will notice him. If you have seen office space then he is the red stapler guy(Milton according to google). He mumbles and still manages to let his words trail off. No one pays attention to him because he does not seem important.

An example of your barbarian's future interactions: Milton gets talked over

Eventually you rage and burn the office down.

Ravingdork wrote:

One troublemaker simply said "f*ck it" and the others were all too ready to jump on board both because they were tired (it was late at that point) and because they panicked and felt it was a hopeless situation.

And here's the culprit. Never pit your PC's against the most important situation of the night late at night. It's hard to roleplay what a 26 int wizard is going to do at 2 am when you're trying to remember if Wendy's is still open or not.

I've had DM's and myself stop games at this point many times when the plans being set in motion where borderline ridiculous. True it gives your players time to plan supposedly spontaneous actions, but i always reason a cut and dried coordinated attack from a band of people trained to survive in horrible circumstances their entire life (including some races that live for a thousand years) should be expected from time to time.

This is an excellent point. More than a few times I have stopped a game at a critical juncture because everyone was getting punchy. Then next game we start fresh and I set the scene again using the time to emphasize points that got lost in the shuffle in the previous game.

Paegin was intending to interigate/torture them in hopes of learning military secrets (such as troop movements, strengths/weaknesses, or figuring out how much knowledge the military had about his bandit cells, etc.).

Paegin sounds like he is not too bright. He could just kidnap officers of the empire and interrogate them without going through the whole surrender or the children die routine.

I stopped rolling for stats when in one game, where we rolled 3d6 straight, and I got 2 18s and nothing below a 12. Actually 18/99 for strength.

It was freaking ridiculous, I was playing a wizard and I was out damaging and hitting the fighter. Yeah that game didn't last too long.

Because it became the adventures of "insert my character's name" and his sidekicks.

You were doing it wrong. Only fighters could have Strength above 18 and even then only fighters (and their ilk) could have more than a +2 strength bonus. 1st and 2nd ed were very good at enforcing class roles.

You have 7 people in your group and one is reading the adventure and then complaining that you are running it wrong?

Kick him out. There is no reason to accept someone who is effectivly cheating. Even if you couldn't replace him you would have 6 people left.

Regarding your experiences. I ran some games in game shops recently and some of these kids had huge three ring binders of crap they downloaded off torrent. None of them actually bought the rules while we sat in our local game store! So I required that you had to own or have physical possession of any rule books you wanted to use. Oh how they complained. But relented after I lectured them on not supporting the game store they were playing in.

They hated all my house rules but I refused to take any crap about it. I can ran my game how I saw fit. Once they played about a dozen sessions they mostly fell in line.

So my advice is to stick to your guns. Run the game you want to play. Eventually, the players will conform.

So I had a DM that ran us through a sea campaign in 2nd ed Forgotten Realms. We were attacked by some very organized pirates. But we were 7th level and most of the pirates were less than CR1. Under the rules we could attack 7x per round against opponents who were less than CR1. Instead of letting them board my precious ship I boarded their massive ship and slaughtered the crew and officers (who were level appropriate). Now WE had the big pirate ship. So he sank it right off the bat.

Then we got back on our ship and used it to capture the two chase ships used by the big slow ship to catch us. Then we had a couple adventures and found a ton of treasure. So we sailed for home (Selgaunt?). Well in the middle of the sea I ran into a rocky outcrop that stranded our caravel and started sinking it and one of the captured ships. So we transferred the treasure and crew to the remaining ship which was styled after a viking longboat. But we were out of food and the closest port was a pirate port.

So we sail into that. I give instructions to the 1st officer (a PC) that the crew is to stay on board and wait. That way we could sail out as soon as I acquired food and no one in the PIRATE port would know we had tons of treasure.

Of course as soon as I leave the 1st officer gives everyone shore leave and leaves himself. Which leaves just the ship's cook (PC) onboard. So I am kidnapped (knocked out no save). The ship is attacked and the cook killed (even though he swam underwater because he was some sort of disguised fish man) and the ship and our treasure taken. I'm a good natured fellow and in a game full of screw jobs this one was the biggest.

The worst part is that he was worried what we would do with with all that treasure and didn't want it to wreck his campaign. It was stupid because in the 1st adventure a powerful NPC had set us up with a ship to explore in exchange for most of the treasure. So he could have taken most of the treasure that way let us have a triumph for once by sailing home with a bunch of treasure.

My GM style is based upon being the opposite of this guy.

In an Ars Magica campaign way back the GM did a good job of making all fey really dark and inhuman. One of them had a tree where she would hang the dreams she stole from the people she killed. The dreams looked like faces of the people with a purplish cast to them. She looked normal and human but tried to feed you enchanted porridge to put you to sleep. Then she would steal your dreams which would kill you. Very eerie.

