Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ

Ascalaphus's page

FullStarFullStar Venture-Agent. 6,421 posts (6,461 including aliases). 78 reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist. 10 Pathfinder Society characters. 1 alias.


1 to 50 of 6,421 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Sovereign Court

Arachnofiend wrote:
DM Beckett wrote:
So it's on par with the Cleric, Paladin, Monk, Fighter, etc. . . with wanting 4+ stats. :P
Paladins only need two stats. The Shaman is mainly interesting because it's the only true caster (in the sense that using a weapon isn't worth your time) that's that MAD. Only God Caster in the game that gets meaningfully better the higher the point buy goes.

That's not my experience with paladins.

STR: you'll need this, unless you manage a dex to damage build, which probably requires some multiclassing.

DEX: you'll want this because AC and Reflex. Not top priority but still something you want.

CON: you need this, particularly for melee paladins. People will try to hit you back and you hit hard enough to draw some aggro. Sure, you're also good at healing while continuing to fight, but you need to worry about things that kill you in a single full attack. I play a Con 12 paladin and that was a big mistake.

INT: You get painfully few skill points and without skills, you're very limited in how much you can contribute out of combat. Many of the cool flavour things built into your class still require you to have some skill. So you probably don't want to dump Int.

WIS: This is the one you can most afford to neglect, although you're basically giving up on Perception/Surprise rounds then.

CHA: 'nuff said.

All in all it's not terrible, it's still a powerful and fun class. But there's some MADness involved.

Sovereign Court

Cute ideas. Here's my thoughts;

1) Maybe. OTOH, a GM might rule his body is not "whole" enough for Raise Dead, and that more powerful revival magic resets his body to normal size.

2) Same.

3) Maybe, depending on whether the GM allows Large revival. If so, then yes.

4) Technically I don't see why you'd even need the raise in between, you could just repeat-cast the spell.

5) Maybe; the spell seems to suggest that you can change a creature's apparent type, so if you can scrounge up something like that in a Bestiary it might work.

6) Up to your GM really. This is one of those cases where you just need a sane person to make a rules call. Personally I'd say Raise Dead undoes most of your shenanigans, but it depends on how you read this line in Sculpt Corpse:

Any spell or effect that targets the corpse (such as speak with dead or raise dead) treats it as if it still had its original appearance.

Sovereign Court

As regards the "this can't be RAI" issue: Ultimate Combat was recently reprinted and they left it the same. And this feat was published after the cavalier, the original flagship teamwork and mounted class.

Sovereign Court

Lost Ohioian wrote:

I'm going to disagree and say that escape route does not count when are mounted on your companion. I often see people quote the Enemy within 5' is adjacent. So I'll say another teamwork feat from the same book states adjacent or same square right in the definition of the feat.

Pack Flanking (Teamwork)
You and your companion creature are adept at fighting together against foes.

Benefit: When you and your companion creature have this feat, your companion creature is adjacent to you or sharing your square, and you both threaten the same opponent, you are both considered to be flanking that opponent, regardless of your actual positioning.

This seems to say clearly that it can be either adjacent or same square so I don't think a mount is adjacent.

But Escape Route also has that clause;


Escape Route (Teamwork)

You have trained to watch your allies' backs, covering them as they make tactical withdraws.

Benefit: An ally who also has this feat provokes no attacks of opportunity for moving through squares adjacent to you or within your space.

Since your mount and you share the same space, your mount is clearly within your space, and vice versa. And you also share the same set of adjacent squares.

Sovereign Court

I'm having a hard time coming up with a conclusive answer. Let's go through it step by step, and removing all irrelevant text;

1) With Dragon Ferocity your unarmed strike gets a 1-1/2 Strength modifier to damage rolls.

2) Power Attack asks if: "This bonus to damage is increased by half (+50%) if you are making an attack with (...) a primary natural weapon that adds 1-1/2 times your Strength modifier on damage rolls."

3) "A monk's unarmed strike is treated as (...) a natural weapon for the purpose of (...) effects that enhance or improve (...) natural weapons."

So the question is: is Power Attack an "effects that enhance or improve (...) natural weapons"?

A problem here is that "effect" is not a globally defined game term. And it never will be, because by now it's used on so many places with a slightly different slant, that any effect to pin it down to a definition will probably break more systems than it'll clarify.

So we need to interpret it in the local context.

