Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
Recruitment Play-by-Post Play-by-Post Discussion
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends


Shackled City (Pathfinder) - GM_Chris

Game Master Chris Shannon 719

This will be the Shackled City adventure path using the Pathfinder rule set. However, the existing deities (i.e. St. Cuthbert, Pelor, Wee Jas) will not be converted to similar Golarion gods.


1,901 to 1,950 of 3,111 << first < prev | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | next > last >>

|| Per +18 | Fort +13 Ref +8 Will +13 | BAB +12 | CMB +17 | CMD 29 || Init +7 Half-Orc (Smoking Eye) Oracle of Battle/Barbarian (Armored Hulk)/Rage Prophet/Chevalier 4/3/5/3

Hey, no sullying my future armor! ;)


M Steinneblin (Rock Gnome) Paladin 13/Cavalier 1

I thought we were waiting to make the armor out of ankhegs?


M Steinneblin (Rock Gnome) Paladin 13/Cavalier 1
GM_Chris wrote:

Once again underestimated/was unaware of the potential damage out there. Nicely done.

Don't worry. I have more big toys to play with.

As a GM, I've never enjoyed running a dragon and have run a couple at various times in the past 3 years - it just feels really hard to do them "right" between the fly-by attack, the full round attack and breath weapons, it was especially a PITA with the Fly skill and PCs, so much that I'm totally fine with hand-waved rules on Fly checks.


Half-Elf Barbarian (Urban Barbarian) 1, Alchemist (Internal Alchemist, Vivisectionist) 14
Stats:
Init +12 | Per 22* | F +17* R +19* W +9* | AC 35* (t20* f27* i22*) +1 crwd | CMD 33 | *many buffs
GM_Chris wrote:
Once again underestimated/was unaware of the potential damage out there. Nicely done.

Just don't think that everyone's packing that much damage. :-p Okay, maybe close once I get into flank...


Half-Elf Barbarian (Urban Barbarian) 1, Alchemist (Internal Alchemist, Vivisectionist) 14
Stats:
Init +12 | Per 22* | F +17* R +19* W +9* | AC 35* (t20* f27* i22*) +1 crwd | CMD 33 | *many buffs
GM_Chris wrote:
Doctor Abner Svengalu Toffitt wrote:
He takes a bit of time after eating to prepare his mutagen again.
Didn't notice until now that an Alchemist can prepare more than one mutagen a day. There doesn't appear to be any limit, just the hour it takes to prepare it. Tiabrar will be so happy to find this out.

You have so much to learn, my young Sith apprentice.


Half-Elf Barbarian (Urban Barbarian) 1, Alchemist (Internal Alchemist, Vivisectionist) 14
Stats:
Init +12 | Per 22* | F +17* R +19* W +9* | AC 35* (t20* f27* i22*) +1 crwd | CMD 33 | *many buffs
Dyrant Maynor, the Pre-Sainted wrote:
Oh come on! The one he used to create this pavilion. You people are sick! Sick I tell you!

Since when is it sick for me to think about the rods of kings? All hail the scepter of King Jared


|| Per +18 | Fort +13 Ref +8 Will +13 | BAB +12 | CMB +17 | CMD 29 || Init +7 Half-Orc (Smoking Eye) Oracle of Battle/Barbarian (Armored Hulk)/Rage Prophet/Chevalier 4/3/5/3
Doctor Abner Svengalu Toffitt wrote:
GM_Chris wrote:
Once again underestimated/was unaware of the potential damage out there. Nicely done.
Just don't think that everyone's packing that much damage. :-p Okay, maybe close once I get into flank...

To be fair I spent most of that fight getting ready to be able to do that much damage, so if you average it out I only did about 10 damage a turn.


Yes. It's all about the buffs and circumstances:

-Flank
-Charge on a mount with a lance
-Power attack
-Buffs

I'm not upset about the quick kill and I don't think it'll be normal, it's just a reminder to me of the potential damage out there. Intelligent big baddies aren't going to expose themselves to such risk unless necessary.


