Arcesilaus's page

It seems like the whole 'turning undead' mechanic is intended to recreate the classic aversion that vampires (or other undead) have to crosses (or other holy symbols). It seems like the goal is to recreate a system in which even powerful (high HD) undead are unable to approach the wielder of the holy symbol, but are under no compulsion to flee the room entirely or ignore the turner's companions.

Thus, the 'sanctuary' effect mentioned above seems like a step in the right direction, but perhaps something a bit stronger that only protects the cleric and anyone he happens to be shielding (the image of the cleric standing over a helpless villager, warding off Dracula with a cross should come to mind).

From a mechanics standpoint, I like the extra healing built into Turning, just to keep the party going and to allow the cleric to use some spells for things other than healing.

My initial thought is something like:

Whenever the cleric presents his holy symbol opposing the foul blight of undead, his comrades are inspired and reinvigorated by the sight of holy power (effectively healing them for the standard amount as presented). Further, a Warding effect is created, essentially an Anti-Undead Shell, that would require a Will save (DC 10 + 1/2 CL + Cha mod) to cross. Even if the undead makes the Will save, it is Nauseated for as long as it remains in the area (20' radius, perhaps) and the cleric continues to hold his holy symbol aloft. This would allow the cleric to protect comrades, but not blow through the entire encounter.

The cleric could also "try again," refocusing his faith (regardless of the effects of earlier attempts), for the benefit of further healing of the party. Each such attempt would add +2 to the DC of the Will save per previous Turning of Undead in this encounter.

Just a thought.

O

Rev Rosey wrote:

We have Dunwich and Yellow King expansions, but haven't really done much with them yet. Treats in store from the sound of things.

Watch out for that terror track with The King in Yellow- especially if you're playing with the blight cards and herald.

Oh: and the Mythos (rumour) cards in The King in Yellow don't have any rewards for 'beating' them other than you avoid bad things happening....

I have not been playing with the blight and herald cards in my Arkham Horror games, because I was under the impression that they were part of a separate, stand-alone ruleset. Is there a way to integrate these elements into the main Arkham Horror game?

If so, what are they?

Thanks,
O

Ok. So, in my campaign, we keep equating Thassilonian with Latin, given its ancient nature and seeming popularity with the adventuring crowd. This has been convenient, since I am a high school Latin teacher in my spare time, and I have been able to throw the occasional Latin quote at my players whenever someone (a sinspawn, for example) shouts at the PCs in Thassilonian, and it sounds really cool and foreign. (I'm not sure this is what Catullus had in mind when he wrote his poems, but at least they're getting some use.)

So, since I'm a big geek, with nothing better to do on a Friday night, I translated (quite poorly, I might add) The Scribbler's poem into Latin, just to make it feel a little more foreign. If anyone is interested, here it is:

Si veneficium desiderium clarum est
Ad Aenigmatiscaminum tibi abscendum est!
Ibi enim ars magica solum
Accipit initium iustum et commodum.

Litoribus eurois fumantis speculi,
cum vesper propior est fine diei,
Quo manent facies septem arcani
Custodes circumstantes ad portam Aenigmatiscamini.

Quidque saxum decus tyrannorum septem,
quisque dominator celat unam clavis partem;
Si libantur commodus prex et veneficia;
Septem claves accipe scalasque ascende.

Xin te exspectat gelida monte
Portis oscitantibus regali voce
Claves vertunt bis in Sihedrone --
Aenigmatiscaminus occultus manet intra.

Et nunc venisti caminoque iunxisti te
In eruditione rara mens tua se ingurgitare --
Et cum in via umbrarum facias iter
In Aenigmatiscamino diu labor tuus morabitur.

Ta-da.

Please enjoy!

O

This is a quibble, but how 'bout making the damage bonus from "Battle Smite" and unnamed bonus instead of enhancement? It's not a massive power-up, allows Battle Smite to work with the domain's level 2 ability, and most importantly, cuts down on the math.

Instead of "Um, does this stack? Ok, 1/2 character level, minus, um, 3 for my sword ..." all you have to remember/explain to your fellow PC is "You get +4 damage. Ok. -Smack orc- Done."

or ... how about making it a sacred/profane bonus. It does come from a deity, after all, and there are far too few instances of this bonus for my liking. Obviously, the sacred vs. profane indicator would depend on the deity's alignment, with neutral deities going the same direction as the positive vs. negative energy question.

O

My last post seems to have vanished ... so a quick repeat:

The Scribbler should be:

Init +5 (+1 Dex, +4 Divine Swiftness)
AC 21 (+8 armor, +1 Dex, +2 natural) [+4 deflection?]
Falchion +14/+9 [+6 BAB, +3 enhancement, +4 Str, +1 weapon focus] (2d4+9/15-20) [This accounts for Improved Critical (falchion) a feat that The Scribbler does not qualify for.]

What am I missing?

Also, why does he have fast healing and all his immunities? Are they part of the templates?

o

A note to others regarding Jorgenfist:

I missed out on this opportunity but thought I'd throw it out there for others. Personally, I wasn't overwhelmed by this adventure, as I am not one for the dungeon-slog with lots of unrelated creatures standing around waiting for the PCs to show up and kick their butts. (dislcaimer: I understand, however, that there is a place for this adventure in D&D and do not fault anyone for the writing of FotSG). One way to spice this adventure up would be to focus on the kidnapped Sandpoint citizens and turn the scenario into an exciting rescue attempt. If your players are at all wise, they will use some divination/scouting maneuvers to get the lay of the land before "storming the castle." Give them an opportunity to see one of the townsfolk undergo the Sihedron ritual and then be ritually sacrificed and thrown into the pit. Make it clear that the other townsfolk will suffer the same fate, and soon! Now, the PCs have a time limit and a specific goal, rather than the very vague "prevent the giant army's invasion." Reduce or eliminate most of the non-giant encounters above ground, as they will just slow things down as the PCs are trying to infiltrate the fortress (the river caves are valuable here). Keep Longtooth in the mix, though, if he survived the raid on Sandpoint, as his recurrence will be fun. Ideally, the PCs should interrupt a sacrifice-in-progress (Shayliss is ideal if she has developed a relationship with a PC). Mokmurian should make a token effort, but if the PCs put up an resistance, he orders his guards to attack (including Galenmir) and dimension doors to his room on the Library level, taking his hostage, of course. Now the PCs have to battle their way through the caverns to fight Mokmurian and save the damsel. You will want to remove many (most) of the encounters down there, though, so the party doesn't need to stop and rest, which obviously won't work. You might leave Conna as a useful ally but you can afford to make her a bit less trustworthy, since the PCs will be in a hurry and will need to make some choose the lesser of two evils. Also, make it clear that the giant troops aren't allowed inside Jorgenfist, so the PCs aren't worried that the whole army is going to come marching in after them while they are attempting the rescue. At the end of the day, the PCs save the citizens and have a much more action-packed adventure!

