I just had a thought.. What if this was the result of a simple marital spat, and in a few minutes the other great wyrm white dragon is coming back to apologize and make amends? It won't be particularly pleased with the interfering adventuring party :)
Anyway; if you decide not to kill it, you'll have a fairly decent bargaining chip with the wyrmling (as long as you keep it alive). The dragon might allow you to live if you play this card right.
I believe most of those who have been advocating the use of sunder in this thread have said they'll use it very rarely, such as once or twice per campaign. So none would fit the mold of a "sunder-happy GM".
That said, if a GM actually is "sunder-happy", they'd have to use a larger than usual amount of classed NPCs (as most monsters don't have the feats to use sunder effectively), and would thus give out considerably more treasure than WBL assumes. This might prevent the wealth-issues.
I decided to see if the 3.5 FAQ had any input on this matter, and it turns out it did:
3.5 FAQ wrote:
Of course, Paizo may choose to rule otherwise. However, with no such ruling currently available, the old system is a good indicator of RAI.
You aren't conjuring more than one creature unless you choose the 1d3 or 1d4+1 options. No creatures are added at all if you choose to summon only a single creature.
If you summon 1d3/1d4+1, all the creatures must be of the same kind. That language isn't changed by Superior Summoning. So, there's no option to add a creature of a different kind.
The mysteries, curses, and revelations make the oracle something new and all its own, both in terms of flavor and mechanics, even if at its core you could call it a spontaneous cleric.
If the oracle had instead used the cleric's domains or channel energy, along with a smattering of sorcerer bloodlines, you would likely have seen the exact same complaints/concerns for that class as for these.
The problem with the ACG classes isn't that they were built to be hybrids of class x and class y. I wanted to see what Paizo could do with that concept. They did it very well with the Magus, for instance, which feels like a completely new class that stands on its own two feet, despite being kind of a fighter/wizard hybrid.
If you trust your players, you could have them still run their own characters even while dominated. That way, they won't be bored out of their mind, as they'll still be playing their character. Only now, they'll be trying to come up with devious methods to carry out the aboleth's orders against their party :)
Also, remember that if the order goes against the dominated character's nature (for instance, an order to attack his friends), they'll get a second save with a bonus. For this reason, I'll normally have the monster/NPC order the dominated character to protect it, as opposed to actively engaging their friends.
Also someone said that the rust monster was nerfed and I would disagree. Two hits vs your weapon or armor and it is destroyed?? That seems scary.
It may still be scary, but the rust monster is definitely less efficient at destroying items now than before.
In 3.5, it only needed to touch the item once to dissolve it (as opposed to PF's twice; 3.5 did grant a Reflex save though).
More importantly, any metal weapon that dealt damage to the rust monster would similarly be dissolved, although without a save. This latter ability is the main difference, and was the main danger of the 3.5 rust monster. Losing that ability certainly counts as a "nerf".
for number 3 it has 10 mins worth of air per portiable hole. same for bags of holding, so every 8 mins you land let eveyone out stretch their legs and get back in. My group did this last game I DM, they used wind walk to get the job done since you go at 60 miles per hour. covering 600 miles is 10 hour trip, give or take an extra hour and half for stops frequant stops. Perfectly do able at level 11. in which you get the spell. It is a lot faster then walking.
Personally, I don't think I'd willingly let myself be stuffed into an airtight bag, hoping that the person carrying the bag would be able to tell accurate time, just to save a few hours (or even days) on a long journey. Those characters would have to be rather trusting to attempt that tactic :)
By the way, wind walk has multiple targets (up to 4 at level 11, 5 at level 12); it wouldn't be necessary to use the portable hole trick when using that spell.
BSIV therefore adds nothing to their capabilities.
That isn't quite true. If druids had access to beast shape IV, they would potentially (when applicable to the chosen form) gain better speeds for burrow, fly, and swim, and longer range blindsense and darkvision, plus the new abilities tremorsense, breath weapon, rend, roar, spikes, and elemental resistances/vulnerabilities.
Rend and tremorsense would certainly have been desirable abilities, as would the improved speeds :)
The GM in question (yes he is real) is a twenty something year old computer repair specialist. To him WBL is a RULE and will be adhered to strictly. If we ever exceed WBL from treasure he hands out he will strip it from your characters arbitrarily until you are under the listed maximum for your level. Rules WILL be followed in his game or else. We killed a dragon once and nobody dared to pick up any treasure because we were already at WBL and dared not even remove a single copper coin from the horde lest the GM step in and say "You seem to have misplaced your magic ring somewhere... remove it from your sheet." Although to be fair if we just grabbed coins it's more likely our coin purses would vanish. One guy once tossed aside a couple items to pick up a new piece... nobody touched the stuff he dropped either.
