Search Posts
Well oddly enough I answered one of my questions: http://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering#Table-Treasure-Values-per-Encounter Spider Eater is CR5 encounter. For an APL of 5, an encounter is worth between 1,000; gp 1,550 gp; and 2,300 gp depending on the wealth track set for players. This could be used instead as a scale for "buying" the creatures, with the 3 differing values representing appropriate rarity of the creature in the market/dealer. Feel free to argue otherwise.
So for the monsters as cohorts I'd just like to know if anyone can give me a formula that matches the example listing for the available monsters as cohorts. There has to be one either based on CR or HD or their effective Monster-as-pc "level", i'd imagine. I was able to figure out how permanency was designed on my own but monsters are different. Onto the pricing question: 1. If it were up for sale, how might I buy (X) monster? I'll use the Spider Eater as an example. If I wanted to buy one from a dude who had it, what would make the most sense in terms of pricing such a transation? Should I look at planar binding and compare how they price high level outsiders? Ideas please. 2. Can I have help determining the formula used to price poisons. I'd like to use it as a method for pricing "disease samples", which use similar descriptors. Aside from the leadership question, the point is that I am making a plague spreading alchemist and I'd like mundane options. If I can get a Mummy Rot sample without fighting a mummy, awesome. It isn't like I can go, "hey GM, I need a mummy rot sample. can we fight a mummy in this forest please?" Also, in reference to the Spider Eater, I'd like to buy/obtain creatures that lay eggs in other creatures and/or apply other kinds of afflictions. PS: Any paizo staff reading this, I'd really like those numbers! THNX XD
should he be able to take the feat. part of the feat does nothing becuz he cant cast while using the ragesong anyway. one of my players really wants it and it really wont be necessary for him anyway. ill be counterspelling the magus or druid before i even blink at his spells
Please don't talk of your own opinions/interpretations as though it were hard coded rules that everyone needs to follow, it's not. Except that he is actually correct so your attitude is uncalled for. The rules text is not a mere oversight, they would have specified it changing the duration if it actually did so. There are benefits to this since there are other things that only affect instantaneous spells allowing u to stack those effects. for ex: selective + lingering. I've been doing a forum search on the subject.
Just to clarify, while I did comment on other issues apparent in the situation, and made a statement of disagreeing in general with the GM's ruling, I did also try to suggest a reconciliation to your GM's rule that would allow the summoner to maintain venomous creatures on their list, That poison that damage Con (Lethal poisons) remain evil, but poisons that damage Str or Dex (most poisons from animals intended to paralyze targets and therefore nonlethal) be allowable, which should keep most of the summon monsters on the list. This would be the difference between say, a lethal injection, and a tranquilizer dart or something. So, no, I do not feel I missed the subject matter, but rather you missed my suggestion. Or perhaps you didn't find it satisfactory, but that was my attempt nonetheless. I meant no offense. Yes i do believe i read that but overlooked it when typing. My apologies.
Zhayne, your comment is unfair and presumptuous. You have assumed limitations that are beyond the scope of my original post also please read my previous statement. FOR EVERYONE: I would like this thread locked. The matter has found a resolution in real life. I'm glad the community is responsive and wants to look out for players who seem to be treated unfairly but I must ask that the majority of those who posted here go back over my post, my GM's post and their own. No need to get worked up over this kind of stuff. Carter Lockhart, Laurefindel, Cheburn: You were the most curtious of responders so thanks. However, yall also missed the OP subject matter, lol. and Laurefindel, just saying we have a class of yours and its been great. Knight-Errant.
So I'd like to clarify something that seems to be lost to everybody in this thread, apart from my first responder Jarl. This post was asking for advice on how to cope with a ruling's impact on indirect issues and how to address my GM regarding the summoning of poisonous creatures. At no point did I hint at wanting to hear about people who would simply argue that poison use shouldn't be evil. I was already of this stance, i didn't need a following and my GM has already discussed this with me and others. I was fully aware of his position, and again was hoping to get advice on how to work 'within' the confines of his ruling. The Jarl, while initially misunderstanding the ruling, did respond within these terms and made it apparent to me with few words that my intentions were futile. I don't like that this conversation has diverged from its original intent due to the comments of those who misunderstood the subject at hand and due to my apparent GM thinking that he needed to defend him own stance when the people who it matters to have already agreed to go along with it. Despite my disappointment in the direction of things, I still thank you all for taking the time to respond to my post.