I wish I had thought of this before I was half-way through the dungeon. Alas.

O

Question about LOKANSIR I have seen this template in one of my books but i cant remember where? and it also says he has fast heal in his tackics but its not written up so how much is it?

In the description of his special abilities, it notes that Lokansir has fast healing 1 when he is melded with the earth.

o

I'm having some problems with The Scribbler's stat block that might be a result of not having access to the templates with which he was created. Maybe someone can help me out ...

1) Initiative modifier should be +5 (+1 Dex, +4 Divine Swiftness)

2) AC should be 21 (+8 armor, +1 Dex, +2 natural). Where does the +4 deflection that is listed in his block come from?

3) Falchion's to hit modifier should be +14/+9 (+6 BAB, +4 Str, +3 enhancement, +1 weapon focus). The block has +15/+10, what am I missing?

4) If The Scribbler has Improved Critical, the falchion should be (2d4+9/15-20). However, with a measly +6 BAB, The Scribbler doesn't qualify for this feat.

5) Just out of curiosity, why does The Scribbler have fast healing 5 and all his immunities? Are these from his various templates? It's just nice to know.

Thanks.

O

I just wanted to give playtest feedback about the 1st level destruction domain power destructive smite:

I play a 10th level cloistered cleric of Nethys with the destruction, knowledge, and magic domains -- we infiltrated the Fortress of the Stone Giants from the Rise of the Runelords Adventure Path last night. To my DM's dismay, the change from 3.5 to Pathfinder has also changed my character from a reckless charger/smiter into a methodical destroyer who takes 5' steps.

Instead of dealing death from above a few times per day (I like to combine leap attack with smite), this ability now grants half as much bonus damage (and no bonus to hit) every time I use a FRA to make a single attack.

Below level 6 (when warriors get their first iterative attack), I believe clerics with the destruction domain can equal if not exceed the damage output of more martial characters.

I suggest limiting destructive smite to 1/day per cleric level.

I would like to thank you, Alex, for providing some actual PLAY-TESTED insight into this project. I have not yet had an opportunity to play with these rules, myself, and have therefore kept pretty quiet about the specifics, but I have been flabbergasted by the number of posts on this board from folk who are simply throwing out their house-rules, criticisms, and requests for classes, races, etc., etc., without having actually played with the rules as written. Many folks here seem to think that they have as much (or more) say in the product as the esteemed Paizo folks who are writing the stupid thing. As someone else (I forget who) noted, "It's open play-testing, not open design." It's gotten to the point that, as a former Paizo-forum addict who checked in every break he got at work, I can barely bring myself to slog through the junk for something interesting.

I'm not trying to flame anyone in particular; just expressing some frustration, and thanking Alex for his valuable, play-tested insight.

O

The ability to have a flavorful replacement for a light crossbow is in no way also a replacement for having an extra spell of your highest level for low level characters.

Well, that is certainly arguable. I think it depends significantly on what the designer's or player's goal is. I think it's worth a small decline in overall power to be more flavorful. That said, I'm not sure there is a great decline in power. As Ogre noted above, the fact that the evoker's ability is a touch attack is quite a boost and will lead to significantly more damage done over a series of rounds. Further, I'm not sure that having a SINGLE spell at a low-level wizard's highest level is, in fact, preferable to the ability to drop 4 (or more) hp per round on the bad guys. Remember that the damage increases with the character's level. I guess it would depend on the spell.

Recall that Wizards are getting an actual ability to shoot little worthless neebly beams instead of throwing little worthless darts. That ability is worthless because if you actually fight with it you don't win.

I agree with you 100% that a lone wizard who doesn't use his spells is likely to get trucked by a lone orc, but that is unlikely to change because he is wielding a crossbow. In actual practice, the wizard has buddies who prevent the orc from reaching him and chopping him in half. Further, the evoker in question is only likely to use this ability in order to save his spells or when they are used up.

Also note that X-Bows do a d8 (4.5 damage).

-Frank

Also note that the damage of the ray ability increases with level (as mentioned above), while the crossbow's doesn't (barring magical enhancement, which is unlikely for a low- or medium-level wizard).

I actually think it's quite fun and useful. Well played, Pathfinder RPG.

O

An element that is being ignored here is the difference between arcane and divine spells. It is reasonable to restrict the wizard/sorcerer's spellcasting because of the efficacy of their spells (particularly compared to cleric/druid spells).

wizard: magic missile, web, sleep, fireball ... these are mighty spells and all low-level.

cleric: bless, hold person, cause fear, searing light ... (obviously, I'm leaving healing out of the mix)

Although cleric spells are all useful and have their place in a party, level-for-level, the wizard and sorcerer have WAY more bang for your buck. Thus, arcane spell failure is a reasonable handicap to balance the classes.

I honestly have a hard time imagining a wizard running around in full plate, dropping fireballs on the enemies with impunity (sounds overpowered to me).

O

I also wonder how this will interact with magic items such as boots of elvenkind.

Not to threadjack, but ...

In my campaign, I combined Move Silently and Hide into a Stealth skill quite some time ago. When my PCs find boots of Elvenkind, for example, I halve the bonus that it provides, since it only helps with half of the stuff that Stealth covers. I do the same for Cloak of Elvenkind. Thus, if a player had both, the total bonus would be equivalent to the original individual bonuses on each skill.

I recommend something similar when converting 3.5 to Pathfinder.