I think it makes more sense to say that Yes, it is such an effect. I think so because:
- Consistency: Power Attack sweepingly associates the +50% with just about every other way of attacking that has a 1.5 Strength modifier. The only exception I can think of is odd-case secondary natural weapons that get 1.5x Strength damage, like some tail slaps. Those are quite rare.
- Simplicity: Power Attack clearly improves your attack by making it do more damage. And "effect" in the monk description seems intended to be very broad so it can cover as many different things as needed. It takes an extremely narrow reading to see something else here I think.
- Natural attacks are usually primary and monk's unarmed strikes do not exhibit any behaviour normally associated with secondary natural attacks. So if the question comes up "is Unarmed Strike primary or secondary", primary is the obvious choice.

Sovereign Court

I just really dig the Dark Half idea.

Sovereign Court

There are so many.. it depends a lot on your level and budget. I think the alchemical and lead golems are particularly neat. They don't have gaping vulnerabilities to spells commonly prepare and should survive onslaughts by both undead and paladins.

Sovereign Court

Golems are also a classic. Not subject to most negative energy shenanigans/diseases/curses/fear etcetera. Bonus points if you deploy them in such a way as to spring them by surprise on paladins as well. Try programming them to disarm adamantine weapons.

Sovereign Court

Forbiddance should be part of your defences, although it's not a complete defence. If your alignment is not the same as standard cannon fodder undead it'll at least keep out the riffraff. Bonus: no teleporting nuisances.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'd let him quiet down for a while, then around the time of book 5, while the PCs are infiltrating Starfall, it's almost like there's a third faction at work there..

Sovereign Court ** Venture-Agent aka Ascalaphus

It's a standard action to use, regardless of the number of heads involved.

Just because a breath weapon is listed as a "special attack" doesn't mean it bears much resemblance to the rules for normal attacks.

Sovereign Court

As I understand, the question "are masterpieces also performances" is still wide open in either direction. The Devs want to FAQ it but apparently the question is sufficiently complicated that they're taking their time.

Sovereign Court

CRB > Equipment > Armor wrote:
Maximum Dex Bonus: This number is the maximum Dexterity bonus to AC that this type of armor allows. Dexterity bonuses in excess of this number are reduced to this number for the purposes of determining the wearer's AC. Heavier armors limit mobility, reducing the wearer's ability to dodge blows. This restriction doesn't affect any other Dexterity-related abilities.

As you see, the armor's maximum bonus applies to Dex-to-AC, not anything else.

Sovereign Court

Pounce wrote:
Any character with the Mark of the Devoted feat can feasibly dump Con and max out Cha, playing for long-term gains, I guess?

Nice feat. I suppose you could even retrain it after you rise up. And juju zombies are fairly effective.

Sovereign Court

Given that you will eventually run into enemies that:
- Target areas (breath weapon, fireball)
- Target MVPs even when they hide in the back of the party (archers with improved precise shot, just about any caster played competently)
- Attack the party from behind

I don't think anyone is really safe with a negative constitution modifier. Some people can get away for a long time with merely 10-12 constitution, but I prefer 14 whenever possible.

But for barbarians, it's particularly awful, you're combining being at the front of the party with having so-so AC. It also cuts into your rage rounds per day.

Sovereign Court ** Venture-Agent aka Ascalaphus

Maybe you'll feel more comfortable if you tell your players that whenever they cast a spell (or use any other weird power/feat) they should have the text of it ready in hand for you to look through?

That saves you a lot of time looking stuff up on the spot (while being busy keeping the game moving). Meantime, the player who's waiting for his turn can look up his next spell.

This is basically how the Additional Resources system works already; a player is responsible for having any AR he uses available during the game. And the player is the most familiar with his own stack of books, or tablet/laptop/smartphone that he's using to look stuff up.

Sovereign Court ** Venture-Agent aka Ascalaphus

Minimum required to cast the spell, unless specified otherwise, seems to be the norm.

Sovereign Court ** Venture-Agent aka Ascalaphus

"You were trying to get the jump on the swarm, but it reacted more suddenly than you expected."

I fully agree with the OP's handling.

Sovereign Court ** Venture-Agent aka Ascalaphus

I ran it this afternoon and we had a good time. I thought it would be far too easy, but the final fight (high tier) was rather tough on my players. The barbarian got sneak attacked to unconscious-rage-death while flanked by Davian, and then the swashbuckler and magus both got paralysed.

Bottom line: while the normal ghouls don't have very impressive to-hit, fighting ghouls is always risky with the paralysis. Davian's 3 attacks at +8 to hit and DC 14 paralysis save is particularly scary; if one of the first attacks hits he might get sneak attack damage on follow-up attacks even if he didn't have a flank already.

Sovereign Court ** Venture-Agent aka Ascalaphus

Sebastian Hirsch wrote:
I think that the best way to keep enemies alive, would be to deal a lot of nonlethal damage, if enemies drop unconscious, chances of survival are significantly better.