M Steinneblin (Rock Gnome) Paladin 13/Cavalier 1

Mechanically, we're a solid party.

The fight would've gone much differently had the dragon been less zealous...

In fact -- it's very likely it could've straight killed someone with one good application of the 6d10 breath weapon (which could spike for 50-60 damage and one shot many members of the party beyond their negative HP maximum).

On another note, Dyrant is close to Reincarnate and Atol close to Raise Dead.

1d100 ⇒ 63 Woot! Halfling!


Male Human (Per +6 | Fort +16 Ref +11 Will +21 | AC 29 (f28/t15) | CMD 20)

hahahaha!

Yeah, having the resist energy meant we didn't go down as we might have otherwise. It was a tight fight I think, and we got a bit lucky at the end. Of course as they say, 'luck favors the prepared mind'.

I always thought reincarnation would be fun.


Half-Elf Barbarian (Urban Barbarian) 1, Alchemist (Internal Alchemist, Vivisectionist) 14
Stats:
Init +12 | Per 22* | F +17* R +19* W +9* | AC 35* (t20* f27* i22*) +1 crwd | CMD 33 | *many buffs

I heart reincarnate. Though the Pathfinder list is a bit ho hum.


Stats:
F14:R16:W16 (+2);K(Arc)23;K(Dun)12;K(Hist)16;K(Loc)22;K(Nat)22;K(Pln)27;K(Rel)22;Perc 25;SMot 20;Spllcft 26;UMD 18
Cuthbertist 15 - Bludgeoner First Class
Doctor Abner Svengalu Toffitt wrote:
I heart reincarnate. Though the Pathfinder list is a bit ho hum.

Sadly, I think it's out of flavor for Dyrant to take and it's unlikely he'll be taking it unless he can use it to fix Finn's orc smell.


|| Per +18 | Fort +13 Ref +8 Will +13 | BAB +12 | CMB +17 | CMD 29 || Init +7 Half-Orc (Smoking Eye) Oracle of Battle/Barbarian (Armored Hulk)/Rage Prophet/Chevalier 4/3/5/3

Serves you right if I come back full orc. In fact there is a spell to do just that in the new Advanced Race guide...


Half-Elf Barbarian (Urban Barbarian) 1, Alchemist (Internal Alchemist, Vivisectionist) 14
Stats:
Init +12 | Per 22* | F +17* R +19* W +9* | AC 35* (t20* f27* i22*) +1 crwd | CMD 33 | *many buffs

Well Toffitt might have to request that you find a nice druid or *real* witch to reincarnate him.

1d100 ⇒ 11

Dwarf!


Half-Elf Barbarian (Urban Barbarian) 1, Alchemist (Internal Alchemist, Vivisectionist) 14
Stats:
Init +12 | Per 22* | F +17* R +19* W +9* | AC 35* (t20* f27* i22*) +1 crwd | CMD 33 | *many buffs

First edition reincarnation table. AWESOME:

Die Roll Incarnation
01-03 badger
04-08 bear, black
09-12 bear, brown
13-16 boar, wild
17-19 centaur
20-23 dryad
24-28 eagle
29-31 elf
32-34 faun
35-36 fox
37-40 gnome
41-44 hawk
45-58 human
59-61 lynx
62-64 owl
65-68 pixie
69-70 raccoon
71-75 stag
76-80 wolf
81-85 wolverine
86-00 use magic-user reincarnation table

1d100 ⇒ 85

Wolverine!

The magic-user table:

Die Roll Incarnation
01-05 bugbear
06-11 dwarf
12-18 elf
19-23 gnoll
24-28 gnome
29-33 goblin
34-40 half-elf
41-47 halfling
48-54 half-orc
55-59 hobgoblin
60-73 human
74-79 kobold
80-85 orc
86-90 ogre
91-95 ogre mage
96-00 troll

1d100 ⇒ 28

Gnome!