O

Well thought-out and presented.

Two quick notes:

Orisons: These can be cast at-will, but you do not have access to all 0-level spells everyday. Instead you must choose the orisons you have prepared each day (3 at 1st level) and can cast those 3 spells at will until you prepare spells the following day, when you might decide to pick 3 different ones. I gather that this is the same system for wizards and 0-level spells.

Wizards and skills: While it is true that wizards have a relatively small number of skills, their generally higher Intelligence bonus should result in a reasonably large number of skills to start. That said, I agree that 2 + Int is quite small and think that ALL classes should start with 4 + Int.

O

As I've said on another thread, my favorite way to handle the generalist wizard would be to give them the limited wish and wish only for the purposes of duplicating spells, not item creation, money-generation, stat enhancing, etc.

I am a big fan of this idea. A "Universal" wizard should be all about flexibility. The 18th level school power could be:

1) The duplicating spell elements of wish, or

2) The ability to cast a spell of ANY level, as long as it is a spell that is in the wizard's spellbook. This means it could still be a 9th level spell but limits selection and rewards the universal wizard for collecting a wide variety of spells. I think this would also require that the wizard pay all component costs, since the flexibility of choosing any spell is already such a benefit.

Also, my players and I don't like ANYTHING that takes away XP. We have already removed the XP costs for crafting magic items, and lo! finally the PCs are crafting items, something that has never happened at my table before. Thus, I would really like a new, toned-down version of Wish, regardless of whether it stays as the Universal power.

Thanks,

O

I also use max hp at every level.

It is simple and provides a real sense of distinction between the classes. There is still very much a sense of danger, and I have certainly killed PCs. Mostly, though, it makes things easier for me to DM, as I am less worried about fudging things and can pull out the stops. The party also adventures for a longer time before resting, as well.

O

I am, personally, a big fan of the new system. I have been trying to fix skills in my own campaign and had already started some of the skill simplification that is detailed here.

I like the simplicity of this system, both for me as the DM, but also for the players (mine frequently "lose" skill points here and there, because there's just so darn many of them).

I also really like the idea that every class will end up being competent at a large number of skills at high level, as this seems to fit the "heroic fantasy" genre a bit more. A 15th level fighter, for example, should be competent in more than just 2 skills.

For those of you worried about min/maxers grabbing a level of rogue, just for the skills (just like 3.5 encourages you to grab a level of fighter, just for the feat), I argue that the new system punishes you for doing so by making you lose out on cool features in your other class, now that you essentially gain something every level in every class. If that still bothers you, then I suggest making the number of starting skills the same for ALL classes. Say something like: 4 + Int modifier. This makes it totally pointless to grab another class (other than to adjust class skills) and makes Intelligence a much more important stat in the process of learning skills, which makes sense to me. The smaller number of skills to choose from should allow this change while keeping the rogue a playable class.

As for retrofitting prestige classes, it seems pretty simple to adjust to the new system (as someone mentioned above), by just changing to the requirement to "trained in skill; certain character level."

O

I think there are two different issues that are in play here ...

1) The giants in the watchtower 24/7: I don't think that module writers honestly intend to make it seem like the same giant sits in a watch room, sleepless, without eating or going to the restroom. It is, of course, unrealistically complicated, particularly given word count limits, to give an hour-by-hour rundown of every shift-change, outhouse location, and mealtime necessary for something as complicated as an entire fortress. Add to that the very weird task of being forced to write to a "slice of time" (specifically, the moment in which the PCs actually interact with a particular room or NPC), and you get the static environment that many modules have. This generally only causes trouble when the PCs have time to scout a location over time, and you (the DM) are forced to animate the locale and extend that "slice" into a whole pie. Unfortunately, that's a case where the PCs are putting some work into the DM's lap. No writer has the space or foresight to prepare for every detail, and we DMs are forced to improvise or work out stuff in advance (which sucks when, as we both do, we rely on prewritten modules so we don't HAVE to do this sort of work). Your work on FoSG, for example, was invaluable and is the sort of thing that we poor, under-appreciated DMs must work out (or steal, in my case).

2) Fantasy physics v. fantasy drama: Yes, the government probably has access to Locate Person (as well as the ability to Raise Dead on the ankheg victim you mentioned in an earlier post). Of course, its use of said spells removes a fair amount of the "coolness" of the scenario. I understand that you and your gaming-partner are pretty stickler-y regarding the mechanics of the fantasy world and making sure things make sense, but I feel that sometimes a certain amount of "looking the other way for the sake of story" is required. I personally like the idea of a town that erects monuments to its fallen heroes and has a masked avenger running around righting wrongs, and, therefore, I'm willing to ignore the technical difficulties involved therein. My players would agree, I think. That said, it seems easy enough to come up with "fantasy physics" that justify the same flavor. I assume that the adventurer who was killed by the ankheg was dragged down into a hole by the fleeing bug, and, therefore, the body was never recovered and couldn't be Raised. I'm sure Blackjack could afford some anti-divination magic of his own. Etc.

I'm not trying to cause a fuss. Just trying to lure you back to CotCT so your DM will post all sorts of cool stuff that I can steal.

O

EDIT: I got beat to the punch for point 2.

I have a theory as to why your group has these problems with modules, but I'm not certain and don't like to suppose too much. It has a lot to do with logic always trumping human (or monster) foibles and emotions in your group's view.

Look at our world today, if logic really played into reality as much as some people think it does, wouldn't the world be a far better place without the problems of over population, constant warfare, racism, classism, religious strife? Logic is a nice little idea, but is not functional in human practice. People make bad choices in real life all the time, and they even make them for the wrong reasons. I assume so when I write a module.

This is actually one of those points that I think DMs miss out on quite frequently. There is a tendency, I feel, for DMs to run their NPCs as intelligently and logically as possible, whether minion thugs or BBEGs. In "reality" (using this term loosely) though, intelligent beings do all sorts of things that are not to their advantage driven entirely by emotion, prejudice, etc. I think that the Pathfinder writers in general play up to this "illogical" behavior in their writings. An example that leaps to mind: the ogres in the tannery room under Jorgenfist. In their tactics, the writer suggests that the ogres will try to humiliate the PCs and bull rush them into the tanning vat, because it's funny to them. With just a little sense, though, it's clear that the ogres should simply surrender to any group powerful enough to invade a fortress full of things way tougher than ogres and, further, that the AoO provoked by that bull rush is going to get these ogres mopped up by an 11th level party. It's an "illogical" tactic, but it makes some sense, based on ogre psychology (I imagine), and is a damn sight more interesting than, "Okay, you mop up the ogres in about a round and a half."

