morphail's page

I was having trouble visualizing the weapon proficiency progressions for the various classes, so I made up some tables. I thought I'd share them in case they can help others.

I made sure to include special cases like the Fighter's Chosen Weapon Group and the Deity's Favored Weapon options for clerics. I based the Unarmed Strike rules on the statements developers have made regarding the upcoming errata. There is some guessing involved so those might need some changes in the future.

Please let me know if you notice any errors or omissions. Enjoy!

wow thanks!

Data Lore wrote:

Rysky wrote:

And not have Common depending on their Intelligence score/their choices?

If a GM and the group is okay with that then go for it, but the game goes with the assumption that everyone can speak with each other.

Thats not what Im saying. I wouldn't have Dwarves or Elves choose between Common and thier ancestral tongues either.

Well there's only 1 Dwarven and Elven but 11 human ethnicities.

If you're setting the game somewhere where Taldane is not the Common language than I'd switch that.

As for why they didn't have go Common + Ethnicity + Int for human languages is because Common is a human ethnicity language (Taldane), so for people playing characters from the major areas of Avistan (Cheliax, Taldor, Andoran, Nirmanthas, Molthune, Galt, etc etc) they'd still not have an "ethnicity" language.

But that's exactly what happens in the real world... Most people in the western world speak at least two languages, their mother language and Common (aka English). The exception being many people in English speaking countries (especially the US) speak only Common.

Charlie Brooks wrote:

I can see 0-level PCs working really well in 2nd edition. Choose ancestry and background, skip class, and go. When you hit 1,000 XP, you become 1st level.

And an NPC child then is just Ancestry (with the 2+INT skills) without even the Background. :)

I'd do a children campaign as complete untrained slowly gaining the 2+int training, then background when they get a job...

In pf2e, we are getting rid of ECL CR and so on in favor of just 1 concept -level, which goes from 0 (or even negatives) to 20 and above. That means (I hope) that more powerful is ALWAYS represented as higher in level. So, if on golarion kobolds are a "weak ancestry" that means most kobold NPCs/monsters are level 0. If your PC kobold is level 1, it must be just as powerful as a level 1 human. In story, that means it is a unique and powerful individual (not to mention level 17 kobolds and so on). For that to happen you need to balance a level 1 kobold rogue around a level 1 human rogue. One way to make this reflected in the rules is having "weak" races lose ancestry features (ability modifiers, heritage and such) in favor of one extra class feat, but I would be careful about doing that.

Now the drow noble at level 1 should be just as powerful as a kobold of level1. As this is a "powerful ancestry " most noc drow are high level creatures. So your 1st level PC is a weak/young individual that will only become an average member of its ancestry after reaching higher levels and gaining some drow ancestry feats.
In this specific case it's very easy to do, you have elves as 1st level well balanced ancestry, all you need is adding specific Drow Noble ancestry feats and your done. (And racial Paragon general feat should help getting more Drowish at lower levels)

Interesting. Didn't think of it that way. Still cool.

Looking at the pages, I find it interesting that the text for the metamagic is slightly inconsistent in the wording for the usage.

Quote:

Reach Spell, Feat 1, 1 action: If the next action you take is to Cast a Spell that has a range, increase that spell's range by 30 feet. As is standard for increasing spell ranges, if the spell normally has a range of touch, you extend its range to 30 feet.

Widen Spell, Feat 1, 1 action: If the next action you take is to Cast a Spell that has an area of a burst, cone, or line and does not have a duration, increase the area of that spell. Add 5 feet to the radius of a burst that normally has a radius of at least 10 feet (a burst with a smaller radius is not affected). Add 5 feet to the length of a cone or line that is normally 15 feet long or smaller, and add 10 feet to the length of a longer cone or line.

Conceal Spell, Feat 2, 1 action: If the next action you take is to Cast a Spell, attempt a Stealth check against one or more observers' Perception DCs. If the spell has verbal components, you must also attempt a Deception check against the observers' Perception DC. If you succeed at that check (or checks) against an observer's DC, that observer doesn't notice you're casting a spell, even though material, somatic, and verbal components are usually noticeable and spells normally have sensory manifestations that would make spellcasting obvious to those nearby. This ability hides only the spell's spellcasting actions and manifestations, not its effects, so an observer might still see a ray streak out from you or see you vanish into thin air.

Silent Spell, Feat 4, 1 action (prereq Conceal Spell): If the next action you take is Casting a Spell with a verbal component and at least one other component, you may choose to remove the verbal component. This makes the spell silent and allows you to cast it in areas where sound can't reach. Note that the spell still has visual manifestations, so this doesn't make the spell any less obvious to someone who sees you

...