True enough. An enemy that's still fighting back is a bigger target for the PCs than one that isn't. More chances to suddenly take a lethal crit.

Sovereign Court ** Venture-Agent aka Ascalaphus

I agree on technical terms with Andrew Christian; a non-sentient can't be a worshipper.

That said, I think that ruling (animals are non-sentient no matter how smart they are) was a bad ruling. For every other creature type, Int > 2 signifies sentience; why not animals?

If animals were not meant to become sentient, why can they gain Int > 2?

Sovereign Court

Re: Tarxx and Remove Paralysis;

I generally enjoy reading your analyses and find them insightful. However in this case -

1) Remove Paralysis targets up to 4 creatures. Trading 1 action to unlock the actions of 4 PCs is a good trade.
2) Remove Paralysis works at close range. Unlocking someone standing elsewhere can improve battlefield dominance because you're expanding total threatened area of the party. Also, that PC might be standing next to an enemy he could full-attack, while you could only go there with a move action first.
3) Action advantage: paralyzed PCs could delay until after the cleric.
4) Paralysis might last more than one round. Meaning, the enemy took one action to deny your ally many actions. Spending one action to regain many actions is probably a good trade.
5) A significant cause of paralysis is as a rider effect on melee attacks (ghouls and their higher-level brethren). That means that if nothing is done, a CdG may happen next round. PC death is a massive drain on party resources because the PC will be unavailable or weakened for multiple encounters. Preventing death is a valuable meta-tactic for winning multiple subsequent encounters.
6) Remove Paralysis can also cure the Staggered condition. If your standard action can bring the iterative attacks and mobility of 1-4 other PCs back into the game, that's also an attractive trade. This makes the spell more versatile and therefore a better choice to keep in your arsenal.

Also a meta-argument: I think we should award a small premium to any choice that brings "locked out" players back into the game sooner, because being able to participate is important to enjoying the game.

Obviously not every condition is equally dire. Nobody bothers to spend an action in combat against Dazzled. Shaken is not necessarily worth removing, although it may be worth it if you suspect enemies can upgrade it to Frightened or Panicked; a fleeing PC takes a long time before he can rejoin the fight, and might actually flee in a direction that triggers additional encounters. Dropping your best weapons and provoking AoOs for fleeing is also a hassle and bad action economy.

If a condition is imposing serious disadvantage on your party (action economy, health risks, effectiveness of actions) then not removing it requires a good argument. Those could be: "I could instead do something worse to the enemy". But make sure you critically assess whether your other action is really that powerful in comparison.

Sovereign Court

PossibleCabbage wrote:
Can't each player take care of emergency (i.e. I have a strong chance of dying the next round) healing with potions, or just avoid fatal damage with tactics? There's absolutely value in being able to remove nasty status effects from party members who can't do so for themselves (e.g. paralysis) but if the simple issue is "HP loss" it seems unreasonable to expect another player, who might have something better to do with their actions ("better" as in "ends the fight quicker, with fewer resources consumed") than to do what you could do with a 5' step and a healing potion (carry some in case of emergencies, they keep you not-dead).

To hear some people say it, you should be able to avoid all serious harm with good tactics. I strongly disagree with this. For example, recently we played the 8-9 tier of an adventure and ran into an edavagor. That's supposedly a CR 12 monster (yeah right), but it has 5 attacks at +25 to hit, DR 10/good, high SR, high AC, high HP, reach, and a 16d6 breath weapon (reflex 24 halves). You fight it in a 20ft wide corridor with very little to hide behind.

You're going to get hurt. It went to town on our optimized paladin/monk/misfortune oracle/champion of Irori that's normally unhittable and then tore into the gunslinger behind him.

We actually managed to survive rather handsomely, but this was due to receiving a lot of specialist buffs. Communal Resist Fire (20), Blessing of Fervor, Communal Align Weapon (Good) being the most significant. This was all coming from the support cleric. Some emergency healing also helped to keep both those PCs in the fight.

PossibleCabbage wrote:
In my experience the players who are most insistent about "someone must be the healer" are the ones who get indignant when the cleric doesn't spend their turn healing them when they're down less than 25% of their total HP. It's not like there are penalties for being wounded in this game, so it's not any class's job description to keep anybody else topped off on HP. It's reasonable to ask party members to drop what they're doing and stabilize you, or fix things that you are incapable of fixing on your own that will take you out of the fight, but that's only a fairly small part of what "heal me" covers.

IMO the best reason to heal someone would be "he's better at defeating this monster than I am, and if I don't heal him he can't full attack next round". You don't need to heal every scratch, but if you can prevent someone from dropping to 0, going prone, dropping weapons, and not getting a full attack, that can be very economical. So if you see an enemy focus-firing on an important teammate and that teammate is going into the danger zone, it may be time.