In other words, there is no room for a "work around" if this rule is to remain consistent.
Also, to clarify, my GM isn't saying that anyone who performs an evil act is definitively evil. However, a person who is continually performing the same evil act can't possibly remain good. So Neutral Good chirurgeon is still unplayable but he would not be counted as the most heinous of villains.
So to begin i will explain the ruling that is at the heart of my concerns: Poison and the use of poison is considered evil / an act of evil. The ruling is no more AND no less than what I have just stated. All players in the group were either apathetic or opposed to it when it was made however for the sake of avoiding argument on what theoretically shouldn't come up frequently its being more or less accepted and discussing the topic is (not entirely, but mostly) frowned upon. Now further results of this ruling have brought about 3 other unexpected results-
I would like to broach the question on how to convince my GM he can maintain his ruling while also preventing the complete striking out of various summons from my friends summon list. More specifically, advice on how he can 'flavor' the difference between using poisonous animals and actually taking an action to poison someone.
I wouldn't think it'd be too outside the purviews of Wish. At the very least, that would be like replicating Reincarnate and just accessing the new body immediately. only if u choose a pc race. This is about monster races. personally in response to those who consider the idea outside the purview of the spell or potentially worthy of scrapping a character sheet, how come u didn't address my mention of the "official" playing as a monster rules? Id like discussion on that point even if it means less than hopeful answers still arise.
Good point. How is this then? Our fighter character in our last session had to attack a "mighty unhallowed flesh golem" and his initial damage (DR I think was bypassed anyway but being specific on purpose) was apparently 25 dmg or more. I wasn't paying attention but he is under a compulsion and the subject came up, "could he oneshot me?" I believe he may have crit becuz that makes sense but understand that as long as we all have hitpoints he never "runs out" of damage. He also ends up tanking for all of us squishies. Now, explaining the reason behind our overly templated flesh golem: we r feat per level in this game. At the end of this session tho, our "fighter" (who did that damage) had like 5 feats. He is playing a homebrew that is a fallen paladin deriving its power from a thing called zeal, 3 levels, and 2 levels of fighter. In short, he was 2 feats short in that fight due to a player oversight.Edit: Ifeel like I should mention he is one handed, lol, and had his otherhand.holding onto a book (part of the compulsion) so was shieldless that fight. Id never trade him in for another mage.
The martial vs caster arguement is a sad thing to bring up over and over. Martials want to feel awesome and casters always seem to do more than them. Well, the overshadowing is not what people make it out to be. Casters are good at performing their set of magic and usually get some nice bonuses like bloodline immunities or oracle curse tremor sense, blah bla blah. This is how they work. Casters can maintain a set of options throughout the course of gameplay that are usually very diverse allowing them to achieve feats of greatest they couldn't normally perform like flying over a castle wall. Everybody know that if a 20th level fighter walks up to 20th level mage, the mage prolly wins even if he has no expensive components and neither have any magic gear. Even if the fighter has a magic armor and sword, flesh to stone or a powerful compulsion might suffice in securing a victory for the mage. The problem for mages is they have a limit. They aren't ACTUALLY good at everything, they are just good at emulating. A mage could prepare knock in every applicable slot but at the end of the day, the rogue/martial locksmith is the one who will always be good at picking that lock. Rogue never run out of disable device uses. Fighters don't reach a daily limit on cleave. Martials are always good at being martial and mundane. The real reason people are upset is because mages can cast big effect spells that for a moment out class anything a martial character is capable of, but ultimately, martial characters willalways be good at what they do.
My gm is currently allowing summoner for the first and final (so he claims) time. He doesn't feel that every way in which action economy is increased is an abuse he in fact loves conjurers. He simply finds them to be too powerful for one person to have full control over and much of the custimization available can get ridiculous. Also, apparently its a common banned class, so he says at least.