They've changed the (kind of silly) playtest version that had a "free action" that read "you add an action". I like the result very much as that is something I specifically requested.

As I understand it, I n terms of number of actions, widen, reach and conceal metamagic cost you an extra action while Silent spell,, (for which you have invested 2 class feats) allows you to replace one action and so does not increase the total. That's a good thing I think.

Considering Cha is officially willpower afaik, the save named "Will" should really use that, and not Wis...

I have already shuffled charisma and wisdom around in the playtest:

Another idea was to break dexterity into agility and dexterity. The latter is important for missile weapons and thievery, agility does AC and all the rest. But then you are stuck with 7 ability scores...

Very nice.
I envision firearms to be crossbowier than crossbows- long reload, high damage.

One thing about the misfire chance- when you link the chance of a misfire to the new critical fail system you end up with this wierd effect that a weapon never misfires when you shoot a goblin (or at a picture of a goblin- low AC), but the same gun and user will misfire a lot when aiming at a dragon (or a dragonfly- high ac).
I suggest randomizing misfire by linking it to a natural 1, or simply not having misfire as a mechanic.

I agree with your interesting overview of monsters and gender.
It all comes down to what you want from your fantasy game. If you want the "reality" of the game world to be based on modern sensibility and political correctness (I'm not being cynical here, PC is a good thing.), then applying both (or All or NO) genders to all monsters is an obvious choice.

My personal tastes are different though. I like my fantasy worlds to have all of these: 1.People 2.Monsters/Exotic creatures 3.Spirits

For (1) people, which includes humans, dwarves and so on- sexuality can be any or all genders.

For (2) monsters, I like there to be creatures that have gender or don't, reproduce asexually or not, all females, have 3 distinct sexes, spores or any other combination you can think of. They are as complex or simple as you want them to be.
Harpies used to be in this group. I have no problem if harpies are now People and have males and females.

For spirits (3) I like to imagine beings who are not mortal and do not necessarily reproduce the way humans do. Succubus, dryad and satyre go here. Since lots of these beings represent an ideal, a force or a concept I think there IS some room for gender specific spirits. Satyres in my opinion represent masculine sexuality in the cisgender testerony sense. I agree this shouldn't be too common, and I would love there to be an androgynous spirit, a gender fluid spirit and more!
If dryads symbolize the forest, then by all means make them male or asexual too. But if Nymphs represent a certain concept of femalehood, then I would like them to be female.

I hope that both crit failure on a natural 1 and crit success on a nat 20 go away. A level 1 goblin should not have a 5% chance of landing a crit on a level 20 fighter.

I'd prefer natural 1 and natural 20 to change the result by 1 degree instead. So if you'd normally succeed on a 1, it's a regular failure instead; if you'd normally crit fail even on a 20, a 20 is a regular failure instead.

Or just get rid of the natural 1/20 altogether and do nothing else. The +10 -10 mechanism is simple and elegant. I really don't see the point of making the exception for naturals anymore.

Lem looks like The Storyteller from the Jim Henson show. Which is very appropriate as a bard!

I would love to get my hands on that arcane lite list, if you were so kind to link or share.

Happily!

Arcane
level 1
air bubble
alarm*
ant haul*
burning hands
color spray
feather fall
fllet step
floating disk
grease
gust of wind
illusory disguise
illusory object
item façade
jump
lock
longstrider
mage armor
magic aura
magic missile
magic weapon
mending
negate aroma
shocking grasp
ventriloquism

level 2
acid arrow
blur
comprehnd languge
continual flame
darkness
darkvision
endure elements
enlarge
flaming sphere
glitterdust
illusiory creature
invisibility
kncok
magic mouth
mirrot image
obscuring mist
resist energy
see invisibilty
shrink
spider climb
telekinetic maneuver
water breathing
water walk
web*

level 3
clairaudience
dispel magic
earthbind
fireball
ghostly weapon
haste
hypnotic pattern*
invisibility sphere
levitate
lightning bolt
locate
meld into stone
mind reading*
nondetection
secret page
shrink item
slow
stinking cloud
wall of wind

level 4
blink
clairboyance
detect scrying
dimension door
dimensional anchor
fire shield
fly
gaseous form*
globe of invunerability
hallucinatory terrain
private sanctum
resilient sphere
rope trick
shape stone
solid fog
spell immunity
telepathy*
veil
wall of fire
weapon storm

level 5
black tentacles(?)
chromatic wall
cloak of colors
cone of cold
control water
drop dead
elemental form*
false vision
illiusiory scene
mind probe*
passwall
prying eye
sending
shadow siphon
shadow walk
telekinetic haul
telepathic bond
tongues
wall of ice
wall of stone