Anyway, Mr. Logue's spoiler is a great example of emotion over logic, and there are many others. I have always liked giving my BBEGs something to care about that can force them to act "illogical," by the way: like a partner in crime who is a childhood friend that he will sacrifice himself to save or a tendency to use an exotic weapon just because it looks cool.

All that said, this might not be what Mary meant by "illogical," but I felt that Mr. Logue's comments deserved a little support.

O

First, I should say that I agree with everything that has been posted so far regarding this adventure. It is not a very thrilling read for the DM and (apart from the attack on Sandpoint) doesn't have any of the "Gee, that's cool!" moments that the first three adventures in RotRL did. Many complaints about the static arrangement, layout of the dungeon, and lack of connection for some of the monsters therein can be (and have been) expressed.

Personally, I want to thank Mary for her help and suggestions as I prepared for tackling Jorgenfist, many of which I used. That said, it is important that you keep in mind that her changes (and those of other helpful posters) need not be used in all cases and might just end up confusing matters.

Case in point: My PCs are just about to enter the deathweb cave and find the "back door" to Jorgenfist. This party has no true arcane caster (duskblade, binder/sorcerer, and a bard) and thus sees the camps of giants circling the fortress as an impenetrable barrier (rightly so). There's no invisibility here. Second, and this is a comment about my players, it never occurred to them that Longtooth (who survived the raid on Sandpoint), the rocs, the harpies, or any other faction might not be firmly allied with Mokmurian and possibly used as an ally or turncoat (probably a result of other gaming experiences). Their one nod to finesse here was in charming the two ettin guards in the watchtower and pumping them for info, thus discovering the river caves and an alternate entry. Although I had written up all sorts of political intrigue and factions, I should have known that my players would ignore it and simply see the fortress as a huge bank vault to be broken into. Ultimately, my point is ... know your players. Don't spend a lot of time adding complexity that will never be realized and don't increase the challenge of the fortress (with additional giants, for example) if your players aren't equipped and strategic enough to overcome the challenge.

I just wanted to post this to help other DMs steer clear of my waste of time and also to point out that the adventure is just fine as is for the right set of players. Personally, I wish they were a little different, but I'm outnumbered. :)

O

PS I did take out the redcaps and the scanderig and the trolls, though. Thanks again, Mary.

Hi. I had a couple observations and one bit of tweaking I wanted comment on.

1) For Enga Keckvia, kobold "ratcatcher," it says in the During Combat notes that she fights with her back to a wall to minimize flankers. Of course, since she has Improved Uncanny Dodge, she doesn't really need to worry about being flanked, so I would ignore this bit of advice.

2) In the notes for the Library level, it states that there is no illumination in the rooms unless noted. The runeslave giant, however, doesn't have darkvision. Is he really sitting there in the dark? With an Intelligence of 2, I suppose it's possible, but it seems a little unlikely. I don't really expect a response on this one, since it's obviously nitpicking. I figured I'd just note it for other GMs, so you're not caught by the players' complaints down the line.

3) I think The Headless Lord's attack modifier is wrong. If I calculate correctly it should be +15/+10 and +15. It seems not to be taking into account the -2 for fighting with two weapons. Has this been intentionally left out?

4) Do the Zombie Hill Giants really have 24 HD? I don't think the number of hp is unreasonable, but I see this scenario playing out such that the party cleric turns undead, likely turning The Headless Lord (who only has 12 HD and +4 turn resistance), and leaving his minions totally unfazed. To make matters worse, the cleric has Improved Turning, so he will flat-out destroy the cool monster, and the party will then have to slog through the minions. I have no problem with PCs being able to use their cool powers and 1-shotting a bad guy (that's why they have the powers, after all), but this encounter seems like it's set for anticlimax. Any way to fix this without nerfing the zombies too much?

O

I just gave the PDF to my players and assumed that the stories were simply circulating as rumor and tales told 'round the campfire.

They really do go a long way toward immersing the players in the world.

O

So, the PCs find the strange land-bound ship in the Shimmerglens and, after some serious wiping at muck and moss, discover its name to be the Celestial Monarch (I don't remember now why this name popped into my head as I was desperately casting about for something (usually I change my favorite band names into things like inns, e.g. Jets to Brazil = Griffin's Flight to Waterdeep, Modest Mouse = The Humble Rodent, Built to Spill = The Leaning Tankard, etc.)). Anyway, the bard makes a ridiculous bardic knowledge roll, and suddenly I'm forced to come up with a story for the ship: Assuming the ship was named after its most prominent passenger, I declare that the bard has heard tales of a faerie queen of the First Realm that, as part of a pact with the humans of this world, wed one of the Linnorm Kings. The fey queen lived with her husband dutifully until the end of his mortal life, then packed her belongings onto a ship and set out into the expanse of the ocean and was never heard from again. My thinking is that she eventually ended up setting up shop in a foreign land, setting up a gate to the First Realm, and eventually we have the Shimmerglens.

My questions:

1) How long ago could something like this have happened? Could this be a story from Thassilonian times, or are Linnorm Kings a relatively new creation? I ask only because the PCs are determined to discover what area the nautical charts refer to. If they are pre-cataclysm, I have no problem telling them that they are impossible to place by anyone living. If younger than that, then it seems like someone should be able to figure them out. I could just make them maps of the Linnorm coast, but as I think about it, maybe it should be a chart that supposedly leads to a nautical route back to the First Realm, the faerie queen's passage home after fulfilling her end of the bargain with the humans. Sadly, the charts were mislabeled (on purpose?) and she was lost to the swamps. Hmmmm. Thoughts?

2) Are nymphs immortal? Could Myriana be that same faerie queen? After meeting her, the PCs already believe she is Queen of the Swamp and seemed truly moved by her desecration and death.