Sovereign Court ** Venture-Agent aka Ascalaphus

I recently almost fried a PC in Returned To Sky;

Those auto-resetting laser/plasma traps are nasty. You're disoriented by the gravity trap, but +16 touch attacks for 6d6 damage per round is just mean.

As it turned out, Trap Sense got the PC's touch AC against it up to 23 and he took only 85 damage in two rounds instead of 135. Which is enough to scare a L9 PC...

Sovereign Court

Orfamay Quest wrote:
Ascalaphus wrote:

I'm all for using good consumables, but I don't think they're a complete answer. If I'm going up against a dragon, I'm much more interested in that high-caster-level Resist Energy. And there aren't any Death Ward potions, and a ring of Freedom of Movement is pretty expensive. You can get them on a scroll, but who's gonna cast it?

The sorcerer, with her charisma and tricked out UMD skill.

It's gonna have to be pretty tricked out to be sure of meeting that DC 27 to do a caster level 7 cleric spell. And he's also going to need to make a roll to fake a wisdom of 14 (DC 29). Those are pretty high DCs if you can't afford to fail.

On top of that, he's spending a move action to draw the scroll, and FoM and DW are both touch spells, so he might not manage that in a single round. But if you need either of those spells, you really can't wait. Because that's either a Swallow Whole (and little to none of your 2H stuff works while swallowed whole) or another round of negative levels or con drain. Which you'll need another consumable to cure. At this point it's getting pretty expensive, L4 spell scrolls are 700gp at least.

You can afford to do that every other fight at level 15, sure. But at level 7 it's not certain you can make the DC, and it's a hefty WBL tax even if you do.

Sovereign Court

First Aid Gloves are pretty sexy, but a scroll of ear-piercing scream is 1d6 damage, DC 11 save for half. Not so sexy. Same for the scroll of Remove Curse: do you really think a caster level 5 is going to cut it?

One of the reasons First Aid Gloves (talk about awkward acronym) are so sexy is that they're fast to use. Many consumables are pretty hard to use in the middle of a fight. Drawing a potion provokes. Drinking a potion provokes. And it's explicitly permitted to strike at the potion with the AoO.

I'm all for using good consumables, but I don't think they're a complete answer. If I'm going up against a dragon, I'm much more interested in that high-caster-level Resist Energy. And there aren't any Death Ward potions, and a ring of Freedom of Movement is pretty expensive. You can get them on a scroll, but who's gonna cast it? Right, the divine caster.

Sovereign Court ** Venture-Agent aka Ascalaphus

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Since 4E they've been playing around with giving some weapons a higher to-hit bonus for proficiency than others. Which isn't the craziest idea.

Personally I wouldn't mind a strongly consolidated weapon table, where you have say 20 statblocks for melee weapons and many marginally different weapons just use the same statblock. That makes it much easier to engineer things so that each of those 20 statblocks really has something different going for it.

Sovereign Court

Orfamay Quest wrote:
Davor wrote:

If you're going to be facing challenging monsters, they'll probably manage to hurt you a couple of times while you're fighting them. If you can consistently stop monsters from hurting you, are they really challenging?

Yes, as long as you were "challenged" to find some way to keep that from happening.

For example, if the wizard summons a Wall of Meat to keep the baddies away, it might be the case that no one in the party took hit point damage, but the wizard just burned one or several high level spells to keep putting "another brick in the Wall."

That wasn't Davor you're quoting, that was me.

What I'm getting at is, that if you can routinely keep enemies from getting to you with a summoned critter, those enemies weren't really challenging. If you can usually keep enemies at bay that way, there's some challenge, but it also means that sometimes you don't succeed and get hurt.

Orfamay Quest wrote:


At low levels, you can often remedy it with some quick wand charges, but at higher levels, enemies do so much damage that a wand just doesn't go fast enough, and also wears out very fast.

You misunderstand the role of the wand. The wand is normally used out of combat, when it doesn't matter how long it takes, and you can if necessary spend two minutes burning twenty charges of the wand for 20d8+20 hit points. And, yes, that can burn out a wand quickly.... but the 750 gp per wand is pocket change at those levels.

My point is that if you do get hurt in combat and need the healing, the CLW wand doesn't cut it. And while the CLW wand is cost-effective, the higher-level wands that would heal "fast enough" are not so cheap.

Orfamay Quest wrote:

Ascalaphus wrote:

There is no striker/tank role. If your group is comprised primarily of ranged/"squishy" characters, you need to plan accordingly, and it's your fault if you die because you didn't have the tactical understanding of how to play with what you've been given.