level 6
chain lightning
collective transposition
disintegrate
flesh to stone
repulsion*
scrying
spellwrack
teleport
true seeing*
vibrant pattern
wall of force

level 7
contingency
dimensional locl
energy aegis
fiery body
magnificient mansion
plane shift
prismatic spray
project image
reverse gravity
spell turning

level 8
antimagic field
disappearance
discern location
earthquake
horrid wilting*
maze
mind blank
polar ray
prismatic wall
unrelenting observation

level9
disjunction
foresight
implosion
meteor swarm
replendent mansion
weird

Really it is absurd that School Specialists dictate Core arcane list, entirely ignoring precedent of how Cleric Domain Spells work, doubly so when that carries over to impeding balancing the 4 list Sorceror. I'm pretty sure a good balance between pared-down Core Arcane list and School lists can be managed, probably including Feats for Universalists or non-opposed School Specialists to delve back into the expanded School lists they are interested in, coincidentally helping better differentiate Wizard playstyles akin to other Class Paths. This definitely was discussed in Playtest and was on Devs' radar, so optimistic something good is done here.

I actually made such a list "arcane list lite" and saw that to satisfy concepts from P1 all you really need is "Necromancer" "Enchanter" and "Polymorpher" archetypes/ class feats.

Very reasonable guesses!
Going with deadsmanwalkings numbering and guess their names:
3. Can't call a region with orcs "the broken lands" as that is a product name for an equivalent Mystara region. There's a lot going on here, with 2 crusader states 2 mega evil centers and the orcs, but yeah it makes thematic sense. I prefer them separate though, as I do like that there are two takes on the crusader theme done very differently in golarion.

4.The Sellen Basin? Fractured Nations?

5.Central States, the midwest...
6.If we are riffing off Mystara then Dawn of the Empires is a good name for this 3 nations.

7."The big and small devils" are Iranian nicknames for the US and Israel. But we can swipe that I guess...

8. I'd go with "unearthed miracles" for both pyramids rediscovered in the desert, the godless magic of rahadoum and the Sun Orchid of Thuvia.

9.Jalmery is for sure part of the Lands of Wonder.

10. This one already has a name Heart of the Jungle was on the original campaign book.

So, Age of Lost Omens World Guide is supposed to describe the setting in 10 geographically and thematically distinct areas.
What will those be?

We know greater Absalom is one (city+island).
If I understood correctly a second one will include Varisia (inc. New Thassilon), Linnorm Kings, Mammoth Lords and Irrisen.

What will the others be?

My guess is Mwangi must be one at is it very distinct culturally and geographically + its big and awsome and one of my favorite. A Sargava goes here and maybe also The Shackles, Mediogalti Island and the sudden lands.

River kingdoms may include other nations that play well with it (at least in the Kingmaker game): Razmiran, Numeria, Brevoy.

Can Ustalav be grouped with any of its neighbors thematically??

Can Taldor and Qadira share a section without going to war??

Will Cheliax annex its little
Nidalese and Isgeri sisters in its chapter?

Oh. Then it is probably the POWERS chapter. I was hoping that each power was going to simply follow the class feat to which it belonged or that a list of powers would follow each class.. But my guess now is that powers are getting a chapter of their own.
Less of a mess than before I guess?

I had lots of other ideas about weapon traits, mainly a heavier emphasis on weapon groups with all martials, and linking what traits you get to the level of proficiency you have.

For example untrained in Daggers and Knives can't throw them, can't finesse them while at the hands of an Expert you can throw them and backstab while Master in Daggers and Knives get all these things, and the "Master's Critical Specialization trait " (which is simply called Bleed).

Same with Brawling group- if you are untrained, your hands are not dangerous 1d4 agile-finesse killing machines. If you are Black Widow (or a monk)- they are.

I had a similar idea in this thread:
https://paizo.com/threads/rzs42f4z?Weapon-traits

(Not that it is going to happen but...)
I always thought that the 6 attributes can be better balanced and explained by killing "charisma" and replacing it with "willpower" or something of the sort. Willpower gets the Will save and other rolls for asserting dominance (such as wrestling control of a dominated enemy, inspiring compitance and the like). Spell/focus points can be much more easily explained as activated by shear will instead of the ability which makes you a charming person.

We are then left with Wisdom governing all 3 of the "people skills" like sense motive, deception and diplomacy (intimidation too, but willpower can also work here). Basically wisdom makes you good at the passive as well as the active intuative skills. And of course wisdom can keep the all powerful Perception (non) skill.

And I'm not sure there's need for an armor requirement as it's already less effective against lighter armors.

True. But it might help beginners know when to use it. But yeah, I agree the usefulness is already dictated by the AC TAC system.