3) As a side-quest, I ran these PCs through Wingclipper's Revenge (Dungeon 132), in which they received a token (two-headed coin) from the Grey Man, which they can use to call in for a favor from the fey at some point down the line. Any thoughts on how to tie these two elements together?

I ask because I am frequently impressed by the creativity of folks on these boards. Any help is appreciated.

O

Why not just have Mhar into the next threat?

Congratulations, PCs, you've just prevented Karzoug's return to Varisia! What are you going to do now?

We're going to Disneywo... RAAAAAAARRRRRRHHHHH! ... Holy crap! That mountain is moving!

Etc.

Maybe a trip to Leng or another dimension to tie down the anchor that Mhar has been slowly working loose over the centuries and is the only thing preventing him from devouring this world, Galactus-style. I assume that some of the magic items in the web supplement to PF #5 might be valuable resources and good Maguffins.

That's just off the top of my head, unfortunately, and I don't have any adventure references, but it's something that might be put together rather easily.

EDIT: Just glancing through titles, maybe a quest through the Greater Halls of Maure Castle (Dungeon #139), finishing with a trip to the Heart of Hellfire Mountain (Dungeon #140), an adventure which includes some giant lovin'.

O

I've always been opposed to the idea of PC parenthood, for a variety of reasons.

1) It's restricting. It's hard to justify risking your life out adventuring, when you have hungry mouths to feed at home. It tends to get in the way of the story.

2) It's hard to do in good taste. Often this sort of thing ends up being taken to a place that someone at the table will find inappropriate. It's best just to avoid this sort of thing.

3) It isn't heroic. If you're trying to tell an adventure story, there's no better way to tear the action out of it than to introduce a baby. Believe me, my daughter has torn every scrap of adventure out of my actual life. :) You never see Conan or Dar or Han Solo popping out kids on screen, because it's just not action/adventure. They either love 'em and leave 'em or fall passionately in love and live happily ever after (and not just because they knocked someone up). The only exception is ...

4) You have to wait 15 years. Yes, the occasional sequel involving the hero's son or illegitimate offspring or some such allows for adventure combined with "What to Expect ..." but these things always happen after the baby has grown to adventuring age. I mean, you're never going to see little Timmy, the infant sorcerer, shooting magic missiles while hanging onto Sir Gawain's chest in his Baby Bjorn.

It's better drama to allow the player to decide if his character truly is in love with Shayliss (or not) than to "force" the issue with pregnancy.

Just my 2 asses (Roman cents).

O

Oh, by the way ...

It might go without saying, but I am fairly certain that when the stone giants come a'knockin' at Sandpoint (beginning of next session) that Shayliss will be one of the NPCs that they haul off in their sacks. No reason not to take advantage of that one.

o

This is an interesting timing coincidence, as I was just writing this up when I checked the boards ...

IMC, Shayliss was pretty handily rejected by the only suitable PC (only human male), even after a second try. I think the players thought that would be the last they saw of her. After her sister's death, though, I started to describe PC encounters with her around town, and she always had a new bruise on her face or sling on her arm. Clearly Ven was taking the loss of his daughter pretty hard and was hitting the hooch he keeps in the basement (not to mention Shayliss). Usually these encounters were with other members of the party, who would report back to the original love interest, who has started feeling more and more responsible.

I then set her up as a barmaid/lady of ill-repute in Paradise (I set this in Sandpoint instead of Turtleback Ferry for all sorts of reasons). She was the classic "trying to pay for my way out of this town" figure. The rogue who ran into her there very gallantly refused her offers of "additional services," and ran back to inform the love-interest. Before anything could be done, the place burnt down, though (luckily, Shayliss had the night off).

Now Shayliss has heard that the PCs are fixing up Fort Rannick (now located just a long day's ride northeast of Sandpoint) and has approached the love-interest, bruised and bloodied by Ven's latest fit of anger, begging to be taken on as a servant, maid, whatever at the Fort, just to get her out of Sandpoint and away from her father.

I expect the PC will take pity on her and take her to Fort Rannick. Ultimately, I imagine a romantic conclusion to this subplot, although I suspect there will be further twists (an errant knight who lures poor Shayliss into bed and then departs, leaving her in a family way, etc.).

I have loved this little addition from day one, and my players have commented on this AP's role-playing options and involvement with NPCs. Good work, writers!

O

Personally, I plan to remove the Cauldron's restriction that it can only be used on giants. I think it would be great fun to have the PCs toss a compatriot into the pot if he should bite it in the library area (which is a distinct possibility). The runeslave template doesn't seem to have any element that would rule out as applicable to a non-giant.

o

It's a fairly standard encounter in fantasy (cf. Conan's nearly identical encounter), but there's nothing wrong with old favorites every now and then.

Realistically, I expect the players will see through the deception pretty quickly, but, given the mind blank and plausible cover story, they might just roll with it for fun's sake.

Has anyone considered "prettying up" the encounter with the hags and Lamatar on Hook Mountain? I was just looking at the covey powers of the hags and was thinking it would be more fun to pull the tried and true "beautiful damsel in distress" shtick, particularly since the hags are less than excited about their continued working relationship with Barl.

I imagine that as soon as the hags hear the combat between the PCs and ogre guards, they use mirage arcana to make their cave appear more comfortable, like a small cottage or boudoir (complete with lots of decadent pillows and gauzy hanging veils), veil to make Lamatar look like he did before he got "wight-ed," and disguise self to make themselves into the aforementioned "damsels." When the PCs bust in, the hags play all nice and convince them that they are a sorority of local "weather witches" and have been held here to make the rains that Barl wants. Lamatar keeps strangely quiet but backs up the sisters' story when prompted to do so. Assuming the PCs don't immediately attack, the hags offer a moment's rest and some nourishment, in the form of Oil of Taggit soup (Fort 15, unconsciousness). If the party all fail their saves (unlikely), the PCs wake as Barl's prisoners and get to enjoy his monologue about Mokmurian's power before they inevitably escape and kick butt. If at least some of the PCs remain awake, then the combat proceeds as the hags drop their illusions and Lamatar leaps into the fray.