Another time we spoke to a friendly fey but he was strange looking as if he tried to make himself look human but had to rely on an inaccurate description of humans. He was 8 feet tall and wore liederhosen that were far too short. He had an exaggerated large hook nose and arms that hung down to his knees. He liked to collect items of personal importance. We were asking him for some books that contained information we needed. In return for the books we had to give him a personal item and tell him stories about why it was important to us.

In his games fey liked to collect intangibles or tangible items connected to intangible things. Usually those things were feelings like happiness or pride or fear. The form of collection varied depending on if the fey was Seelie or Unseelie.

That was the thing that made them kinda scary. Our lives were worth less to them than our intangible experiences which they used for money or power.

Dies Irae from Mozart's Requiem Mass. Link

Sounds opera like all about the wrath of God (Asmodeus in this case). I like the Neville Mariner one so Iinked it.

Quit in the middle of an awesome campaign in which all the players are very engaged and involved.

Yeah, my problem with the whole "twisting a wish" thing is that it depends entirely on the dynamic the GM has with the players. I make clear to my players that there are "wishes" and "greater wishes". The first kind are when you're asking for anything the wish spell specifically says you can ask for. The second kind are when you're asking anything beyond that level of power. I warn them to be cautious of greater wishes.

However, I tend to grant wishes according to the spirit of their intent, within reason. Otherwise, it becomes a game of "Nyah nyah, you didn't spot the loophole!"

In the specific case of a benevolent being mishearing or misinterpreting a wish, I suggest using it exclusively as a plot device or as an amusing adventure where the PCs get offered wishes then have to deal with their unfortunate misinterpretations. Don't use...

+1 on that.

I would like to that that if you are going to do this then you need to set it up so the players can buy a clue before they make a wish.

DM: An old looking jinii is sitting on a chair and holding a book upside down.

PC1: Hello good sir!

DM: He holds his hand up to his ear and says "Mellow Wood Fir? Yes I would like some nice wood fir incense."

PC2: What book is he reading.

DM: He is holding the book upside down but the title is "Learn to Read an Ironic Guide"

PC1: "No. HELLOOOOO." I wave my arm in greeting.

A little obvious but it gets the point across that he is illiterate and deaf.

My inclination is to see how things go, but I do also know that I can get a bit discouraged as a DM if I find the players steamrolling encounters too much.

It just means you need to have more variety in your encounters. Add in some terrain problems or environmental problems. Use ranged enemies in an area where movement costs double.

I find players tend to design characters that work with the game the DM runs. If you do mostly melee brawls then they will build for that. If you constantly surprise them with a variety of encounter styles then they will need to generalize more.

So this afternoon I started work on a pathfinder home brew that addresses some of my biggest issues with it. I love pathfinder in and out, the systems great for customization and the classes all feel alive and useful by design. My Issue is that its a metric F*** ton of crunch, which I am no fan of. I don't need my rpg systems to care so much about "realism" that they confuse my players and take a whole session to create characters.

I'm gonna stop you right there. Pathfinder cares nothing for realism just like D&D does not care for it. I am assuming you got into RPGs with 4th edition so let me just tell you that 4th edition is about as streamlined a system as you will find. With that simplicity comes a certain blandness as all the characters kinda feel the same.

Systems that do realism are very complex and involved as they try to simulate real world effects and attributes. Character creation, character improvement, combat, skills all tend to be very complex in realistic games. Fortunately, these games are boring and dull and die a quick death.

D&D and PF are not streamlined or simple. They have a good sized learning curve but the base mechanics are pretty simple: Roll a d20 based on that result some damage or knowledge or both might result. Creating characters becomes very easy once you have a little experience. Once I decide to play a class or concept I can create a character in less than 20 minutes. I am sure some people can do it faster.

Really the problem is choosing. Most of the time in character creation is usually taken up with deciding what to play. With 4e classes are so bland that choosing one over the other does not matter much. In PF the choice matters so people spend a lot of time on it.

The "at will" mechanic in 4th edition is based upon abilities that are not that powerful. You also have the once per combat abilities for slightly stronger stuff. It was rightly compared to World of Warcraft in that characters could go through an entire adventure and never need to rest because most abilities constantly reset.

In PF and 3.x that does not work very well as the rationing of resources is very important. If you use up your rounds of rage or your smite or whatever then you will feel it and the choices you make early in the day affect battles later in the day. That goes all the way back to the roots of D&D in tactical war-games. The game is built around the assumption of the usage of resources on a daily basis and by giving unlimited uses you throw that out the window.