Precisely. You don't need a "tank", you need an anvil -- someone that can keep the bad guys from hurting the squishies. This can be a summoned monster, a tripping wolf companion, an area-denial spell, or a simple tanglefoot bag.

Just remember that the druid's entangle spell can do a lot more to keep a twelvepack of kobolds away from the wizard and the sorcerer than the druid herself can.

That wasn't me, now you're quoting Davor under my name.

I think you're both also misinterpreting the point by focusing on a narrow definition of the word "tank". My point is that nobody expects a party to do very well if they can't somehow keep enemies from getting to any party member they like, or eventually destroy enemies. I'd call a wolf tasked with keeping enemies from getting to the party a tank as well, and a sorcerer destroying enemies with Scorching Ray spam is also a striker.

My point is: you don't expect a party succeed if they leave a major hole open such as:
- No plan to actually defeat enemies, apart from holding them off a long time and hoping they go home
- No plan to recover when the enemy gets in a nasty attack of some kind; which higher-level enemies will do quite a lot

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Davor wrote:

There is no striker/tank role. If your group is comprised primarily of ranged/"squishy" characters, you need to plan accordingly, and it's your fault if you die because you didn't have the tactical understanding of how to play with what you've been given.

A typical group in combat usually "needs" a hammer, arm, and anvil, with many of those roles being interchangeable depending on your class. Heck, I had a trip/dirty trick reach fighter that, for a vast majority of encounters, completely eliminated the need for healing because he could so efficiently keep the enemy locked down. If I had chosen to do so, he could probably have done it at range as an archer.

You don't need a tank, you don't need a healer, heck, you probably don't even need a dedicated DPR guy. You need sound tactical knowledge and an understanding of what your group needs. We went a REALLY long time without anyone as a healer AT ALL with the above character.

I think Tarxx's article is very interesting, but I get a bit uncomfortable when you start talking about it like it was an absolute decree handed down from the heavens. Further, I think "striker" and "tank" are widely known terms that make it easy to get your point across. The traditional understanding of "striker" and the "hammer" also aren't all that far apart; they're someone who kills enemies somehow.

So what I was getting at, is that you don't expect a party to do very well if there is nobody in the party that's actually good at killing enemies, if all they can do is keep them at bay.

But the other side of that is that it's naive to think that you can almost always prevent enemies from doing serious harm to you. If you can really consistently stop the enemies from doing real harm, they're by definition not challenging enemies.

PC healthcare is not merely casting cure spells like walking CLW wand. It involves several layers of safety;

1) Lifestyle choices. Well-built PCs, sound tactical maneuvering. This is mostly up to the other players.
2) Preventing harm in specific situations. This is where a cleric comes into play to cast stuff like Resist Energy. Preventing can be very efficient. Clerics do this a bit better than oracles especially in a multi-day conflict where you can adapt spell selection to enemies.
2a) Altering the situation: throwing up Walls, debuffing enemies. This requires real specialization when save DCs need to be high. To really stratosphere your caster stat, you'll have to give up some combat versatility.
3) First Aid. A PC has been hurt and needs immediate help to stay effective (Remove Blindness/Paralysis) or to even survive the fight (Breath of Life, Delay Poison). This is something oracles can be very good at because of their quantitiy of spells and spontaneously replicating the thing you need a lot of. Also, scrolls.
4) Long-term care. Removing negative levels, curses, diseases, petrification, ability drain. Raising the dead. Clerics do this best because you may need a wide selection of rarely-used spells and caster level can be important for dispelling/removing curses.
5) Continuity of Government. If all else fails, retreat with as much bodies as you can move. Or use tissue samples or something. Using spells like Obscuring Mist or Word of Recall, if you can't win this fight, get out of there and recover so you can try again under better circumstances.

In Tarxx's parlance, you're the hand in surgical latex glove. It is NOT a dumb role.

What makes this a powerful paradigm is that you work to avoid single-point failures. If something goes wrong, you don't lose, you start fixing it at the next line of defence.

Sovereign Court

I've seen an abyssal bloodrager in action that had AC 12 while raging. That PC worked quite well however by threatening massive damage to anyone coming within his 20ft threatened radius, and using trip/Blade Lash to keep them on the edge of it, prone.

Sovereign Court

My rule of thumb is that anyone regularly in melee should have at last level+15 AC, and you don't start thinking of yourself as a tank until clearly past level+20.

That said, I ran into a freak monster with +25/+25/+25/+25/+25 to hit at level 9 recently, so even that doesn't always work.

Sovereign Court

PossibleCabbage wrote:

I'll just repost what I wrote in the guides thread. I wanted to delete the post (so others didn't continue the derail) but couldn't figure out how. Hopefully a mod will clean that up. Anyway.