Stats:
F14:R16:W16 (+2);K(Arc)23;K(Dun)12;K(Hist)16;K(Loc)22;K(Nat)22;K(Pln)27;K(Rel)22;Perc 25;SMot 20;Spllcft 26;UMD 18
Cuthbertist 15 - Bludgeoner First Class
GM_Chris wrote:
I see now the previous hex was for saves. I'm assuming you can double hex.

Definitely. See 'evil eye' sidebar near link.

GM_Chris wrote:
As if there was a doubt.

No, there was no doubt. Nothing but the burning fire of eternal anger.


Half-Elf Barbarian (Urban Barbarian) 1, Alchemist (Internal Alchemist, Vivisectionist) 14
Stats:
Init +12 | Per 22* | F +17* R +19* W +9* | AC 35* (t20* f27* i22*) +1 crwd | CMD 33 | *many buffs
Doctor Abner Svengalu Toffitt wrote:
Geez, could you at least roll a Sense Motive check for Glimmil...

And you might even get a bonus, since unlike the hydra, Glimmil actually speaks Common and heard the Doctor say he was about to try to trick it... Dyrant, can I borrow your cudgel...


M Steinneblin (Rock Gnome) Paladin 13/Cavalier 1

Don't blame Glim, blame his player!

FWIW, I gave serious consideration and made a Pro/Con list for the action.

Glim's action was largely based on his player's belief that GM Chris was going to keep withdrawing the hydra into the cave regardless of Toffitt's ruse, letting it regenerate away if it had a break in attacks from Toffitt+Finn+Glim, emerging as the spiritual cudgel and flaming sphere durations expire.


Stats:
F14:R16:W16 (+2);K(Arc)23;K(Dun)12;K(Hist)16;K(Loc)22;K(Nat)22;K(Pln)27;K(Rel)22;Perc 25;SMot 20;Spllcft 26;UMD 18
Cuthbertist 15 - Bludgeoner First Class
Doctor Abner Svengalu Toffitt wrote:
Geez, could you at least roll a Sense Motive check for Glimmil...

Oh c'mon! There are lots and lots of plausible reasons for Dr. Toffee to fall the ground. Let's be honest.

1) He's always drinking *something* out of those flasks he carries, we've never confirmed he's not a stumbling bumbling drunk.
2) He's emulating Finn in combat.
3) He was finally crushed under his heavy guilt...the same unknown guilt that he's been carrying around this entire adventure.
4) No one has See Invisibility up and so the Invisible Piercer just claimed another victim.

So, yeah...not blaming Glim too much.


Half-Elf Barbarian (Urban Barbarian) 1, Alchemist (Internal Alchemist, Vivisectionist) 14
Stats:
Init +12 | Per 22* | F +17* R +19* W +9* | AC 35* (t20* f27* i22*) +1 crwd | CMD 33 | *many buffs

I respect that you gave it serious consideration, but disagree with your rationale.

Glimmil and Finneas might be able to power attack the creature to death on their lonesome.

However, if we can coax it out of its hole, our ability to damage it will be greatly increased. Toffitt is a bit more helpful if he's doing 1d8 + 2 + 3d6 damage rather than just 1d8+2... Since Dyrant's fire is mostly save or nothing, I suspect that we're going to have to overwhelm it with damage, rather than rely on sundering and then cauterizing heads...


Stats:
F14:R16:W16 (+2);K(Arc)23;K(Dun)12;K(Hist)16;K(Loc)22;K(Nat)22;K(Pln)27;K(Rel)22;Perc 25;SMot 20;Spllcft 26;UMD 18
Cuthbertist 15 - Bludgeoner First Class
Doctor Abner Svengalu Toffitt wrote:
Since Dyrant's fire is mostly save or nothing, I suspect that we're going to have to overwhelm it with damage, rather than rely on sundering and then cauterizing heads...

And given GM Chris' ability to vex me at will, it seems certain that massive damage will be necessary.