Out of curiosity, what happens when the party gains a level? Do items suddenly show up, similarly to how items earlier randomly vanished, or does the increased WBL simply allow the party to begin picking up items again (by revisiting the slain dragon's hoard, for instance)?
If four of the members are LE, and five are LN, and the lone Pally is (obviously) LG, what happens when the four LE's decide to 'extract information' from the merchant's daughter. She has done nothing except not know where the thieves ran off. So, they beat her until she confesses. Does Bob the Pally let it happen, or does he stop it? Does he have a third choice? See, the HKs are doing "LAW" by pursuing the thieves, and in their own words(!) "They are not concerned with methods. They are concerned with results." (ISWG, p266). At the end of the day, they capture the thieves, and LAW is satisfied. But at what cost?
If the merchant's daughter is innocent, then beating a confession out of her would be a Chaotic act, not a Lawful act. And, since that confession would be a falsehood, no results have been produced (in fact, the false confession could even prevent the hellknights from finding the perpetrators). The LE hellknights performing this beating would likely be berated quite thoroughly for spending time on such a worthless endeavour. Once the truth is known, of course.
Bob the Pally should try to stop it, and so should the five LN members, because it would neither be justice nor in accordance with the hellknight tenets.
One act does not make an alignment change, nor does the actions of your comrades have an effect on your alignment.
Exactly. For instance (and hopefully I can make this example without derailing the thread), many/most wars tend to have atrocities committed by both/all sides. That doesn't make everyone who participated in the war evil.
Charlie Bell wrote:
Holy crap. I didn't say it was not possible. I said it was not average.
I actually think it is average, or close to it.
Consider this: My example above only showed the wealth, items, and ability scores for INT and CON. If I expand it to include DEX and WIS (the two other abilities a wizard would be inclined to boost, for initiative, Reflex saves and Will saves), we get this:
Starting stats (15-point-buy): 15 INT, 14 CON, 13 DEX, 12 WIS, 10 CHA/STR, 8 STR/CHA.
Items (880,000 gp total): +5 books of all four (137,500*4 = 550,000), +6 enhancement for all four (90,000*2 = 180,000) = 730,000 spent to gain +11 to all four stats, leaving 150,000 for other items.
Race and inherent level bonuses add +7 to INT, and could possibly add bonuses to one or more of the others.
Final stats: 33 INT, 25 CON, 24 DEX, 23 WIS, 10 CHA/STR, 8 STR/CHA.
Now, you could certainly say that this setup leaves the wizard with little in the way of utility items, which is true. But then again, most wizards won't focus on 4 ability scores to this extent. Removing two +5 books (or spreading the gold on +2 books for the three secondary stats), means there's 425,000 gp to spend on other items, which seems like plenty. Stats at this point would be: 33 INT, 20-25 CON, 19-24 DEX, 18-23 WIS, 10 CHA/STR, 8 STR/CHA.
So you'll reach 20 CON without doing much to increase it (a single +6 item), and up to 25 CON by focusing on it a little (by using books). The average might be closer to 22 CON than 25 CON, but even that gives the wizard 190 average hp, which is far above the 150 suggested as the norm.
Edit: And now I think I've been a part of this derail for too long, so I'll stay away :)
I'm 99% certain that this is supposed to work like the paladin's mount, which at 11th level "gains the celestial template and becomes a magical beast for the purposes of determining which spells affect it."
If the Celestial Servant feat changed the HD and BAB, it wouldn't hide that fact in such a subtle and easily-missed way.
No. Activating magic items generally doesn't lead to AoOs (with the exception of potions, oils, and anything that specifically calls it out).
[Edit: And wands/staffs, as they work just like casting spells.]
[Edit2: For some rules quotes:]
PRD, Spell Completion wrote:
Activating a spell completion item is a standard action (or the spell's casting time, whichever is longer) and provokes attacks of opportunity exactly as casting a spell does.
PRD, Spell Trigger wrote:
Activating a spell trigger item is a standard action and does not provoke attacks of opportunity.