Of course, if the PCs don't eat anything, the hags beg for the PCs to rescue them and, flee into the mountains, given the opportunity. The PCs might think they have successfully brought Lamatar back alive for Myriana, until the reveal, which should be fun. Also, the hags give one of the PCs a hag's eye as a reward, which allows them to show up later, when the time is right. Mwah ha ha.

The encounter seemed a little boring and too straightforward as written, so this seems like a better choice. Any suggestions or thoughts?

O

EDIT for more details.

This is obvious, but it should pointed out that the Witchfire is an undead, not a giant.

Great work! Thanks!

o

I do have #5, but it is not helping with the crucial issue that you have already identified:

The Fort needs to be far enough away that it has not played a major role in the conflicts to this point, but not so far away (e.g., Ember Lake) that it couldn't possibly serve as a source of protection to Sandpoint.

It would be a shame, I think to drop the entire scene at the dam, just because I like the concept of the outsider forced to provide magical energy for centuries, but maybe this can be reworked into something that fits.

I feel like this may have been addressed elsewhere on these boards, but I couldn't find the thread, so ...

I am somewhat unhappy with the fact that Fort Rannick is so far from the town that the PCs have been working so hard to defend for 2 adventures and was thinking it might be more fun to move it closer to Sandpoint. This would allow me to establish Paradise, the floating casino, within Sandpoint itself and run the possible inclusion of the PCs and allow them to witness (and possibly prevent) its burning down. Then, when the PCs clear out the ogres, they can take over a fort that lets them protect a town that is dear to them, rather than Turtleback Ferry, a place they've never heard of before arriving there. The final plus is the option to run a couple encounters from within the keep (once it's fixed up) against Mokmurian's stone giant scout parties, effectively protecting Sandpoint, prior to the all-out attack in PF #4.

My question, though: does anyone have a good suggestion as to where to move the fort so that it still has access to a river and makes sense as a fort intended to protect Sandpoint?

Also, does anyone see any major problems with this set up?

Thanks,

O

I think she, and monsters like her with multiple improved grab/constrict attacks, can do better. Unless I'm running the rules incorrectly (entirely possible with grapple) she can attack with the first claw, automatically grapple, automatically constrict, then release the grapple as a free action, then attack with the second claw, and repeat. Rather than getting tangled up grappling one target, I always assumed this was how creatures like giant scorpions scored the big damage. As a sidenote, if she overcomes her self-loathing on a PC or when she's fighting Aldern, her damage goes up insanely, especially if you channel her "Reason to Hate" bonuses toward damage, which is probably what she'd do. Two claw attacks at +11 (1d6+10) become two claw attacks at +12 (1d6+17) with full Power Attack. She only needs to roll a 7 to hit Aldern, and PCs probably don't have much higher ACs than his.

Actually, you are running this incorrectly. In the Revenant description of Improved Grab (SM, p. 90), it states that, "To use this ability, a revenant must hit with both claw attacks against a target of equal or smaller size. It can then attempt to start a grapple ... If it wins the grapple check, it establishes a hold and can constrict."

Thus, Iesha cannot constrict after hitting with one claw, she must wait until she has hit the same target with both claws. Further, she cannot inflict the Constrict damage until she makes a separate grapple check, not the one used with Improved Grab to catch hold of the target in the first place. This second grapple check (and all subsequent ones) are standard actions and, therefore, have to wait until the round after the initial grab.

So, Round 1: Iesha hits with one claw, hits with another, and makes an opposed grapple roll to initiate a grapple (full action). Round 2: Iesha makes an opposed grapple roll to inflict Constrict damage (= to claw + constrict damage). By the way, remember that Iesha loses all Dex bonuses to AC while she is grappling her target, unless she takes a -20 roll to the opposed grapple check.

Hope that helps.

O

PS I made Iesha's constrict damage = 2d6+20, since I wasn't sure about adding in both claws and 3d6+30 seemed a little ridiculous for my party.

My feelings are the same. My understanding is that with the vitality system, no real damage occurs until a specified point. However, in D&D, hit points can mean almost anything. It could be action-movie-esque hits where the hero gets smacked over and over and over, likely beyond what a human could take and remain conscious, yet they do. Or it could be dodges, ducks, and near misses (that one's for you, Mr. Shiny!). It could be gods-granted toughness, to take blows that would normally lay a man low and keep going without even really being phased. All these things can even be expressed by different characters at the same table in the same battle.

Which is why I established a consistent system to make it clear what HPs actually mean. IMC, no one is actually wounded until his/her HP reach half of the maximum, which can be important when you are fighting to first blood, for example. At 20% of max HP, the character is "battered" and at 10%, "near death." I have found that this system is easy from a math standpoint and provides a realistic measure for Players and DM to measure the effectiveness of their attacks. The two major positive results are preventing the Unrealistic Stand and Fight Syndrome ("We've been fighting this creature for six rounds and it's not even wounded, yet. Maybe we should split.") and the Waste of the Big Winkie on the Mortally Wounded ("Player: OK, well I've been holding this back, but I guess I better use my maximized Fireball on this beast that won't die! I do 60 HP of damage! DM: Ok, it's dead. It only had 2 HP left, anyway. Player: Grrrr.")

Thus, I would rule that the arrow doesn't stick in the quasit unless it brings the quasit below 50%.

o

I also groan (as do my players) on the overuse of particular monsters. It may be realistic in the module, but its boring to face the same thing over and over.

I strongly disagree with this comment. I think it is entirely reasonable and fun for a goblin outpost to be full of nothing more than goblins, which the characters can then prepare for. I always think back to the AoW adventure (I forget the title now) in which the PCs were invading a nest of lizardfolk, got all ready for the lizardfolk, and then encountered a nest of harpies in the first room. My players all basically said, "What the ...?" I have enjoyed the consistency of the encounters, even though there is not much variety in the goblin outpost or the giant stronghold, as there should not be. In fact, the areas that I find to be the weakest in PF #4 are those in which seemingly random monsters are coexisting in harmony, simply for the sake of variety (redcaps? dragons? hounds of tindalos? why?).