That flail change is interesting. It'd be cool if we added that a magical flail works against the Shield spell too, or something like that.

Maybe specify that you can't use shield block against a strike that is followed by this reaction?

As to the warhammer thing, I would argue it's still pretty good. It actually emulates a Monk feat but that's neither here nor there. Making your first attack at basically +3 or more at cost of giving up a -5 or possibly -10 attack is pretty goof I think when you consider it jacks up crit chance too. Especially nice for a pick which has Fatal on it, it synergizes very well.

Not sure if worth a die decrease though, the action cost balances it that far I think.

Thanks! I did mention that you can't use shield block. I also like the magical flail idea

Two-action attack to reduce AC to TAC isn't overly powerful. Its basically "waste an action making one attack instead of 2 with a +3 bonus." Which is actually less powerful than something like Double Slice.

I like the thematic aspect of that, and the flail one is cool too. Though I might make it more like...

Flail - Trait: Bypass Shields
Effect: Reaction. Req: Free hand. On a successful hit or critical hit against a target with a raised shield, it is no longer raised (etc...)

Instead of spending an action, it spends a reaction (so fighters can't AOO and do this, gives non-fighters a possible reaction not from their class, and still lets the flail wielder make 3 attacks, AND is a reaction that primarily hurts fighter types instead of caster types).

Thanks!

Reactions on flails: It seems that in the playtest reactions are always not on your turn and things that go off your attacks are free actions (I could be wrong). Also lowering someone's shield just feels like a separate action than attacking. My goal here was to give a strategic option and build it the same way other traits like trip shove and disarm work (athletic maneuvers that you can work into a weapon). What you're describing can be a good feat (most things that add reactions in the playtest are feats, like reactive shield).

I love weapon traits. They make for interesting gameplay and help with simulating melee combat.
Therefore I think weapon traits should have a bigger impact on the game. Weapons that allow disarm/trip and so on are great because they give more options for strategy (I'm ignoring if these are powerful/useful strategies for now) . They make the weapon shine in doing whatever it's designed to do. We need more of these.

Examples I think should be added are:
Armour penetration. Weapons such as (war) hammers and picks were specifically designed to overcome heavy armour. A trait such as "penetrating" could allow a two action attack against a target in medium, heavy or construct armour. This attack targets TAC instead of AC. GM can decide that additional monsters are considered "armoured" such as giant beetles or earth elementals.
This trait makes hammers and picks very powerful against specific enemies (reduced in power because of action economy). If this trait seems too powerful, it can be dealt with the same way as Forceful, Agile and Reach are treated- having smaller damage die. This way a sword (d8, versatile) is better when fighting lightly armoured people (and most monsters) while the new warhammer (d6, penetrating, shove) is better against heavily armoured enemies.

For flails you can go another route. Flails (arguably) are used to overcome shields. So a simple way is to give flails some form of advantage against raised shields (or even against cover). But I thought of something more fun with the shield mechanic:
New athletics maneuver called "depress shield" has the attack trait and requires an empty hand: target enemy with raised shield reflex DC. On a success the shield is no longer raised- the target loses its bonus to ac and can't take the shield block action until it raises its shield again. On a critical the target can't raise the shield until the end of its next turn.
Now flails can have a trait that allows them to use this maneuver without an empty hand and gain item bonuses (just like trip and disarm maneuvers).

Like these ideas? Have other ideas for interesting weapon traits? What traits in the playtest are uninteresting or not useful?

I still think Weapon Proficiency as a feat needs changed, but it would require reworking weapon proficiency as a concept. One axiom I'm going to assert is that given an infinite number of feats, a character who begins proficient in no weapons or armor should be able to recreate the starting proficiencies of any class. The current feat fails that because it makes you jump to "All martial", when classes can start with individual martial weapons.

What I would do is have proficiency be on a per-group basis, where you pick some number of groups to be trained in for every class, the fighter class abilities to advance proficiency let you raise so many groups by one step, and, pertinent to this thread, the Weapon Proficiency feat reads along the lines of:

Select one weapon group you are either Trained or Untrained in. If you are Untrained, raise your proficiency to Trained. If you are Trained, raise your proficiency to Expert.

I would have liked a much more thorough change to the weapon proficiency system. "All Martial " is a bit boring. I think that proficiency should be weapon group based. for examples that barbarians are trained with 2+int weapon groups plus the brawling group, rangers are experts with 1 weapon group (not including brawling, pole arms and flails maybe), fighters are experts with more weapon groups and not limited in their choices, and so on.