PRD, Command Word wrote:
Activating a command word magic item is a standard action and does not provoke attacks of opportunity.
PRD, Use Activated wrote:
Unless stated otherwise, activating a use-activated magic item is either a standard action or not an action at all and does not provoke attacks of opportunity, unless the use involves performing an action that provokes an attack of opportunity in itself.
Snapleaf would fall under the "use-activated" option, which doesn't provoke unless specified.
You could use the 3.5 definition of what is a Special Attack (anything that is used actively against an enemy, or that an enemy has to save against), as opposed to Special Qualities (defenses, vulnerabilities, and non-attack abilities).
In that system, all monster abilities were either Special Attacks or Special Qualities. This was still the case after their statblocks started putting things like auras (frightful presence, etc) in a separate area of the statblock. So Dragons could still have "Ability Focus (frightful presence)", for instance.
My DM and I both agree that the ARG can't be taken seriously as the point build system for races are extremely flawed.
Agreed completely. In my opinion, the human bonus feat makes that race the strongest of the core races, and far from one of the weakest. The very fact that it's scored so low in the race points system makes that system fairly useless (again, in my opinion).
The page does say "Some of the pieces of adventuring gear found on Table: Goods and Services are described below" (the bolding is mine). So not everything is described (such as the sewing needle, the fishhook, or the bedroll). Essentially, they didn't describe things that don't really need to be described in detail.
I think some people are forgetting that WotC didn't have to make anything they created open content. Keeping a few choice monsters to themselves after having made all the other core rules available for other publishers doesn't make them (or Hasbro) somehow evil.
Besides, WotC was a part of Hasbro even before they released 3.0 (Hasbro bought WotC in september 1999, while 3.0 was released almost a year later).
3.5 Loyalist wrote:
Think of the customers rather than the mod's right to do what they want.
I believe that it is in fact exactly what they're doing. One of the main purposes for having a company forum is to create a welcoming community for that company's customers. Moderators are a big part of that, as they provide a level of assurance that the forum will, in fact, continue to be a welcoming place for both new and old customers.
The moderators on this forum are considerably less heavy-handed than on some forums I've seen. In one such forum, pretty much any criticism against the forum's policies were met by an instant banhammer, regardless of how warranted or well-written that criticism was.
While there are also forums without moderators, or with particularly light-to-the-touch moderators, such forums have frequently (in my experience) tended to produce communities that have caused me to turn away quickly, never to return. I would much rather have a level of moderation such as Paizo employs, than for the community to devolve in the manner of those other forums.
I guarantee if I wasn't here, other lesser offenses would get moderated just to use mod privileges.
As one who was a moderator at a reasonably large forum for a period of 4 years, I guarantee you that any day where I didn't have to perform any kind of moderating were far better than those where I did.
Which was in no small part because those were the days when I would actually be able to fire up my non-moderator hat and engage with the community, as opposed to having to spend the entire day putting out flame wars, removing hatespeech, etc.
The wording of Mythic Power Attack is from a playtest document, and a designer stated that the wording would be clearer in the released book.
Since that book hasn't yet been released, the issue isn't particularly messy yet (and may never be; the released wording may turn out to be perfectly clear).
I do sometimes start writing a post, or start editing a post, before deciding not to make that post or edit after all for one reason or another.
It doesn't happen very often, and some times I'll simply close the current tab rather than click cancel, but I have used the button now and then.
Actually, the premise is wrong. If the party keeps all of their treasure, and never sell anything, they're not "at WBL" but rather "far above WBL". WBL actually assumes that about half of the treasure the party receives will be sold for half price.
WBL for each party member at level 10 (just to pick a level) is 62,000.
So during the encounters between reaching level 10 and reaching level 11, each party member is expected to accumulate 20,000 gp worth of additional wealth (80,000 gp total for a party of four).
If you only face CR 10 monsters, you need to defeat 20 such encounters to reach level 11 at the Medium XP track. The treasure value of 20 CR 10 encounters is 109,000 gp, which is almost 30,000 above the 80,000 needed.
If half the treasure is sold and half is kept, then the WBL increases by almost exactly 80,000 (about 55,000 gained from kept items, about 27,500 gained from sold items), which is the amount it should increase by.
If the 20 encounters you face are instead CR 10 NPCs (PC-class 11), the total treasure value will be magnitudes above what WBL assumes: Approximately 327,000 gp, which even if the party sells everything will lead to each party member gaining 40,000 gp rather than the 20,000 gp they should gain.