The result is that you will throw off the ability to make encounters that challenge your players because they don't need to worry about using up resources. A paladin with unlimited smites it going to cut through everything like butter. Same with other classes with the same type of mechanic.

So how will you get the mechanics you like without all the rules? Only use the core book. The extra books introduce new mechanics to make new classes and equipment work. So you end up learning all this extra stuff without mastering the basics. Use just the core book until the game mechanics are easy for you to use. Then add another book to the game until you master it. I have played D&D for nearly 35 years and 3rd edition from since it first came out. Even back then I limited the number of resources my players could use so I could have a handle on the rules rather than needing to constantly look things up in unfamiliar books.

But what if Hemingway bores your players to death? Some people want detail and verbal beauty. Going the Hemingway route is an extreme which will make them very, very unhappy.

I suppose what I'm saying here is to have balance. It sounds like John hates Tolkien's vivid, sweeping (and engrossing, in my so-not humble opinion) descriptions. I personally cannot stand Hemingway and wish he never took pen to paper. You're probably going to have both sorts of players at your table, as well as people in between (unless your group is comprised of people who affect a sampling bias, like English majors or MMO players). Going to any extreme, like Hemingway's sparseness or Tolkien's lushness, will disappoint someone. Seek the path of balance, and it will be the most enjoyable for most of your group. Unless you see reason to do otherwise, of course.

It really comes down to people tuning out if you put too much information out at once. Everybody does it. Have a friend read from Tolkien and see how quickly your mind wanders. It should be less than a minute. The benefit to sparse descriptions is that you can get out a sketch of an area quickly and then give details if the players ask about it. In doing so you can focus on details relevant to a small portion of the area.

So you start like Hemingway and finish like Tolkien.

DM: You enter a clearing in the woods. An strange giant of a tree stands in the center. A chill wind blows across the grass.

PC1: How big is the clearing?

DM: It is sort of ovoid being wider at one end and narrower at the other. You have entered on the narrow end so the clearing seems to widen out before you. You would reckon the total length is that of two ships placed end to end and one ship wide.

PC2: What about that Tree?

DM: This tree is by far the tallest in the area. It is easily twice the height of the surrounding trees. It stands near the center closer to the wide end of the clearing. You can see it's branches are thick and gnarled and the bark is unnaturally dark.

You can go on adding levels of detail. You can get into the grass in the clearing or the leaves of the tree. You want to grab their attention with one strong detail and give more as they ask. This keeps the players involved and does not tax anyone's attention.

If you go for a lot of detail at first people tend to remember the most recent detail or the last detail they heard before their attention wandered. Then you end up repeating yourself a lot. By sketching out the scene you can ration the detail and make it more likely the players will remember it.

Have traps that require knowledge checks (or other checks) in order to get to the mechanism that can be disabled.

An illusion/enchantment trap that becomes like a holodeck for that room. You have to role-play past the guardians before the control panel is visible.

Your definition of Good is wrong.

The game has a very particular slant. Certain creatures are evil and it is actually a good deed to kill them. They have bad template which makes killing them not evil.

You also have to consider the morality of a world where cities and strongholds are the only places that have laws enforced. The area between cities is almost always lawless. Every forest is infested with Fey and Dark Fey and other bad things. Mountains hold all kinds of bad stuff. Read the Inner Sea Primer it gets rather predictable.

If you live in a world where your safety depends on your sword or the swords of others then killing becomes a lot less shocking than it is now. Keep in mind that we are living in the safest era since the first man jumped out of a tree. Your safety is so easy to take for granted that you forget all the things that make you safe now. Go back 100 years or more and safety was a very precious commodity. In the middle ages people gave up many rights just to be a little bit safer. People (in general) will trade rights for security every single time.

In any case the game assumes that wholesale killing for a nation, ideal, or self is fine and possibly good. The paladin could probably kill your escaped murderer on sight as the reward signs would say Dead or Alive and if lawful authority says dead is ok then it is.

Because they like it. Not every game is all about optimization.

I think the goblins' alignment is less important than your own. Specifically, you should be some kind of Evil alignment in order to make this work.

Look at the examples of "civilizing" other peoples in our own world. Africans "civilized" by being taken as slaves. Native Americans "civilized" by being pushed out of the way, to say the least. Aztecs "civilized" by being executed if they didn't bring enough gold. Australian Aboriginies "civilized" by being taken from their families and raised exclusively by whites, and treated as second class citizens. And on and on and on. Even the movie Avatar had outsiders trying to "civilize" natives, and look at how that worked out. Look at Guns, Germs, and Steel for one easy reference, or maybe a People's History of the United States.

