I guess it's not really as bad as all that; definitely not a problem OOC. The player is fine, just the character's personality. So I am, in fact, exactly looking for an IC solution to an IC problem.

And I have spoken with my own GM already. He said he wasn't sure how to balance such a curse. That's why I'm asking this forum for specific ideas that are balanced in your opinions. I 100% want to 'present a few options to my own GM', I'm just not sure where to start because the wording of the spell is so open-ended.

So here is me weighing in as if this was a player in my game. Given these conditions:



I would say that this isn't an optional thing. This is a permanent "always on" effect so by that nature I would say you could punish a character by making him trip over his own tongue so he has to mumble or stutter (-6 to Charisma) or is always tripping over his own feet (-6 to Dex).

If the player is on board I think an effect that is -6 to charisma would be hilarious if RP'd right. Make him REEK of dead fish or make his voice super high pitched :P

However I would be willing to hear of underpowered curses. In that case I think that, for example, him punching himself in the face whenever you (or anyone) says a certain phrase is fine for no damage, or if you do the "Sit bow" and make him drop prone, that is in line with things. I would make it a constant effect (i.e. no limitation. You could make him sit or punch himself all day long) HOWEVER if it is not an always on effect (like my ideas with the ability scores as per RAW) I would give him a Will save every time to resist it.

---

To put this into practical terms, I was in a Star Wars game where I played a Hannibal Lector style medical droid. The rest of the crew was terrified of me (I would preform experimental surgeries on them while they slept...for their benefit of course) and so they rigged me with a restraining bolt when I was knocked out.

We had a lot of fun in that I would be trying to talk and they'd just turn me off and on. It was fun for a bit but one of the players took it too far and stopped me from doing ANYTHING, not just the creepy stuff they were trying to shock collar off of me. In the end we modified it so it was more like a dog collar "zap" rather then something that completely removed my ability to do anything.

---

That being said, something simple like "smacking yourself" would be a fun, mild curse. Mechanically I'd rule slapping yourself as a free or swift action so if it happened in combat he could still do whatever he wanted and while it technically ate up a swift action it wouldn't be a huge problem if people abused it. Making him sit on the ground or bite his tongue might be annoying if abused because that starts interfering with a player's agency.

Also a stat penalty, while severe, would again not prevent him from taking an action, just make life more difficult and THAT would be my goal as a player and a GM: to make it fun and amusing but not removing his ability to play his character.

What do y'all think of the following as a moral code for a Lawful Evil character?

1. Respect authority figures as long as they have strength to rule over the weak.
2. Act with discipline.
3. Help only those who help you maintain or improve your status.
4. Punish those who challenge authority unless they are more fit to hold that authority.

That could certainly work. Personally, I'm fond of Rich Burlew's work, especially his bit about Emotional Responses in characters.

http://www.giantitp.com/articl...gS9YYu9g3HZBAGE.html

It's something I try to think about in all of my characters, unless they have a reason to be coldly logical (for example, if they're undead). But emotional, possibly irrational responses are a big part of being human. Having a code like that could certainly be handy, but it could also be possible for the character to make exceptions.

DMs, how do you handle Knowledge checks, especially in terms of players being given information about weaknesses, strategies, etc?

Do you wait for a player to ask for a Knowledge check when they encounter each and every enemy, or do you roll secretly and give players information based on the results of said roll?

What kind of information are you giving? Is it actual stats, descriptions, do you start with the more commonly known things about them and only give the more exotic qualities with higher results?

In reply to Nu_Fenix (msg # 30):

I believe that most of the monster entries include information that can be known with an appropriate Knowledge check. Most of the low DCs will give the PCs only very common information such as type. If the PC makes a higher DC, they could know about weaknesses, strategies, etc.

Also, we do not have the GM roll secretly. In fact, we make it a Free action to make the knowledge roll, so a PC can't even do it until their turn to act (and then, only if they remember to ask for it). The GM gives a general description of what the beastie looks like but usually not much more than that until a knowledge check reveals more info. Until then, it's all a mystery.

