|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Paizo Blog: Paizo Publishing's 10th Anniversary Retrospective—Year 0 (2002)--The Thrill of Starting Something New
James Jacobs wrote:
I don't really have a dog in this fight. I don't necessarily want fast track or 20th level adventures. But my math-sense was tingling and I had to chime in.
It is wrong that an AP designed for the fast track would only come in 1 extra level higher. That assumes that an AP produces a set amount of experience and comparing that number on a different track. That isn't the right way to do that calculation.
An AP designed for the fast track would start designing encounters for level 2 players earlier, and therefore start giving out more XP per encounter from that point forward. This effect would increase until the roof was blown off the joint.
For simplicity, let's assume that every encounter in the AP is average CR for the desired track. That means that CR 2 encounters would start at the 14th for fast track and 21th for normal track.
A player on the fast track would reach level 20 after 253 encounters. A player in a normal track AP would be level 14 after that many encounters. Since most AP goes beyond that level, there would need to be Epic level stuff at the end of a 6 issue AP on the fast track.
No not really. The condition you cite is correct. But it is a neccessary not a sufficient condition. The rule the others are citing is in the ability score section, along with the bonus spell table.
Core Rules wrote:
This is exactly what I do, but I don't start people out with such high scores.It gives the game a nice symmetry, every level you either get a feat or an ability. In terms of game balance, the most important thing is to not let scores get absurdly high, esp because it affects DCs for spells, and by not letting them take the same ability twice, you have ensured that scores don't get higher than they would in RAW.
The rabid powergamer will always feel compelled to add to the ability score that is already highest, even when it is currently even, so the rule actually gives them some freedom to choose other scores.
The only problem is that you really ought to do the same thing to monsters, meaning you can't use the stats right out of the book.
First, understand that you aren't compelled to use these numbers for anything. If you want to randomly determine items for sale you'd use this method.
You first decide that this place you are in is a village. So it will have 2d4 minor and 1d4 medium items for sale.
Then for each item you determine it has, you roll on Random Magic Item Generation table. (I am looking at the PRD online, it doesn't have table numbers.) Let's say you roll 40 on the minor table, so it's a potion. Then you roll again consulting the proper column of the potion table.
Everything I mentioned except the potion table, which is hyperlinked, is on this page.
Vic Wertz wrote:
My guess... "Pathfinder Chronicles" is going to be renamed "Pathfinder Campaign Setting" so that the novels can be called the former.It would make more sense that way anyhow.
Even True Resurrection cannot bring back a person unless their undead form has been destroyed. It doesn't specify only certain undead types like ghosts that clearly use the person's spirit.
This explains why the mindless undead still detect as evil and spells to create undead are evil magic.
Goblins Eighty-Five wrote:
Thank you for the clarification Jason (and everyone else). I'm a big terminology guy. I wonder if you might include a sidebar in the actual book clearing this up...?
A sidebar that says "References to Potions below are, you know, ...Potions?"
It seems your confusion was over them modifying potions when they don't necessarily make them. That's a great point. So take out the mysterious "Throw Anything" bonus feat, replace it with "Brew Potions" and I think this problem is solved.
note that a Yeti who crushes an Artillery on its way to the trench does not receive a wound from that exploding Artillery.
I assume that this means the people to the left and right of the Artillery do get wounded.If so, what happens when a Yeti gets pushed back into the front line onto an Artillery? Presumably, the people to the left, right, and back of it get wounded, but does either Yeti?
Of course, it is probably common for PF parties to think they are really clever for saving a copper piece by just using at-will Light instead of a torch, like mine did. So even if you add these rules back, they have to light torches while being crawled/chewed on.
I think it is probably just its status as the last 3.5 adventure.
If you are sticking with 3.5, you are probably playing one of the earlier ones, and only have a 1 in 4 (or 1 in 7 if you count back to Shackled City) even if you assume equal likelihood.
If you are going to PF, but don't mind conversion, you are pretty much in the same camp as above.
If you want to jump into PF, you only have one AP to choose from until Feb.