Half-Elf Barbarian (Urban Barbarian) 1, Alchemist (Internal Alchemist, Vivisectionist) 14
Stats:
Init +12 | Per 22* | F +17* R +19* W +9* | AC 35* (t20* f27* i22*) +1 crwd | CMD 33 | *many buffs

If it's helpful, I'd be happy to start posting damage as:

1d8 + 2 ⇒ (2) + 2 = 4 + 3d6 ⇒ (2, 2, 5) = 9 if you help me set up flank

Atol thought that might be too passive aggressive, though. :-p

And that particular one isn't a very good example. Maybe this one:

1d8 + 2 ⇒ (7) + 2 = 9 + 3d6 ⇒ (3, 2, 5) = 10 if you help me set up flank

Yeah, that looks better.


Half-Elf Barbarian (Urban Barbarian) 1, Alchemist (Internal Alchemist, Vivisectionist) 14
Stats:
Init +12 | Per 22* | F +17* R +19* W +9* | AC 35* (t20* f27* i22*) +1 crwd | CMD 33 | *many buffs

By the way, Chris—are you just being kind to us, or did you miss that each of the hydra's heads has a separate breath weapon? Let's see, that's up to 24d6 now...?


M Steinneblin (Rock Gnome) Paladin 13/Cavalier 1
Doctor Abner Svengalu Toffitt wrote:
However, if we can coax it out of its hole...

I can't read Chris' mind, but I certainly try to sometimes.

My money's on the hydra wasn't gonna leave his cubby no matter what we rolled on Bluff checks.

I don't think we're purposely trying to deny Toffitt juicy flanks, it's just Chris' monsters are really good at avoiding them. Triel comes to mind...


Half-Elf Barbarian (Urban Barbarian) 1, Alchemist (Internal Alchemist, Vivisectionist) 14
Stats:
Init +12 | Per 22* | F +17* R +19* W +9* | AC 35* (t20* f27* i22*) +1 crwd | CMD 33 | *many buffs

Well I would hope that Chris' Int 2 hydra isn't reading our minds... But certainly I could see Toffitt's ruse needing a few rounds and an absence of armored gnomes, in order to be truly convincing...


Doctor Abner Svengalu Toffitt wrote:
By the way, Chris—are you just being kind to us, or did you miss that each of the hydra's heads has a separate breath weapon? Let's see, that's up to 24d6 now...?

Kept meaning to research. Kept forgetting. Didn't want to go nuclear and have complaints. I'll start using them all now. I'd hate for you to feel cheated.

And, the book tactics is hit and run for the 2 Int monster.


Half-Elf Barbarian (Urban Barbarian) 1, Alchemist (Internal Alchemist, Vivisectionist) 14
Stats:
Init +12 | Per 22* | F +17* R +19* W +9* | AC 35* (t20* f27* i22*) +1 crwd | CMD 33 | *many buffs
GM_Chris wrote:
And, the book tactics is hit and run for the 2 Int monster.

Which totally makes sense, although my goodness Paizo developers love to create drawn-out combats!

GM_Chris wrote:
You got the bad rolls out of the way, but would have stopped after the first attempt. Better than having made one and ending up prone on the second or third. FAQ.

I found the following in discussion on the messageboards. Not an official ruling, but it makes sense to me.

Click here for full discussion

tejón wrote:

Invisible implies neither inaudible nor (especially) intangible. An acrobatics check is definitely warranted, and if you fail you're blocked and he gets an attack of opportunity (because you moved into his square), though being invisible protects against the latter somewhat.

If a creature moves into your square while you're invisible, you have two options: simply let them pass (as if avoiding an overrun), block them (revealing your presence but not counting as an attack so you stay invisible), or take an attack of opportunity when they move in (sacrificing invisibility) which also blocks... or when they move out the other side, as tactics may dictate.