So just as a recap:



As a general rule of thumb, if it's a "basic D&D staple" monster (i.e. orcs, goblins, skeletons...the kind of monsters that show up EVERYWHERE in EVERY SYSTEM) those I qualify as "common" monsters.

Otherwise by default I use the "uncommon" difficulty of 10+CR. If it's a singular monster, one that isn't native to the plane of existence, or if I'm pulling it out of a 3rd party book that's when I go for the "rare" difficulty of 15+CR.

In general here is how I deliver information:
Special Defenses > Special Attacks > Miscellaneous Information & Abilities
Creature Type > Subtype > Specific Creature


What that means is that if the PC rolls and gets 3 pieces of information, I start with the general creature immunities and work down to the specific creature, prioritizing defenses over attacks over "other".

So take a gelatinous cube. This is a common monster (staple of D&D) so DC is 5+CR3 = 8

For 1 piece of information I reveal all the ooze special traits (mindless, immune to precision damage, blind, immune to mind-affecting spells etc.)

For the second piece I would reveal that gelatinous cubes are immune to electricity

3 pieces = it secretes a poison that paralyzes anything it touches

4 pieces = it engulfs and digests its pray whole

5 pieces (i.e. rolled 28+) I would reveal that its acid doesn't dissolve stone.

On PBP for common monsters it's pretty moot because everyone just looks them up on the d20pfsrd so I usually am fairly creative with descriptions of my "special" monsters so they have to make knowledge checks just to even figure out WHAT they're fighting :P

I let the players ask the questions they want (number of questions as per the rules, 1 if success + 1 extra per 5 over the DC).

Most ask for DR as first question,  but some like to ask the HD ; or Spec' Abilities etc..

Also, normally, if you succeed, you know "what" it is for 'free' (ie. undead, or plant, or magical beast etc. which can give some extra info' - immunity to mind affecting etc.).

Anyone have or know of a good/well-made Downtime calculator?

We're venturing into that area with a game and while I would love to complete the task by hand, let's be honest: Who wants to calculate Math by hand?  So, hopefully someone might know of something out there...

Thank you in advance!

A what? Like what are you trying to figure out, how much time is spent on activities or how much gold is being spent?

In reply to praguepride (msg # 35):

Yep!
I've seen a few really nicely built Kingsmaker calculators, while also playing around with the Herolabs version.  However, while those are nice - they're like the TI-85 Graphic Calculators; looking for something a little less complex...

My fear is I'll start using the TI-85 and then want to start a whole Kingsmaker campaign or incorporate it into my current game.


Thought someone might have something...
Otherwise, I'll just give the old Google a spin.

So, specifically, you are looking for something that figures out earned and bought capital costs, and building times, and stuff like that?

In reply to Invulnerability (msg # 37):

Yep, but I am starting to think: Maybe just go with the Kingmakers calculator and tailor that...

In a small discussion with a player, I turned down his idea, I'd like to get some other opinions.

Player (who is not a spell caster) wants to use Improved share spells ( http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/...mproved-share-spells ) to share potions with his AC beings you are treated as the caster when you drink it, then tried it with cloak of the hedge wizard because it says you use the spells.


Give him props it would be awsome if it was allowed.

In reply to Lekol (msg # 39):

I think you called it right based on the wording in the d20pfsrd definition of the feat (not spell-like abilities, 10 ranks spellcraft requisite) and the description of the cloak of the hedge wizard in the same document:


I haven't looked at the definition/description of potion effects in the d20pfsrd, but I definitely wouldn't count potion use as casting.

Bearing in mind all the online references are truncated summaries of the data in the actual books/pdfs, some creative interpretation can occur, but sounds like a major reach to me. ;-)

That being said... if it isn't PFS 'official' play, story trumps rules so if it fits and isn't completely unbalancing to the plot or other party members, then go for it!

Question on Human/Non-Human stuff. The Adoptive Parentage human alternate racial trait sacrifices the bonus feat for the weapon familiarity racial trait of the selected race. Now, with elves and dwarves, that's plain and simple. My question is this: does the Tengu "Swordtrained" racial trait count, given it provides weapon proficiency?