Ill hear out any ideas of that nature as well. Why not? What race/reason and what class levels would u use to supplement the race. The creatures CR and class levels can not exceed a total of 20 when added together for the purpose of this exercise.
So Ithink its obvious that wishing to be an elf, as a human, is fine within the spells limits. I'm talking about monster races. Also, what should be the limit if its ok. Personally I can see trading out some of your hd equal to the CR as suggested for "starting " as a monster race. The thing is, a genie with a couple wizard levels is stillquestionable but a reasonable aspiration all the same.
In the bestiary it states that a creature with int higher than 2 can never be an animal. In the druid companion pages it is 100 percent clear that an animal companion should be permited an ability increase to int, even upwards of int 10. How is this conflict resolved in the rules.
I just assumed the whole thing was made of handwavium, and that as long as the appropriate amount of GP was spent I don't care if my players are pulling diamonds or diamond dust out of their ass.Sure but having some idea of how this stuff works matters, at least in my case. Simply put, all the stuff i have said leads into a character who could theoretically get as much Diamond(gp 25000) and dust (gp ANY) as long as he put in the insane effort required to understand the factors that determine diamond value, had a source a cheap diamond, and enough of the right spell(s) available that day/week/month/year/Xamount of downtime. The rules don't prevent this, they hinder it and otherwise don't consider it. Skylancer, this part you are quoting is not me continuing the original question but explaining to Claxon why I even asked. The answer to your question is technically that while what I intend to do if unmoderated (by my GM of course) could theoretically break the game, I'm searching for details in the rules and game that suggest how I might go about this in a way that doesn't just say, 'F the rules, I've got magic!' If pathfinder were the rules for "real-life" then it would be lacking in details on how the "NPCs" are actually harvesting/ acquiring diamond, since you can't walk up to a mine and throw money at the entrance and expect the diamond to mine and cut itself, appearing before your very eyes.Yes, this is homebrew. I didn't quite realize that at first. I just figured at first that inferences made regarding the rules also fell under "the rules". Thanks for the replies guys :)
I just assumed the whole thing was made of handwavium, and that as long as the appropriate amount of GP was spent I don't care if my players are pulling diamonds or diamond dust out of their ass. Sure but having some idea of how this stuff works matters, at least in my case. Simply put, all the stuff i have said leads into a character who could theoretically get as much Diamond(gp 25000) and dust (gp ANY) as long as he put in the insane effort required to understand the factors that determine diamond value, had a source a cheap diamond, and enough of the right spell(s) available that day/week/month/year/Xamount of downtime. The rules don't prevent this, they hinder it and otherwise don't consider it.
I like where this little conversation went but i would make a slightly different interpretation if just going by the 3:1 craft price ratio. Because clearly large sized diamonds are harder to get your hands on and dust could be made out of any diamond, the formulae should be switched if not 1:1. An example would be a 6000gp diamond making 2000gp diamond dust. It uses the original craft ratio but instead takes a realistic approach. Just my 2 cents
Not what i want to hear, but fair 'nough.
I'm a wizard. Making (or finding) a spell that functionally cuts a diamond or turns it to dust is not hard. As for cutting a diamond to specified value, i could by an expensive diamond as a reference point and just use transmutation to make a copy of its cut if i have a sufficiently large diamond that i harvested. Color and clarity would be my concern in this process because finding a diamond that matches another diamond on those qualifications might be hard but again knowledge checks regarding gemology/geology plus transmutation is a sufficient answer to removing impurities. Process:
Before questioning this, consider that spells already do this stuff to lesser items, like turning a steel beam into a steel sword (Fabricate, Wizard5). I may have to make checks but ultimately, I could theoretically duplicate the quality of the component i need as long as I'm not creating the material itself. The answers so far tell me that a whole diamond is measured on 4 basis', while dust is measure on all but "cut". Legit? If so then my question is answered.