I have to echo the previous posts in many ways. It's lucky that the first PF was so good. I had a rollover subscription and was so impressed by the first 2 adventures that I extended the subscription, even though I have more than enough Dungeon adventures to keep my gaming group happy for years. If they had been the of the same quality as PFs 3 and 4, I would not have subscribed. The issues with Hook Mountain and editing have been addressed elsewhere, but PF #4 really disappointed me. Perhaps the bar was simply set too high by the first couple adventures and it was unrealistic to hope that such a high level of quality could be maintained, but I am reminded of "Three Faces of Evil" in AoW, definitely the worst adventure in that path.

I have enjoyed the Pathfinder Journals for fluff and get the feeling that at least some of the material is intended to preview material that will be useful in the next adventure path (otyughs in the sewers!). Further, I have given the articles to my players to read to get a feel for the setting, and they have responded with some truly impressive character backgrounds based on the readings. That has been worth the pages, by itself.

I am hoping that the remaining adventures in the path will return to the quality of the first two and that the story will end strong.

O

IMC, one of the PCs is actually the miscreant who is burning down the mills!

The party rogue is a halfling who has been contracted by the Szcarni to burn down the Soggy River Mill. Next week, he will be approached again by Gressel Tenniwar to brun down Cougar Creek, and so on. He doesn't know who he is ultimately working for, or why anyone would want to burn down a grain mill, but he will probably figure it out when the Scarnetti mill is the only one still standing. It will be interesting to see what he does at that point, since he's basically a good guy who's not above causing a little property damage for a bit o' gold (he made sure the mill was unoccupied before burning it down, for instance), and reading this thread has further inspired me to throw the murder of the wheelwright's daughter into the mix. I imagine the poor rogue will feel terrible when he notices that he's been spotted by someone at the scene of the crime and then the young girl shows up mysteriously dead. That's good drama!

O

I'm not sure I agree with penalizing attack/defense/initiative in any way--after all, what kinds of WIS scores do animals have, yet they are still capable predators. However, maybe he cannot formulate combat strategy--i.e., he might not immediately pick out a spellcaster as a preferred target. Friends will have to yell at him who to go after in the heat of battle (which of course gives the enemies an advantage, if they speak the same language--maybe give them a free attack of opportunity).

Don't confuse low WIS with chaotic alignment; a low WIS PC isn't able to consider the ramifications of a decision to any great extent (although he genuinely tries to think things out before acting), whereas a chaotic PC is more interested in NOW than 10 minutes FROM now (i.e., he isn't even interested in considering the ramifications of a decision).

I disagree with this pretty heartily and think it's one of the main problems with the alignment system. Everyone has a different idea of what good v evil and law v chaos mean. First of all, the PC with a 1 Wisdom IS a moron. Meaning that although he may have a reasonably high Intelligence, his Wisdom (decision making ability) would be lower than the minimum human level!

Also, if you look up predators in the MM, you'll see they generally have pretty high Wisdom score, but low Intelligence.

Finally, Chaotic alignment doesn't mean that the character acts randomly or without thought to the future. It simply means that the character is more interested in freedom and the ability to act as he wants without being bound by rules and codes.

Personally, I believe that you should apply the standard -4 Wisdom modifier, but also when things get at all tense, the character should be subject to a Confusion effect, since he is incapable of making reasonable decisions.

O

I'm thinking of making them the souls of long-lost Thassilonian heroes. Some evil, some good. the binder has it in her head that the vestiges are somehow linked to Thassilonian ruins and is therefore fascinated by them.

o

Anyone have any thoughts about the specifics of the Binder class (Tome of Magic)?

Given the small bits of cosmology we've been given so far, I can envision the system working more or less as written, with the souls of the famous being drawn back from the "Underworld" to serve those who know how to call them.

Although it seems that Varisian seers and spirit mediums make the most sense for the class, are there any thoughts out there as to any organized society of Binders or similar group?

Any thoughts welcome ...

o

Is there any good info on the Sczarni that I've missed so far? I have a player who wants to be a member, and I want to tie it in as much as possible with the setting and adventure. Specifically, I'm curious what kind of influence they have in Sandpoint, and to a lesser extent Magnimar.

I'm planning to write the Sczarni up with the Affiliation rules in PHBII, but I am pretty sure they don't function like the typical thieves' guild as it is usually envisioned.

Anyone have any thoughts or done this already?

O

I think she might swoop, nonetheless. She's crazy, after all.

Swoop is a fun word to say.

o

I feel like it is more in keeping with the character of Erylium (as she is written up) to not be a tactical genius. In fact, given the insanity brought about by centuries of isolation, I kind of imagine a constant diatribe of insane babble and Lamashtu propaganda, even when she's invisible. Thus, a reasonable Listen check could at least pinpoint a square to attack, providing just the 50% miss chance for concealment.

Also, have anyone's parties considered trying to splash the well water around the room and watching for the invisible outline in the air? Some centuries-old mortar dust, lying about the room, I imagine, might also work for this trick.

I also imagine that she would be far to incensed by the PCs' trespass to keep from attacking after a single Summon Monster, making her invisibility useless.

Finally, as a Tiny creature, Erylium provokes an AoO every time she swoops in with her dagger (if not invisible), so smart PCs can grapple her as she swoops in and hold her down till they can finish her off.

I wouldn't necessarily start the battle with Erylium acting (tactically) stupid like this, but it is a means to help the players finish off what is otherwise a difficult encounter and makes sense with her mental state at the time.

o

It sounds to me like those journeys and the "XP" they earn from them are what make your PCs 1st level Fighters/Clerics/Rogues in the first place (as opposed to Warriors/Adepts/Experts). I would leave it at that.

A character in my Pathfinder game grew up as a leech-collector in Wartle, was lured to Kaer Maga to become a Tallow Boy, escaped, fled home, then fled again from the bounty hunters to Sandpoint, where he's been holed up for a couple years. All of which explains his current rogue abilities (sneak attack +1d6 damage alone is a way cooler ability than the average commoner ever gets, not to mention his amazing talent at hiding and sleight of hand).

If you REALLY feel like you need to make it "realistic," have the PCs start as 1st level warriors or commoners and then give them 1000 XP for writing their adventures in the process of making it to Sandpoint, so they level up and become Warrior 1/Fighter 1 (or whatever).