About Natural Healer, maybe make the bonus from foraging an item bonus instead of a circumstance bonus. This way people can Aid ("help me look for a root the color of blood, our friend is dying!") or inspire competence and so on.
It will also mean that it Does Not stack with bonuses from alchemical and magical medicines (so you don't forage for leaves if you have a Doctor's Marvelous Medicine, and real physicians and natural healers don't get along...)

This is awesome!

One thing I noticed, if you have assurance in acrobatics (no crit fail) and also steady balance (fall on crit fail) you are immune to falling?

FWIW I think just one of those changes or the other would do it, doing both makes Remove Curse much harder to work with.

I like the raising counteract level idea, it makes it so it isn't impossible to use Dispel Magic on so you aren't screwed without a divine caster, but if you get cursed by something on-level or above level then you'll need to look beyond your party for a reliable cure.

I'd take that as more of a houserule though, makes curses kind of unusable at the party's level if you DON'T want them to be quite as much of a disruption.

Oh I DO...

That's interesting. So dispel magic with upcasting covers almost all occasions while remove curse is very specific (mummy rot and maybe more monster non spell curses) and starts at 4th level. Someone on a previous thread offered that dispel magic should by a hightenable 1st level spell and a developer said they will think about it.

I kind of like the elegance of spells being so versatile but on the other hand in this case I find it over simplified and not so interesting. It's nice if some forms of magic are more sticky and persistent.
Maybe adding some rule to the "curse" tag like:

"effects with the Curse trait are difficult to get rid off and are considered one level higher in regards to counteracting and cannot be dispelled with Dispel Magic". May allow for stories of people going to great lengths to remove curses.

Speaking of dispel magic, I can't seem to find something that Remove Curse does (counteracts a curse) that dispel magic doesn't already do (counteracts magic, which includes curses). In pf1, curse spells specifically stated that they can't be dispelled and needed Remove Curse (or restoration or what not).
Anyone?

DM_Blake wrote:

Yeah, acid needs a time limit.

When Ash cut into the facehugger in the first Alien movie, the molecular acid started melting through the deck plating. The crew was afraid it would melt all the way down through the hull. It didn't. It ran out of, uh, meltiness after a couple of decks.

Why?

IIRC, acid exchanges some of its basic elements (protons, I think?) with the molecules of whatever it's dissolving. The protons leave the acid to bond with the other stuff which causes it to dissolve. Or something like that. Ask a chemist.

But this means that the acid has a finite amount of protons to donate before it runs out.

Or to put it another way, matter is not being created or destroyed. It's just being changed to some new state, and this applies both to the stuff that is being dissolved AND to the acid.

That can't go on forever. Stopping it is not just a matter of wiping it off - it will stop on its own. How much of you is left when it stops is a matter of how much of you was there to begin with and how much acid was used.

But, real world chemistry isn't needed to make in-game acids plausible. It should just have a fixed number of rounds that it can do damage. Arguably, less damage each round as the acid gets weaker, but mechanically that seems too much to track. Something like 4 or 5 rounds would work nicely.

Side note, my ranger nearly lost his cuddly bear companion to that same Pale Mountain's Shadow (PMS) acid monster. One hit, then lots of failed flat checks got him down to the point that another failed check would have killed him. Luckily, I finally made the check.

Pretty sure Acid doesn't interact with protons, it'd be nuclear at that point and would produce isotopes rather than ions, It does however create an electron flow when it interacts with metals, thus allowing acid batteries to produce energy.

DM Blake got it right. (Most) Acids react by "donating" their available protons (aka hydrogen ions). Its confusing to call then protons but a hydrogen atom with one less electron IS just a proton. No need for nuclear shenanigans. Pretty sure that's off topic though... I agree that persistent damage can benefit from a max duration.

Tel Aviv-Jaffa, Israel.

Hi James!
I really like the new elements added to Cheliax with the last few products.
I know that delving deep into Chlaxian politics is something that is too much for published items (they should be about adventurers after all), but the bits about Cheliax hierarchy of noble titles got me thinking:

1. It is mentioned that the noble titles are administrative ones. I assume Cheliax is post-feudal? As in the nobles don't OWN all of the land in their fief?

2. The Cheliax book says archduchies are *divided* to duchies, which are divided to lesser units until we get to baronies. So the whole country is composed of small (administrative) units, which are then grouped together to larger units? This sounds more like the modern US (states,counties,townships) than a feudal or absolute monarchy. If counts and dukes don't have their own undivided lands, what do they get from their title? For instance a mine in a village might belong to the baron, but is that mine also somehow owned by the count, duke and so on?
3. If the middle nobility doesn't own rights to any property, do they each take a share of the taxes until finally the money gets to Her Infernal Majesty? Doesn't that make her dangerously angry?