I imagine wizard academies are kind of like medical schools; one of the first things students learn is to create their own unique near-indecipherable script :)
(my father has been a master of this skill for as long as I can remember)
Paizo's statblocks are for NPCs, not for PCs. There's no need to put that information in an NPC statblock, because the NPC won't be trading anything out. It has already been created with the feats/spells/etc that are appropriate for its background (and for the encounter it's in, if the NPC is part of an adventure).
Plus, if the GM feels that an NPC used in an adventure should have different feats/spells/etc, that GM can recreate the entire NPC, and change everything about the NPC as he/she pleases. There's no limitation; the GM can build the NPC from scratch.
You are essentially accusing the developers and the moderators of being unfairly biased in favor of one group of players, but you haven't posted any quotes or given other examples for why you feel that is the case. How do you expect any discussion to occur when you provide no "meat", so to speak?
Asking for such examples aren't a sign of people being on one side of the discussion or another, since there isn't anything to discuss yet. Rather, it's a sign of people wanting to know what they're supposed to be discussing.
Anyway, to answer your question: No, I haven't gotten that feeling. I'd say there's about the same amount of "grognard-favor", "power-gamer-favor", and "other-player-type-favor" both on the forums in general and by the developers/moderators.
No, that has never been a problem for me. For instance, I can easily see a monk kicking a giant's leg so hard that the giant falls over, or kicking the giant in the stomach to make it take a step back.
All I can say is you probably shouldn't play a monk in that GM's game; it's already widely considered among the less-powerful classes, and arbitrary punishing houserules won't help :)
It seems to me that the issue isn't you losing your love for the game (since you're still having fun playing), but rather that you might be losing your passion for creating adventures and settings. If that's the case, I would suggest using published adventures and published settings rather than creating your own. Paizo, for instance, creates wonderful Adventure Paths as well as stand-alone Modules for their Golarion setting (but they could certainly be adapted for another setting).
And who knows, perhaps playing someone else's adventure for a while would even rekindle your own love for creating adventures :)
As it says, you can choose a discovery instead of a regular feat (those are the ones you gain at 1st, 3rd, 5th, etc).
You can also choose a discovery instead of a wizard bonus feat (but not in place of, for instance, a fighter bonus feat if you're a multiclass fighter/wizard).
While the scenario isn't a no-win (because there is a portal as opposed to certain death), many players would feel that the scenario is a no-win (since they don't know there's a portal). And they might resent that.
I suggest making it possible for the players to realize the swirling red mist is a portal, perhaps through knowledge checks or some sort of arcane writing on the floor/ceiling/etc.
I'm not sure if the fact that one of the PCs is a paladin actually matters. As long as the party isn't made up of evil characters, I'd think most groups would balk at the idea of murdering a child in that type of situation, whether they had a paladin among them or not.
1. It hasn't happened to me for an adventure yet, but based on my experience with other types of media being spoiled for me (such as movies, books, and tv-shows) I believe it would most definitely reduce my amount of fun at the table.
Luckily, DMs are able to alter parts of the story if some of the players have read/played parts of the adventure before, so it might not come up as frequently for RPG adventures as it would for other types of entertainment.
2. No. I've heard about the study that supposedly shows that people enjoy a movie more if they know the ending, but I've had that happen, and I hated it. The "surprise twist ending" not being a surprise made the whole movie far less enjoyable for me than it otherwise would have been.
That said, I'll still enjoy watching movies (or reading books) with a surprise twist for a second time, even if I already know how it ends. The enjoyment the second time around is different, though, and might even include me trying to figure out how "such-and-such did this-or-that", and gain enjoyment from noticing minor things I didn't notice the first time I watched/read it.
But the first time I watch a movie or read a book, spoilers definitely ruin it (like knowing who dies in a fantasy series, or even knowing that someone dies at all, for instance). You don't get the shock value or proper emotional response if you already know. Or, I don't, at least. I don't even watch movie trailers anymore, since they frequently reveal too much.
I'm pretty sure pouncing in a surprise round is intended, at least.
IIRC, some creature write-ups even suggest tactics like laying in wait (using stealth), then ambushing prey (by way of pounce). Even if my memory is faulty on that, creatures like tigers and hellcats would be a lot less dangerous if they couldn't combine their stealth and high initiative with pounce.