Ultimately, though, I don't think you need to fix anything here.

O

SHOULDN'T mean "identical" - but, at least just before the shift to 3.5, the Living Campaigns I was involved with (LC, LA, and the former Procampur now Legends of the Shining Jewel), it seemed to mean just that - you had basically three characters running around - Magic-User/Fighter, Fighter/Cleric or - more common, Rogue/Fighter. Yes, they had different classes in the mix, but the feats and functions - and even STATS - were so close as to be interchangeable; character NAMES didn't even mean anything.

Inetersting that this is your example. It turns out that the Fighter is one of the least "balanced" classes in the game and the one in the most need of some retooling (which I believe it gets in 4th Ed.). As a fellow gamer once told me, "You're a fool not to pick up at least one level of fighter, just for the hit points and feat." I note that all your examples are Fighter/--. The goal of balancing is to get away from the identical characters and provide an impetus for diversity.

As you mentioned, the focus of the game is the party, but I think that requiring a rogue, a cleric, a fighter, and a wizard in every party leads to monotony, boredom, and players leaving to play video games! If my players want to run a party made up entirely of sorcerers, why not? With balanced classes, it might be possible.

I agree that D&D is more work to for the DM, but I think it's actually more fun, too. You get to tell the story you want, know what's going on behind the scenes, play many characters instead of just one, etc.

Ultimately, though, we've gotten away from the discussion of the OP. We can argue the effectiveness and utility of balancing classes and CR, but the point is that the designers developed the concepts to increase everyone's fun, not, IMHO, because society is moving toward a neo-fascist-egalitarian model in which everyone is forced to be equal and no one ever loses (my exaggeration).

o

But it's not a "socialist" shift, it's more of a "create and feed an addiction" shift. By emphasizing "balance" and "fun" over everything else, you create a kind of "high" which leads to, really a kind of product addiction - and a power escalation within the game, unfortunately.

Wait, you have an issue with the game being focused on "fun?" Isn't that the "point" of the "game?"

This also speaks to the main issue here. I disagree that the move to balance the classes and the game in general is a negative. Ultimately, we (the players) are sitting down once a week to have some fun. I find that it is (much) less fun to sit and watch one player mop up all the challenges because his class is overpowered. The goal of balancing classes is to encourage a spread among the players' choices (instead of a clumping on the one "best" class), ultimately leading to a diverse party. Remember, balanced doesn't mean "identical," and there are certainly still niche activities for each class (traps and locks for rogues, healing for clerics, etc.) As to the idea of EL and "appropriate" encounters, remember that the DM is supposed to be having fun, too, which happens when s/he challenges the party without swamping it so that a story or adventure can be told collectively, not as a competition. It only makes sense to work out an easy system to help this happen.

As a High School teacher, I have to disagree with the statement that today's kids are more (or less) spoiled than generations in the past. Certainly, their interests are different, and WotC is (wisely) adapting its product to account for this.

I agree that there are some societal leanings towards shifting away from competition and scorekeeping, which fails our kids in some ways (this is one we are moving towards making interscholastic sports mandatory at my school). It is extremely valuable to learn to win and lose gracefully. The shift I see in D&D, however, is towards spreading fun equally and preventing frustration.

o

I have 5PCs in the party that I run.

I added enough bad guys so that their xp would progress to 2nd level by the time they hit the catacombs and 3rd level when they hit Thistletop.

This entailed adding a few extra goblins in the beginning and in the glassworks, and two more extra sinspawn in the catacombs.

They did somehow defeat Erylium (crit hit from a longbow) and destroyed the runewell for the bonus xp, so they've mopped things up well.

Yes, but did you adjust treasure? As they increase level, they will be underpowered w/o additional goodies!

o

I, too, am planning to start Burnt Offerings soon, with 6 players. I initially thought that letting them mop up in the beginning would be okay, as the XP would be diluted somewhat, the PCs will advance more slowly (which is a good thing, as I feel that the level progression in 3.5 is too quick), and it will all even out. Unfortunately, as mentioned above, I know that it will eventually lead to underpowered PCs getting their butts handed to them because, although there are a lot of them, they don't have the HP, Saving Throw mods, or BAB necessary to tackle really BBEGs.

So, do I accept that my players will be making new characters every other week or is there an alternative?

As has been suggested in another thread, I could add mooks to bring the ELs up 1 (6 PCs are about a +1 level party) and give named NPCs max HP, but then the treasure totals will be off and we'll have underpowered PCs again, and I don't relish the idea of going through every adventure, totalling treasure and re-equipping every NPC with more expensive stuff. That's why I buy prewritten modules!

Any easy thoughts here?

o

Does anyone out there (or Paizo staff) have any thoughts as to the mechanics for running a Bloatmage?

Just wondering if anyone has already put something together or if we should expect an "official" write-up.

o

I let my players read all of the Pathfinder Journal material, which really helped get them involved. Now I have a bard who I am letting start as a probationary member of the Pathfinders and a halfling rogue who began life swimming in the Mushfens, collecting leeches to sell to the bloatmages of Kaer Maga (the player was really hooked by the Journal in RotRL 3). I think letting a native read the appropriate city background material isn't going to ruin any major surprises (at least not plot-related ones).

o

Thanks for all the input.

I spoke to my players today, and we discussed the current adventure we are playing, "Shattered Gates of Slaughtergarde." We have only 5 players, and the GM let the XP work itself out. In the first chapter of the adventure, we pretty much cakewalked since we were essentially overpowered. Now, as we're finishing up, we're finding ourselves woefully underpowered, due mostly to the fact that we mostly lower level than we should be at this point.

I agree that adding thugs for the BBEGs provides a reasonably challange and (more importantly) additional XP so the party levels appropriately. I also like the idea of maxing out named NPCs' hp, so they don't get swarmed and killed in one round. It seems, however, that if I increase the XP awards by adding more thugs, I need to increase the treasure to keep 6 PCs at their appropriate treasure level. Is this a big enough deal to make adding treasure worth my time? (Particularly given that I don't like the "each goblin has 2d6 gp" approach.)

O