Since they didn't spend an action on an overrun, they're automatically blocked if you choose to make them so; that's why the second option doesn't sacrifice invisibility. Them plowing into you is not a hostile action on your part. Of course if you've got greater invisibility, stick with 1 or 3. :)

So by this logic, Toffitt could simply stay where he's at and let the creature pass through. But now there's the question of whether it senses Toffitt next to it. So meh.


Stats:
F14:R16:W16 (+2);K(Arc)23;K(Dun)12;K(Hist)16;K(Loc)22;K(Nat)22;K(Pln)27;K(Rel)22;Perc 25;SMot 20;Spllcft 26;UMD 18
Cuthbertist 15 - Bludgeoner First Class
Dyrant Maynor, the Pre-Sainted wrote:

Round 3 interviews lasted 1:15 and had 5 more people.

I think I did well enough. I only made up between 15 and 20 words over the course of all the panels. "Unprobably" and "codicified" probably won't make it into the lexicon anytime soon.

I spoke a bit with the other two candidates and they both seemed nice and smart and friendly. One of the candidates and I chatted quite a bit and helped each other prep for the panels we were about to get.

In the end, I recognize how hugenormous a job this will be and how difficult it will be...but also how challenging and fun.

Remember back in September when I had this really long interview for a YMCA job? I met this one lady (bolded above) during the process.

She and I kept in touch after the interview. Ya know, networking.

Well, she eventually was hired as temporary VP muckity muck at a nonprofit for which I would gladly work. Well, a position opened up for which I was pretty dang qualified at the nonprofit. I interviewed, I got the job.

Sweet. I have a sweet new full-time gig starting 7/16.


|| Per +18 | Fort +13 Ref +8 Will +13 | BAB +12 | CMB +17 | CMD 29 || Init +7 Half-Orc (Smoking Eye) Oracle of Battle/Barbarian (Armored Hulk)/Rage Prophet/Chevalier 4/3/5/3

Congratulations! One more thing to celebrate at PaizoCon.


Half-Elf Barbarian (Urban Barbarian) 1, Alchemist (Internal Alchemist, Vivisectionist) 14
Stats:
Init +12 | Per 22* | F +17* R +19* W +9* | AC 35* (t20* f27* i22*) +1 crwd | CMD 33 | *many buffs

Big congratulations, Rand! It's been a long haul, and I hope this job works out really well.


Male Human (Per +6 | Fort +16 Ref +11 Will +21 | AC 29 (f28/t15) | CMD 20)

Congrats sir! I know you were hoping to hear by Friday. Loooong week for you. :)


It's fun when the random encounter generator actually spits out something real.


Male Human (Per +6 | Fort +16 Ref +11 Will +21 | AC 29 (f28/t15) | CMD 20)

DC 25!! Seriously?!

I can't even hope to cast a spell with that sort of CMB. :(


Half-Elf Barbarian (Urban Barbarian) 1, Alchemist (Internal Alchemist, Vivisectionist) 14
Stats:
Init +12 | Per 22* | F +17* R +19* W +9* | AC 35* (t20* f27* i22*) +1 crwd | CMD 33 | *many buffs

Results of tumbling research below. It speaks about moving through threatened squares, but the logic of the bolded text would seem to follow when moving through squares.

From official FAQ:

Acrobatics: How does Acrobatics (Core Rulebook, page 87) work when you use it to avoid attacks of opportunity? When do you make checks? How many do you make?

Acrobatics allows you to make checks to move through the threatened area of foes without provoking attacks of opportunity. You must make a check the moment you attempt to leave a square threatened by an enemy, but only once per foe. The DC (which is based of the Combat Maneuver Defense of each foe), increases by +2 for each foe after the first in one round. The DC also increases by +5 if you attempt to move through a foe. In the case of moving out of the threatened square of two foes at the same time, the moving character decides which check to make first.

For example, a rogue is flanked by a meek goblin and a terrifying antipaladin. The rogue move away from both of them, provoking an attack of opportunity from both, but uses Acrobatics to attempt to negate them. She must move at half speed while threatened by these foes and can choose which to check against first. If she fails a check, she provokes an attack of opportunity from that foe. If she makes it, she does not provoke from moving through that foe's threatened space this turn.