I'm not saying it's not possible to "civilize" Goblins, just that it might make it easier if your home address was Hell, the Abyss, or Abaddon. I'm also saying that it's pretty unrealistic to assume that there is a way to change everything about a culture, while keeping everyone happy, when it has never worked that way in our own world.

But we do have magic, hey? Maybe there is a way around the morass of genocidal colonialism. A wish spell maybe?

yes, yes, yes the white man must pay for his sins with eternal guilt. Can we get back on topic now?

Let finessable weapons allow you to use your dex to lower the DR.

For example, if you are using a rapier and have weapon finesse and your dex is 14 then you can use your +2 attribute bonus to make the DR effectivly lower for you.

It gives dex only characters something without taking away from strenght.

Bummer, I was looking for a loophole around a PC's defenses.

Dispel Magic.

To be fair the PC is using two spells to get this. Those are spells he will not have for later encounters.

You are correct it is pretty clear in the feat.

darth_borehd wrote:

Psionics would be fine for a science fiction campaign (like the Force in Star Wars) but not for the sword-swinging fantasy.

Preach it, brother! When I play D&D, I don't want Star Wars. I want straight-up medieval fantasy:

A setting where knights with glowing swords join forces with roguish smugglers to escape from plate-armored soldiers in rough-and-tumble port towns. Where heroes fight their way through dungeons to rescue princesses being held captive by black-clad tyrants. Where spirits and aged mystics guide young adventurers down paths that will pit them against wicked sorcerers that hurl bolts of lightning. Where corpulent slave lords force fighters to battle giant monsters in gladiatorial arenas, and armies lead by the heralds of Light must gather to destroy doomsday artifacts wielded by the forces of Darkness.

Star Wars Force powers have no place in that sort of setting.

LoL. I just skimmed that the first time. It really is hysterical now that I am actually reading it.

You do not need to reply further to this thread. We already know what you are thinking and adjustments are being made at this time. Please do not be discomfited by any tingling sensations you might be feeling.

In a few moments, you won't remember them anyway.

What? Huh? Where am I?

*goes to make a sammich*

Bonus squared x 2500 for AC bonus (other). It is listed in the item creation section.

When they replace something they specifically call it out as replaced. Everything else is added. The example in UC is as follows:

The primary way in which archetypes modify their corresponding base classes is via the use of alternate class features. When a character selects a class, he must normally choose to use the standard class features found in the class's original source—the exception is if he chooses to adopt an archetype. Each alternate class feature presented in an archetype replaces a specific class feature from its parent class. For example, the flowing monk archetype's redirection class feature replaces the Stunning Fist feature of the standard monk class.

If you look at Flowing Monk you see that Stunning Fist being replaced is specifically called out. Every time they replace the base ability the actually use replace. If a class feature is lost they specifically say it is lost. If it is not specified then it is not lost.

The sohei was sloppily written. They give a class feature adjustment and do not say if it is in addition or to replace. Addition makes sense because otherwise the 6th level weapon training makes no sense as you can take weapon training in Monk Weapons. If the Weapon Proficiencies section replaced the base proficiencies then the only Monk Weapon he has is QuarterStaff from his simple weapon proficiencies.

This also makes sense for the Bonus Feats section. He may select Mounted Combat feats in addition to the normal monk bonus feats.

It also makes sense for the class skill section. He may select Handle Animal in addition to the other monk class skills. If it replaced that whole section he could only pick Handle Animal as a class skill.

A puddle on the floor makes an invisible character detectable. It is clearly called out in the spell.

Of course, the subject is not magically silenced, and certain other conditions can render the recipient detectable (such as swimming in water or stepping in a puddle).

So throw the water on the floor and call it a day.

Now PCs do tend to hyper focus on what they perceive to be survival skills, but that doesn't mean NPCs do the same.

So they are murderous hobos!

Your scenario sounds fine.

You just need to work on adventure hooks to get the character's there.

In this case the party was asked to kill goblins in exchange for XXX gp. That should be his motivation really. Some effort should be expended on the player's part to create a reason for his character to go.

"Goblins? I hate goblins"

or

"Gold? I love gold."

or

"When I was young my uncle took me hunting in the woods. We were surprised by goblins and ran. A spear took down my uncle. His dying words 'run to the village and warn them' rang in my ears the whole way back. I got to the village just before the goblins. We lost a lot of good neighbors that day. Do I hate goblins? Yes. Now let's go kill every damn green sonofb~++* we can find."

You could throw out that goblins killed his favorite uncle when he was a child or something but I really think the players have a responsibility here too.

TOZ wrote:

The one you have the most fun with.

THIS CAN NOT BE EMPHASIZED ENOUGH!!!

I WILL EMPHASIZE IT AGAIN!!!