3. All villages and towns described in Golarion so far (I think) had either a council or an overlord, who was named "Lord Mayor".
Are the rulers of towns and villages in Cheliax actually barons? (So "the lord mayor Archbaron Morphail") or are they separate people ("Lord mayor Vizini, appointed by Archbaron Morphail").

4. What about cities? We know that cities have "Lord Mayors" and that some of them are also capitals of archduchies. What is the relation between the lord mayor and the archduke?

5. Some middle and lesser nobles have property and interests within cities. We know 8 noble familis live in Kintargo and that their scions are barons and counts. Do they have baronies and counties in rural lands and just choose to stay mostly in town?

6. Where are the higher ups in Ravounel's nobility? Where are the duchies and their capitals? There should be at least one duke in the area, and he/she outranks Paracount Thrune (although Brzailai is part of the royal house, so I can see why they might want to lay low...).

7. On a similar note, count Jeggare (from stories by Dave Gross) has his headquarters and castle in Egorian. Does he also have a county somewhere?

I think answering even one or two of these questions could help me figure out the rest...
Thanks a lot!

So, if we focus on what was said and some deductions we have:

Taldan characteristic weapons:

Dagger (rondel), rapier (or Dueling Sword/ ISWG), scizore, falcata, pike (longspear)
Also : short sword (broadsword like), cestus, pilum, spear, lance, sling, short bow
Armor: breastplate, chain shirt and leather armor for most, field plate for heavy hitters. Large metal shield (round, definitely round!)

here are some others based on previous knowledge or inspiration:

Shoanti:
Totem spear, hide shirt, earthbraker, klar, Shoanti bola
Also: handaxe, throwing axe, big knife of some sort

Chelaxian:

Light mace, morningstar, flail, heavy flail (or dire flail for extra weirdness) halberd, ranseur, glaive, mancatcher, greatsword, bastard sword, flambard, dagger (stilleto, dirk), quadrens, heavy crossbow, whip, scorpion whip, barbazu beard (Cheliax sourcebook)
Armor: full plate (duh) but also chainmail, heavy triangular metal shields

Galt:
Rapier, dagger (main gouche), swordbraker dagger, punching dagger, bladefoot dagger, longspear (pike), morningstar, light crossbow, bayonet (on crossbows), sap (blackjack),trident, bec de corbin, guisarme, garrote
Armor: breastplate, studded leather

Maybe somewhere a bit more exotic? Geb:

Shotel, Cat o nine tails whip(pirates of the inner sea), fauchard,kama, scythe, mancatcher, two bladed sword, bolas, lasso, hunga munga, blowgun, pickaxe

many of the early 3.5 location books featured weapons from that region I think

I need to go over them all again probably, I totally forgot about the scizore for instance (thanks Zousha!)

anyone?

I was thinking it would be fun to know what are specific weapons preferred in different parts of the inner sea.
It is quite obvious that if a weapon in RL is east-Asian then it is used in Tian Xia, or if south-Asian, in Vudra.

What about the arms and armour of the inner sea region?
We know the Aldori sword is used in Brevoy and probably around the north of Avistan, Khopesh are big in Osirion and the Shoanti of Varisia have unique weapons such as the klar and earthshaker.

What about other places? Polearms for instance are very diverse and each style can suite a country without affecting much usability or balance-
The bardich for instance just screams Irrisen to me (maybe because it comes from Poland/Russia), while a halberd could be used in Taldor, Andoran and Molthune.

Other weapons/armor can fit thematically. I would guess big maces and flails are fashionable in modern day cheliax, while Taldans go about rapiers and stilletos, and a pirate of the shackles feels naked without a cutlass.

Do Nirmathi soldiers use long pikes to offset Molthuni mounted knights?
Do people in Absalom laugh at you for wearing splint mail when everybody who is cool is wearing banded?
If someone is carrying a bill and a shotel, does it mean she is probably from Hermea?

your thoughts please

SAY IT!

pation.

I shiver with antici-

If you insist on attractiveness being connected to game stats, very attractive person will have ALL of his ability scores on the high end. Most people will search for "the perfect person" (with high scores in everything)but will settle for lower scores according to what they value more important:

Str: a person with bigger muscles or that looks physically capable is attractive. It is usually more important in male objects of attraction.

Dex: a person who looks like he is in control of his body is attractive. This person is nimble, can probably dance well jump high and so on.

Con: a person who looks healthy is attractive. Health is perhaps one of the most evolutionary driven criteria for the way we chose partners. If str/dex can be overlooked in a female, no one ignores con. Does she have "child bearing hips?" is a mans most primitive observation of a potential woman partner. We also look for symmetry in someones face and body (good genes) and good complexion (not sickly). If I had to chose the most important factor in physical attractiveness, it would be constitution.