No, swordtrained is not a Weapon Familiarity racial trait like the Dwarves, Gnomes, Elves, etc have.

In reply to Lekol (msg # 39):

Personally, I enjoy this site:
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/

And from there:  http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG...mproved-share-spells


After all that:
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG...-of-the-hedge-wizard

Which is:


After all of that, I'd say: Yes, but they'd need to have the 10 ranks of Spellcraft.
Personally, your answer is completely fine - we're talking about syntax within English requiring a rather unique 'jump'.  Because the Wearer of the Cloak would-be considered: a Spell Caster.  And the argument of: Drinking the potion would-be channeled through his body.  And then, here's the jump: Utilizing any 'traits', 'flaws', and 'feats' one may have...

However, I have a hard time seeing a non-Spell Caster with 10 Ranks along with starting to call all party-members: "animal companion, eidolon, familiar, or special mount." to fulfill the second requirement of the Feat.  Then again, Warriors/Fighters are not known for their Intelligence and probably would call all party-members: animal companion, eidolon, familiar, or special mount.  Especially if they're a Dwarf...
Halfling Cannonballs, ring a bell for anyone?!?
This message was last edited by the player at 15:17, Sat 19 Mar 2016.

To LittleJumbo's point, I would rule that a potion is not "cast" (i.e. you can't counterspell a potion) so potions would not work.

Cloak of the Hedge Wizard would not work because it grants the spell-like ability to cast the spells. Key phrases:

From Improved Share Spell:

From Cloak of the Hedge Wizard


It's kind of in the grey area but my interpretation is that magic items give you spell-like abilities, they don't allow non-casters to suddenly cast spells...

This bypasses other restrictions like magical failure from armor etc.
This message was last edited by the player at 00:19, Sun 20 Mar 2016.

Assuming this is the correct thread for this:
Game Design/History Question:
Recently had the opportunity to build a 'new' character and I noticed: all weapons come in all sizes...
When did this change?!?

Working on updating Udo and now I can utilize a two-handed weapon...
At size: Small!  It's awesome!  Yeah, yeah, I do less damage but this was not an option when I first built him.

Depends on which edition you were playing in previously... I mean, in 3.0, it's all a matter of relative sizes. A Longsword to a human is a Greatsword to a halfling, and vice-versa. I think 3.5 made it make more sense. You CAN wield things that aren't properly made for someone your size (For example, you can wield a Greatsword sized for a Small user as a Longsword, if you're Medium sized), but you take a -2 penalty because the grips aren't properly proportioned to your hand and such.

Pathfinder, AFAIK, just kept using the same system that 3.5 did. It's one of the reasons why it's called 3.75 by some. To be honest, the biggest differences between Pathfinder and 3.5 seem to be the skill system, which eventually gets the same numbers via a different method (and one that, to me, makes more sense), and the combat maneuver system. Admittedly, I have things I do and don't like about CMB and CMD, but I honestly have yet to see any system in which special maneuvers (grappling especially) isn't a tangled mess.

FFG's Star Wars system comes to mind. As part of your rolls you can either gain "successes" or "advantages". Successes actually mean that you hit, deal more damage etc. but advantages can be 'spent' to just straight up inflict status effects, like grappling/tripping an opponent. It's all abstracted so there isn't a huge mini-game around grappling, you just 'do' it. Then your opponent can spend their advantages to unflict those statuses :P

To little Jumbo: Yeah, it's been that way since D&D 3.5.

In reply to praguepride (msg # 48):

Hmm...
There must've been something wrong within the rule-set for Hero Labs that was recently fixed.  I remember when choosing: Show only Legal Equipment Options - none of the two-handed options were available.

Not complaining, but now: Watch-out!
Wait, you're not in that game so; never mind!

In reply to praguepride (msg # 48):
Huh. I haven't played that one. The only Star Wars system I'm familiar with (and even then only vaguely) is a d6-based game.