Been a while since I've really looked at this topic.

In the combat section about AoO's it reads:

- Moving: Moving out of a threatened square usually provokes attacks of opportunity from threatening opponents. There are two common methods of avoiding such an attack—the 5-foot step and the withdraw action.

This would mean each 5' of movement provokes.

Then the acrobatics description reads:

- In addition, you can move through a threatened square without provoking an attack of opportunity from an enemy by using Acrobatics

This says "square" and not area, which again supports each 5' of movement provoking.

The "FAQ" says:

- You must make a check the moment you attempt to leave a square threatened by an enemy, but only once per foe.

This again says "square". The "only once per foe" doesn't make sense--except for something like the hyrda.

All that said the FAQ makes it clear the intent is only one check with it's example. If a creature was flanked as in the example, it would take a minimum of two squares of movement to do so.

In then end I'll blame you. You gave me two checks which prompted me to the third. :-P

So, one check per monster per round for acrobatics. If any of that movement will include going through monster's square(s) then the +5 gets added.

Any comments from the peanut gallery?


Stats:
F14:R16:W16 (+2);K(Arc)23;K(Dun)12;K(Hist)16;K(Loc)22;K(Nat)22;K(Pln)27;K(Rel)22;Perc 25;SMot 20;Spllcft 26;UMD 18
Cuthbertist 15 - Bludgeoner First Class
GM_Chris wrote:
Any comments from the peanut gallery?

Nope. Totally right on.


M Steinneblin (Rock Gnome) Paladin 13/Cavalier 1

I concur.

Even if the rules didn't state that (and my interpretation is they do), I'd hate when a single player needs to roll a dozen d20 in a round just to move through the combat field.

I could even see a house rule being a single Acrobatics check is made for all the attack of opportunities that the multiple foes would get (and you'd just measure that one Acrobatics maneuver against the CMD of the handful of nearby enemies).


Half-Elf Barbarian (Urban Barbarian) 1, Alchemist (Internal Alchemist, Vivisectionist) 14
Stats:
Init +12 | Per 22* | F +17* R +19* W +9* | AC 35* (t20* f27* i22*) +1 crwd | CMD 33 | *many buffs
GM_Chris wrote:
In then end I'll blame you. You gave me two checks which prompted me to the third. :-P

Actually, I was doing it this time because you said I had to do it with the Hydra. Damn, and wasted a good roll that could have hit Shelob.


Half-Elf Barbarian (Urban Barbarian) 1, Alchemist (Internal Alchemist, Vivisectionist) 14
Stats:
Init +12 | Per 22* | F +17* R +19* W +9* | AC 35* (t20* f27* i22*) +1 crwd | CMD 33 | *many buffs

Painlord raised an interesting question: can drider's see in the dark? Does Suggestion require line of sight? The PRD says:

"You must have a clear line of effect to any target that you cast a spell on or to any space in which you wish to create an effect."

It's pretty clear to whom the drider is talking, so it thematically makes sense if she can cast in darkness, even if she can't see. But I just wanted to clarify if there is a RAW or RAI exception here.


|| Per +18 | Fort +13 Ref +8 Will +13 | BAB +12 | CMB +17 | CMD 29 || Init +7 Half-Orc (Smoking Eye) Oracle of Battle/Barbarian (Armored Hulk)/Rage Prophet/Chevalier 4/3/5/3

GM Chris:

Under the effects of the Suggestion can Finneas drop the cloak of Arachnea for Glimmil? Wanted to get a ruling before I act in a way the character isn't allowed to.


Yes, the suggestion affects Finneas. Not sure if it's RAW, but it works in this world.


Finneas Glenn wrote:
** spoiler omitted **

Once he's past the webs I'd say yes since he won't "need" it.