Int: an in intelligent person is attractive. A person who can understand many things, can provide a better income and solve problems is a desirable mate. True, some people may not think this to be the most important bit, but most people will find an intelligent person more attractive than a stupid one.

Wis: a wise person is attractive. The person who is profound, logical and "get's me" is desirable person. The Wis-Int division is an old debate in D&D but if Int is "booksmart" and Wis is "people smart" it is obvious both variably important for attractiveness according to taste...

Cha: a charismatic person is attractive. The one who always says the right thing, who makes me feed special, who is full of positive energy - that's an attractive person. I think it is sort of agreed that good looks doesn't equal Charisma in the game and that was also the assumption by the OP.

I have one other question. Checking the gods, I did not found any god whi likes frost like for example Auril in Forgotten Realms. Who should be the Frostlord or Frostlady? What do you think?

Not far from Mendev, the kellids worshiped Pulura, a minor godess of the north star. http://www.pathfinderwiki.com/wiki/Pulura

Maybe the common people of Mendev also worshiped her before the coming of the crusade (making Iomedae #1 godess at least among the upper classes).

Also, in my Golarion I added 2 ethnicities to fill in blanks. One is Galtish, which is sort off a cross between Germanic and Celtic western euorope, they live in Galt, River Kingdoms, and around lake encarthan.
The Lavs (obviously inspired by Slavs) live in Brevoy, Mendev, some river kingdoms, and Uslalav (which I see as a Lav+Varisian mix).
So in my Golarion Mendev is home to a majority of Lavs, with a minority of Kellids (from the west) and a ruling class that is part Lav part Taldan and Chelish.

What order (class feature) would be appropriate for a knight belonging to the order of Ozem (Last Wall)?

Thanks in advance.

Shadows of Gallowspire has knights of Ozem as Paladins (undead scourge archetype). So at least some of them are not cavaliers of any order.

Set, you are a genius. That is all.

The start of a "list" that I have follows. But I'd really like others to chime in cuz my list is completely based on my impressions of places, not published material.

Cheliax exports tomatoes, grapes & wines, mountain lions, olives and oranges, chicken and swine. Cheliax also exports tropical fruits (from Sargava), horses (from Nidal), Varisian and "northern" stuff (from up north).

Qadira exports "different" horses, spices, silks, stuff from the far east.

Taldor exports wheat, corn, cattle,....

Andoran exports "the best" lumber, stuff from Druma, elf and dwarf stuff from Kyonin and The Dwarves.

Osirion...? (sand?)

Sargava is no longer a chelish colony, so Cheliax lost its monopoly on pineapples and such (unless they sell their souls for some delicious fruit- fare trade.

Osirion - dates, grain, textiles, paper
Taldor Osirion and Qadira- Citrus fruit

Katapesh will have more exotic stuff due to the fact it has trade with the not-so-nice states - Geb and Nex, and also with the eastern Mwangi expanse and the (unknown) southern Garund.
So Katapesh will have foodstuff from the major garundi provider- Geb (which has a lower than normal ratio of people who eat / zombies that farm). You can probably get exotic animals (and their meat, feathers, furs) from Katapesh. "Dark Markets" has a lot on the other stuff you can find in the markets, but as you said you are not interested in the stuff adventurers buy.
Katapesh also exports slaves (Mwangi, Garundi, Keleshite) many may end up in Absalom.

Great! thanks for nimble reply!

I have one additional question.
How do you pronounce "qlippoth" ?
I suppose guess that be pronounced "KYOO-li-poss".

In Hebrew (where the name comes from) its Qlipot (with Kli like Glee, and pot with a simple Oh sound like in Law). However originally the letter Tav at the end of the word was Th, so I would keep it as in the English "cloth". Certainly not Klyposs though. That's a very germenised Tav (from Yiddish).

Also, if you want to make it sound more antediluvian try pronouncing Q with the tongue touching the back of the throat instead of the palate. Q (and the letter Kof in Hebrew) is originaly a "Voiceless uvular plosive".
Anyway, its scarier that way .. :-)

I am from Serbia, and as most European countries, the clerks who note names have a right to refuse a name that would be detrimental to a child in some way, like for example: naming it a farming implement, or a curse word, or and insulting descriptive word, or a name that sounds too foreign, like Asian names in a Slavic country.

I do not say people should conform, i just say that they should consider the repercussions the name can have for the child. Like homer did for Bart for example...

Well, if they refuse a name, there is pretty much nothing you can do except name it something else. Law is law.

Trust me in a country where almost everybody is named Stojan, Marko, Milos, Igor, Dusan, Stefan and such, Aragorn is like from another world.