I personally view "the party is doomed without a dedicated healbot" to be a sign of poor game design, poor scenario design, or poor GMing. No player should ever feel obligated to play a specific kind of thing "because the party needs one" since "I am playing this character, instead of the character I want because the rest of the players wanted me to" is a good way to create intraparty strife, which results in everybody having a worse time. The point of the game, after all, is to have fun.

A party consisting of a Barbarian, a Swashbuckler, a Monk, and a Rogue should be able to go on adventures and have fun. They probably won't be able to face down as tough challenges as the party consisting of a Wizard, a Druid, an Oracle, and a Bard but that doesn't mean that the former party is a pack of useless fools wasting precious oxygen on Golarion (or wherever). The GM just needs to tweak the scope of the campaign and the difficulty of the antagonists in order to make sure the party is challenged appropriately (sometimes that means shifting up, sometimes down.)

I disagree with this sentiment. You wouldn't expect a party to fare very well in a fight-heavy scenario where nobody wanted to play the "mandatory role" of striker/tank to stand between monsters and squishies.

If you're going to be facing challenging monsters, they'll probably manage to hurt you a couple of times while you're fighting them. If you can consistently stop monsters from hurting you, are they really challenging?

The amount and type of hurt also changes as you level up. At low levels, you can often remedy it with some quick wand charges, but at higher levels, enemies do so much damage that a wand just doesn't go fast enough, and also wears out very fast. In addition, enemies inflict many different conditions. Like paralysis, blindness, severe ability damage or drain. Some of these can wait until the end of the adventure to be cured; some need to be cured immediately or there'll be corpses.

What also changes is that at low levels, PCs are relatively well able to substitute for each other. Melee fighter goes down? Archer ranger draws a sword and goes switch-hitting. Cleric steps up from second to front line with his mace. Wizard spends his blast spell in this fight instead of the next one, and the fighter will have to work harder in that one.

But at later levels, as everyone develops more special abilities, it's much harder to do that. If the archer goes down, the melee fighter doesn't have the feats to really be all that impressive against the enemy that's too fast to keep close to. And the caster cleric isn't doing enough melee damage to really replace that fighter that just dropped.

So keeping the enemy team from doing some focus fire and taking down a PC becomes much more important.


The term "healbot" also suggest a rather low-tactics appproach to being what I think is more properly called a "support cleric" (or other class variant). The SC does heal a frontliner if it looks like he might otherwise have to stop full attacking enemies, but he's also checking to see if it's time to break out the Communal Align Weapon spell to get through that DR/Good, or the Communal Resist Fire against the breath weapon. Should he lead with Blessing of Fervor or is it better to cast Freedom of Movement so the two-hander paladin can't be Grab-Constrict-Swallow Whole'd?

Such a support caster is a very full-scale role and starts to become very nice to have around level 5, and hard to survive without at level 9 or so. Before that time hitting a lot and very hard can be extremely effective, but enemies start throwing stranger and stranger attacks at you and a 2H melee dude often needs some help handling that.

The thing is, even back in 3.0 the need for a cleric that went beyond healbot was very clear. That's what the Spontaneous Cure Spells class feature comes from. Before, clerics might get angry comments from other players; "why did you prepare X instead Cure Annoying Wounds?". Clerics were guilt-tripped into being only healbots. Spontaneous Cure Spells circumvents that, because a cleric can provide healing without the "guilt" of preparing non-healing spells.

Sovereign Court

Another note: some monsters tend to have more treasure ("double", "triple"), while others less ("incidental", "none"). The official recommendation is to vary your choice of monsters so it evens out.

Sovereign Court ** Venture-Agent aka Ascalaphus

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yes. They're untyped bonuses from different sources.

Sovereign Court ** Venture-Agent aka Ascalaphus

6 people marked this as a favorite.

For some people who's very much into the RP side of things, overshadowing tactical sense, maybe it'll help to engage those people in RP instead of OOC discussion.

After the fight, you walk up to her.

"Hey, lady, we were feeling a bit abandoned during that fight. When we were packing in the Lodge you told us you were a warrior, but all you did was protect yourself and let the monsters past to get at our wizard. Look at what they did to him."

"I don't like fighting."

"Well, those orcs sure did. What were you going to do about that? I mean, if you can talk them down, go ahead. But it looked to me like they weren't going to stop until they'd killed and eaten us - not necessarily in that order. What were you going to do about that?"


Thing is to at once keep it wholly IC, and present your objections from a character, not player, perspective. But at the same time, restrain yourself; your character is probably pretty outraged, but it might not be a good idea to play all of that.