So I've talked with my GM about the value of diamond and since it's logical and the rules aren't explicit he says that diamond value is based not simply on mass but also "cut". Meaning that a 50gram Diamond may be many times the value of another @ 50 grams, because of the cut. I'm not against him on his thinking but the problem arises when a spell component is instead Diamond Dust. Diamond Dust could only be measured based on mass, not "cut". I will admit that i'm leaving out purity/impurity but either way the situation is the same. How should diamonds value be discerned and more importantly, diamond dust. I need to know because i intent to look for naturally occuring diamond more than buying it straight. Finding a hunk of diamond isn't worth the value of that diamond were it proffessionally cut, but i could still turn it into valuable dust right?... Im so confused. ex: Making a teleportation circle permanent requires 22500gp worth of diamond dust. Wish requires a single diamond of 25000gp
No options for goodies? Well it was alreadey said you can get immortality but after that go ahead and make your own plane, permanently buff yourself thru out history by abusing the hell outta permanancy. If you look at permanancy it does specify which spells u can make permanant and what it eill cost but honestly if you look at the list you can easily discover the orignal formula for applying permant status to most spells in the game. The only ones you can't apply it to are duration of instantaneous and stuff the GM says is over powered.
So I was curious about whether or not anyone had come up with a rule friendly way to "create" valuables as a way to fast track their way to being rich in a scenario, or better yet being a more powerful gem caster. I know that spells are balanced so that you can't simply cast them and have anything of high value for basically free. I'm thinking about loopholes or scientific methods anyone has looked for. Possibly an easy way of finding crystaline outsiders for slaying = profit. I have had two ideas and the first is a loophole in spell wording that a GM would likely rule-zero immediately. Create demi-plane has an option where the caster can create "a theme" for the plane but the limits aren't particularly limiting. It would be simple to propose using that feature for creating a stone pillar a mile high with diamonds set into its sides worth X amount of gold each and then use it as a over-powered spell power source for i don't know... permanancy to make the plane permanent. Then procede to make any other spells you want permanent or cast wish whenever you have spell slots open. Anyway tell me your ideas and I'll mention my second idea. The only restriction I'll give is that it should be something not requiring the use of an artifact.
So umm I have a hypothetical statement regarding what Ashiel has been stating and the arguments against. In a campaign where the spell haste didnt exist but somehow the enchantment speed did exist, you could isolate the two concepts from eachother. It makes sense that haste and speed are more or less the same rulings given that haste is the prerequisite for creation but as seperate concepts speed is specific enough to state that only the speed weapon gets the bonus and that the extra attack has no effect on your other weapons and or attacks. So it makes sense that you can't do what Ashiel says if you look at the "spirit of the law" but in a literal sense he/she is right. However, GMs can decide to make / break rules as is so subject should be done for discussion.
So I am looking to join a campaign but i am relatively new to pathfinder (I've read the rules way more than enough, just never got past session 2). I know what Adventure paths are, I googled Roll20 and We be Goblins. I'd be interested in joining, though I think I will have difficulty roleplaying an evil goblin since i have minimal roleplaying experience.
I can look into these resources but until I find a game I'm stuck without a use. I realize that I forgot to post my availability. My time zone is in the OP so I just need to offer up my schedule. I am most awake at night time. Thursday and Friday and Sunday are my days off from work. I work nights so early morning is a bad time for me except maybe on Friday morning. Also I agree with those who say PBP is too slow. I've roleplayed on other PBPs and I don't want to do that again for any reason. For those here who mention they are looking for a game feel free to join any games with me as long as the welcoming party agrees. And Badpixie, it seemed as if you might be offering to GM as long as you could fit it in... Let me know what you meant. Thnx guys.
Hi,
I wont be much of a burden in terms of learning the game. I've never used skype for gaming so that honestly will be the hard part for me to adapt to. If anyone thinks their group would be open to me joining please reply. Lastly, I should mention that I wont play an evil character. I don't have enough practice with stepping outside of myself yet. Also, I am not interested in any campaigns that try to use pathfinder rules to imitate some completely different fantasy (like a Pathfinder game that is really just Lord of the Rings or MTG). Original ideas are great and so are adventure paths. Thanks to all readers and responders
Thanks for the info. Ill have to look into it sometime.
I don't drive or have any other reasonable way of going out towards Detroit. So to be more specific is there anybody in Ann arbor or ypsi. Also less concerning to me but what make "pathfinder society" different? I thought it was just an in game adenturer group in Golarion.
Hi,
ps: Feel free to ask applicable questions |