It's like those idiots who named their kid Facebook. For god's sake, they are not original, they are just complete morons who probably runied their child's childhood pretty well.

In my country (Israel) the law is the same, but the ministry is more lenient. There are all sorts of weird names approved and cultural background or length is a non-issue, there is a girl walking around with the name "she who holds the branch of an almond tree", and no we don't have a word for that, her name is the whole sentence. I once read a publication of the government that gave the rejected names for that year (there were less than 10). One of them was "disappointment" for a girl...

Woo hoo!
Good job!

Acid Slash

Reverse Cavity

After we saw what he did with "Colon Spray" do you REALLY want to see Reverse Cavity?!

Actually I think both "faith" and "knowledge" just don't cut it. Fear of death is a primal thing, on a lower level of your psyche than "knowing".

Think of fear of heights. You go across a narrow bridge over a canyon. Now your superior modern brain KNOWS that this is the best bridge ever built and that only 1 in 1000000 people fall off bridges, but still it is very hard to put the first foot on that bridge. You may even have FAITH in the guide that says the bridge is fine, and FAITH in the proud honest builders who made sure every bold is in place, and even Faith in (insert name of deity here) that will take care of you and not let you fall. But boy is it scary.

Now fear of heights is only an aspect of the fear of death. We are programmed biologically to fear death (and things that cause death) and we try to avoid it at all cost. We try our best to stay alive all the time, simply because that is what we are programmed to do.
As thinking beings, we can overcome most of our fears but it is still very difficult. Even the suicide terrorists mentioned are heavily conditioned by their operators before they even consider strapping on explosives. They had strong faith in God even before they joined the terrorist group, but still it takes hard (and cruel) conditioning until they lose their fear of death.

It seems Arazni has a terrible gash from neck to chest that was sown up. This nicely visualizes how the Whispering Tyrant is a bastard, and Geb is a psycho...

In anticipation of a healthy tax refund that doesn't have to be spent entirely on bills this year, I've been buying some old AD&D 2E supplements from Amazon to feed my nostalgia for mid-'90s gaming. One of my favorite boxed sets from that era was Monte Cook's spin on the Principalities of Glantri. Between reading through the Grimoire and looking at info about Ustalav and the Carrion Crown, I can't help but think that Glantri would be an excellent alternative setting for this Adventure Path. I'm not terribly familiar with Golarion, but I had a lot of fun ideas while reading the store blog.

To wit:

Rule of Fear: 13 counties, 13 principalities. Coincidence, surely, but inspiring all the same. The wasteland of Virlych is reminiscent of the Caurenze and Blackhill regions, which were reduced to barren dirt plains when the meteor struck during the Wrath of the Immortals. Glantri teems with conspiracies and secret societies, like the Seven Crafts and the secrets of the Radiance.

Trial of the Beast: The marauding golem might well be the creation of a Glantrian alchemist - perhaps a student of Rolf von Graustein.

Broken Moon: This scenario's hook would seem to fit perfectly into the principality of Morlay-Malinbois, which is run by a benevolent werewolf lord.

Wake of the Watcher: The trouble occurring in Illmarsh would fit into any number of locations. A terror beyond the stars would certainly be in the purvey of a creature like Synn, the night dragon who secretly rules one of the principalities. Might need more information about these "deep lords" before trying to work it in, though.

Ashes at Dawn: Glantri City itself is probably most similar to Caliphas from what I've read about it, but this module could also be set in Boldavia, a region plagued by vampirism and ruled by a bloodsucker.

Am I the only Mystara enthusiast left out here? Chime in with your ideas - I may follow through with this!

As you can see by my name, I am a Mystara/Glantri enthusiast... or at least used to be. The AdnD2e versioon of Glantri is indeed a much darker version of the ODnD version (TSR's Gaz3).

In general Mystara and Golarion are very similar setting due to the fact that they both use the same method of using real-world cultures (and their myths) to create analogies. The disadvantage of Mystara is that it was written by many people, without (at first) much consistency. So while in Golarion the actual geography of the planet is reminiscent of earth, Mystara had arabs next to vikings, disproportional empires and unbalanced NPCs(in some parts of the world everybody was 36th level, while in others the top level was 9).

Since I haven't read Carrion Crown, I can't say if it fits Glantri. The kingdom of Karameikos (the aDnD version "kingdom of adventure") was also rendered a place of werewolves and vampires, and the Romanian analogue is fitting with Ustalav so you can consider it instead of Boldavia.

As for dark-ones and Cthulhu mythos, I don't recall anything in Glantri that fits, but the "french" part of Glantri is very much based on Clark Ashton Smith novels who is also a Cthulhu mythos writer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clark_Ashton_Smith)