Sovereign Court

Re: fog tactics;

In my experience, most gamers aren't the tactical geniuses they think they are. More specifically, they're not good at Plan B. They have a very finely tuned Plan A but sometimes you run into an enemy that outguns you so much that Plan A is suicide. People are often bad at going to Plan B.

Spellcasters aren't much better; they tend to pick some spells and then often try to solve everything with those spells. "Physical" solutions might not even occur to them anymore.

Going for fog tactics is a good example of this. Concealment would give the party a 20% miss chance. It would give the enemy a lot MORE disadvantage, but that bigger picture may get overlooked by players who see the fog frustrating their Plan A. But in this case it's worth it because the enemy's Plan A was scarier.

Sovereign Court ** Venture-Agent aka Ascalaphus

Talking about my personal view now;

On the one hand, sometimes you play a non-bloodthirsty character and try to prevent fights when they're not necessary. But the way scenarios are written, it's not necessarily the pathfinders starting the fight.

"But I don't like violence" is IMO fine if violence can be avoided. A good reason not to start fights, and to push other players from starting them. Might even be a good reason to hang back at first if other PCs start a fight you thought wasn't needed.

But if the party is being attacked, then I would expect everyone to join in the defence. There are a lot of ugly words for people who leave their mates in the lurch.

In addition, if it's obvious that it's necessary to start a fight in order to have a shot at succeeding on the scenario, I would also expect people to cooperate (although grumbling is fine!). Sometimes a writer just requires you to be a murderhobo (which makes me sad) but often enough it's something like "a horrible monster is lairing on our dig site" or "go into the woods to slay the thing that's terrorizing the peasants".

Sovereign Court ** Venture-Agent aka Ascalaphus

Wei Ji the Learner wrote:

Two thoughts have been conflated here.

A basic assumption pacifism=not contributing.

Every indication from the OP has been that the 'offending' party is indeed participating/contributing, just not in a way that some would expect.

Perhaps a new thread is needed to just address 'What is contribution to a PFS scenario/module/special?'

Oh really? Let's read the OP again.

Quentin Coldwater wrote:

Okay, so there's a person in my group who often plays with another person, and they play an engaged couple. The idea of the character is that she's a pacifist Bard who doesn't like to attack until someone hurts her fiancee. Problem is, she plays a Strength-based Bard, and the other a caster-based Oracle who often stays in the back (luckily, she's pretty impulsive, so she runs into melee a lot). Until the fiancee is hit, she stays in full defense because she doesn't want to hurt anyone.

This drives me crazy, though I know it shouldn't. Everyone has their right to play their own character in their own way, but half the time, she doesn't contribute to the fight and doesn't even throw out a buff. She says it's in character for her to do so, and I'd agree, but this way, she doesn't contribute to the fight. Most of the time, we have characters that can compensate for that, but sometimes it's pretty close. She says she's having fun and I don't want to take that away from her, but the fact that she doesn't help out half the time is driving me crazy.

As an aside, I know the OP IRL, and he's pretty mild around people with different playstyles. He's actually done some good peacekeeping when people got off on the wrong foot with each other.

Sovereign Court

Majuba wrote:
Ascalaphus wrote:

Scroll of Obscuring Mist? 25gp

If you can't handle ranged, don't allow the other team to do it either.

Great idea, although it wouldn't slow down the splash damage.

Depends on whether they can correctly guess which square/vicinity to aim in. Splash radii aren't that big, a lot smaller than obscuring mist.

Sovereign Court

Use third-party source (Nethys, PF20SRD, Herolab) sources because they have an interface you like, but always verify your conclusions with a primary source (PRD, book).

Sovereign Court

Scroll of Obscuring Mist? 25gp

If you can't handle ranged, don't allow the other team to do it either.

Sovereign Court

I would think that a sorcerer or witch should be able to demolish an NPC alchemist at range fairly easily. Alchemists have questionable Will saves (especially if using mutagen to boost Dex), tend to have only 1-2 types of energy damage on their bombs (Lesser Metamagic Rod of Reach -> Communal Resist Energy).

Then again, for every meh-built alchemist you'll sometimes run into a cleverly built one with extreme defences and massive damage output. Alchemists are a nova class, which means that as NPCs who only have one fight in their life that matters, they get to unload all of that very fast. They rank just behind magi as NPCs that can be way OP because nothing that balances the class for PCs matters to NPCs.

Sovereign Court

I'm not so sure you can feed a potion to a willing non-helpless ally;

CRB wrote:
A character can carefully administer a potion to an unconscious creature as a full-round action, trickling the liquid down the creature's throat. Likewise, it takes a full-round action to apply an oil to an unconscious creature.

I'd extend that to feeding a Potion of Remove Paralysis to a paralyzed ally. (Or just about any other potion you like...)