Stats:
F14:R16:W16 (+2);K(Arc)23;K(Dun)12;K(Hist)16;K(Loc)22;K(Nat)22;K(Pln)27;K(Rel)22;Perc 25;SMot 20;Spllcft 26;UMD 18
Cuthbertist 15 - Bludgeoner First Class
Doctor Abner Svengalu Toffitt wrote:

Spellcraft d20 + 10

I figure if she can target him in the dark, Toffitt should be able to identify her casting in the dark too. :-p

Except that Spellcraft requires line of sight, however, the GM can certainly adjust for differences.


I agree that's RAW, but I'll allow for some exceptions. Maybe I'll require a perception check in the future or add a +2 or +5 to the spellcraft DC.

The power is going to my head.

Bwahahaha!


M Steinneblin (Rock Gnome) Paladin 13/Cavalier 1

FYI - Deleted Glim's "receiving the cloak" post since it no longer was needed.


Half-Elf Barbarian (Urban Barbarian) 1, Alchemist (Internal Alchemist, Vivisectionist) 14
Stats:
Init +12 | Per 22* | F +17* R +19* W +9* | AC 35* (t20* f27* i22*) +1 crwd | CMD 33 | *many buffs

A question is coming up that doesn't seem to be well documented on the boards or in the rules—what counts as prevailing light in conjunction with darkness and light effects? The discussion I am finding on the messageboards is inconclusive, but seems to suggest that mundane light sources (including perhaps sunrods?) would operate normally in an area where deeper darkness and daylight overlap.

I'm fine with whatever, but do want to understand the 'physics' of our fictional world.


Male Human (Per +6 | Fort +16 Ref +11 Will +21 | AC 29 (f28/t15) | CMD 20)

That's my understanding as well. Daylight and Darkness cancel each other out leaving whatever natural light remains (or lack thereof). So in theory, the sunrod should provide a light source.

But I've been wrong before. :D


Stats:
F14:R16:W16 (+2);K(Arc)23;K(Dun)12;K(Hist)16;K(Loc)22;K(Nat)22;K(Pln)27;K(Rel)22;Perc 25;SMot 20;Spllcft 26;UMD 18
Cuthbertist 15 - Bludgeoner First Class

Helpful Daylight vs. DD link.

Edit: chat discussion with Kyle Baird (who you may or may not agree with)

dyrant: Question still: Suppose daylight on a rock and DD on a rock near each other in a normally dark cave. Do torches work? Ioun Torches?
kyle.baird: no
kyle.baird: and darkness (2nd level) doesn't either


Male Human (Per +6 | Fort +16 Ref +11 Will +21 | AC 29 (f28/t15) | CMD 20)

I agree about the magical sources of light, but the sunrod is natural light, not magical light

sunrod

So the sunrod becomes the 'prevailing light' of the area. At least thats the way I rule it at my tables. Still, I'm not saying Chris should rule that way. There is CLEARLY a lot of discussion on the topic and an issue of natural vs magical light sources...


Half-Elf Barbarian (Urban Barbarian) 1, Alchemist (Internal Alchemist, Vivisectionist) 14
Stats:
Init +12 | Per 22* | F +17* R +19* W +9* | AC 35* (t20* f27* i22*) +1 crwd | CMD 33 | *many buffs

Who is Kyle Baird? Other than a 5 star judge.

Frankly, I don't agree with him, but if he's a Paizo developer I'm happy to concede. I think that makes Deeper Darkness practically unassailable in most of the conditions where it will be used, even with Daylight, which is supposed to be its equal.

*Edit: To put my objection/question another way: If someone cast deeper darkness in a room that was lit by several braziers, wall sconces, etc., would the light from those sconces be considered 'prevailing light?' Or is prevailing light only considered to be sun and moonlight?

If sconces DO count as 'prevailing light,' why don't torches or lanterns, since they're all non-magical light produced by mundane fire?

1,901 to 1,950 of 3,111 << first < prev | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Community / Online Campaigns / Play-by-Post Discussion / Shackled City (Pathfinder) - GM_Chris - OOC All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.