But I think for someone to drink a potion, they have to "stand still"; even if you're not going through the motions yourself, you probably have to spend actions to stand still long enough for someone else to pour it down your throat. Not an issue for helpless PCs, but it does prevent extreme action advantage shenanigans like ErrantPursuit describes.

Sovereign Court

If it's in his mouth, it's certainly in his keeping again.

Given the enormously inefficient actions required for this, I think this would only see use for stuff like Freedom of Movement or Cure potions.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I was impressed by flying kick when I was GMing and saw it in use. There were a lot of fairly cramped fights, but the player was able to use it to often be the first one to close the distance AND be the first to get a full attack.

UnMonk doesn't have a lot of things I'm super excited about, but that thing really made it seem much more dynamic than old monk.

Sovereign Court

Tricky question. I think the rules for immediate actions are not precise enough to answer it with 100% certainty. It hinges on what "can be performed at any time" means. Are there any "indivisible/atomic" things in PF that can't be interrupted by immediate actions?

We know that a lot of things that at first look like one big whole "task" (avoiding the word "action" for clarity) but that this task has sub-parts. For example, an attack has steps; declaring a target, rolling a d20, determining the final to-hit number, establishing whether than number hits, determining if any attack-cancelling abilities are used, rolling damage, applying DR/resistance, checking to see if any damage got through and rider effects are applied, rolling d20 for saving throws, determining result of save, applying effects of (failed/passed) save. For just about everyone of those steps there exists an ability that should be applied after one step but before the other one.

But not everything is divisible. For example, I don't think you can use an immediate action in the middle of a dice roll, after you've rolled about half of the dice and don't like the result so far.

In this case, your player waits until the blades appear, and then tries to stop them from appearing fully. I think that's just too late. There are some abilities that can be used "when you're targeted with a spell", so casting EFS when the BB is aimed at him is probably fine. But waiting until after the blades appear is too late. If he didn't make his spellcraft check, he'll have to make his decision without knowing what spell is being targeted at him.

Counterargument: if a fireball is flying towards you, you see the little red bead streaking, that would certainly be the cool (hehe) moment to cast EFS and block the bead's progress through the room - and making it detonate closer to the caster than he may have intended!

The difference between fireball and BB is that with fireball, the bead clearly spends some time travelling through the room (possibly including a to-hit roll) while BB appears in its whole area simultaneously.


What happens if EFS is cast while the BB is already there? Spells can't pass through an existing wall of force, but what if the WoF intersects an already existing spell? The rules don't quite say, so here are some possibilities:

A) It's too late, the spell has already "passed through".
B) The spell is cut into two halves that can henceforth be dispelled/dismissed separately.
C) The smaller half is suspended. When cut in the middle, 50% chance of either half being suspended. If the WoF ends before the other spell, the whole effect resumed.

Sovereign Court ** Venture-Agent aka Ascalaphus

I tend to read reviews thoroughly, and not every reviewer is good about using spoiler tags. Either I haven't found it, or is it weird that you can't flag reviews for containing uncloaked spoilers?

Sovereign Court ** Venture-Agent aka Ascalaphus

2 people marked this as a favorite.

He was one of the leaders of factions during the Chelish Civil War. Even if Thrune hadn't redacted the official histories, he'd be valuable as a first-hand witness.

Not info that's directly valuable in the scenario perhaps, but in the bigger picture of the Society, a prize find.

Sovereign Court ** Venture-Agent aka Ascalaphus

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Maite Donker wrote:
2. I'm wondering if my players will understand when the scenario is over. Usually there's a journal or something at the end that gives the information they are looking for, but in this case there is no specific information that they are looking for. They're just there to "excavate" which means that after they make the area safe they can spend ages there if they wish. And not find anything of note, which might be a disappointment - or it might not be, I'm just not sure how this will work out....

They're supposed to capture Davian, who will probably survive due to Regeneration. He can be brought back for interrogation.

Maite Donker wrote:

3. I personally think the information that you're sent to get from Zefiro is a bit meager. The only thing the PCs can get is the handout, which imho doesn't tell them anything they didn't already know: Thrune did not like the Davians. The only thing new is that they probably all starved, which tbh is not really relevant to the scenario/mission.

I'm also curious what the "sensitive information" might be that he can give.
I think I'll just have Zefiro relate the entire piece in the intro of the scenario if the PCs play nice with him (excluding the part where Arenzo ate his family, since there's no way he could know that).

I agree that Zefire's info is meager, but "starvation" should be an instant clue to experienced players.

Sovereign Court

Hmm, I missed that one. Matches my theory though, that orc settlements have to be hard to reach for Kellid reprisals.

1 to 50 of 6,421 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email 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.