Also, I wouldn't be surprised if an AP went through a lull in between lots of people chatting about it after reading it because it just came out, and lots of people chatting about it because they are playing it.
Dennis da Ogre wrote:
Not really. Cavalier BBEGs just have to remember to challenge the rogue first. :-)
Also, rogues tend to end up in flank pretty quickly anyway, if the opponent is tough enough to bother with it.
Scott Betts wrote:
To quote a pretty solid piece of wisdom from Mike Mearls: "If knowledge of a game's plot would spoil its experience, it isn't a game." Your players may be coming at it from this angle. The story is great and all, but underneath the plot and the villains' motivations and the behind-the-scenes scheming, you're playing a game. If they're still capable of having fun, then it's simply a matter of differing expectations - NOT cheating.
You and Mike must be great fun at murder mystery parties.
The rules about swarms were copied more or less verbatim from the 3.5 SRD however the section entitled "Vulnerabilities of Swarms" was left out. Without this section, swarms are very very tough.
I have a thread (http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/pathfinder RPG/rules/vulnerabilitiesOfSwarms) to discuss whether these rules were evicted deliberately or accidentally left out, but I've concluded the the latter so I'm making an errata request.
P.P.S. To OP's title; throw rocks and run away.
Obviously, throwing rocks (unless you are a giant hurling boulders) is ineffective and your DM was just handwaving to get out of an encounter that had become boring and annoying. I nearly did the same.
I'm going to choose to interpret James' opaque comment as evidence that the vulnerabilities of swarms rules were left out by oversight and add it to the errata thread.
James Jacobs wrote:
Design. Swarms are tough news, and there needs to be some cheap and affordable ways for low level characters to have a chance against low level swarms. Increasing the torch damage is one of those.
Design = We took out those rules because swarms are too easy if torches can do 1d3 damage.
In 3.5, there were two places with info about swarms. One was in the subtype section, and the Bestiary has copied this more or less verbatim.
The other place was in the entry called Swarms, where all the swarms were plopped together. The bestiary puts the swarms in alpha order, so there is no similar section.
Most of what was in the second spot was a repeat of the first, however this section is not. As a result, these rules have been evicted from the Pathfinder game. I'm assuming by oversight instead design.
Without reinstating these rules, my group would have been killed by bats. Very embarrassing.For instance, a torch only does 1 pt of fire damage, therefore it does 1.5 aka 1 pt to swarm. Not sure what the rules for lanterns under other circumstances are.
So which was it, oversight or design?
Pax asked me put up the notes from when I converted this to 3.5. You should be able to use PF rules with minimal trouble too.
If you've got comments - put them in the original thread to keep this uncluttered.
Some of the changes I made were for my homebrew universe, so I might mention Eo. Also, in a fit of undue paranoia, I changed all the names of characters because I found several journals of the adventure from searching Piyarz, etc.
Shalfrey = Freyu
When a Star Falls - An adventure for 6 Level 3 characters.
Death on the Moors (EL 5)
I changed this the most. I didn't like how the Memory Web was just a "plot device pinata" that you beat on until it spills out memories everywhere. So keeping the same general theme, I invented Brain Spiders (I don't play psionics, so I didn't know about the spell.)
You can begin this adventure during any travelling, make it seem like a random encounter.
4 Brain Spiders
Spit Memory (Su)
The PCs will notice evidence of a fight on the road they are following, and signs that things have been dragged off into the nearby copse of trees. If they follow, they will encounter a web (DC 20 Spot to avoid walking into it - see spider rules) and the spiders will attack.
After the fight, the PCs will find another dead spider, and the bodies of 4 men in white robes.
(Well, black in my game. I thought the white/black thing was a little too corny. Other reasons too, see much later.) They have only sparse possessions and are obviously monks. The only thing of value is a Bestiary. (They got an early copy! But I have it on pre-order too, WTF!)
But I made my save!
1) Spice up each memory so it is more than just a broken phrase. Fair use demands that I give one as an example, you'll have to do the rest yourself. You have a copy of the AD&D module, right? No? Why are you still reading?
You are in a sunlit room with a dome of glass hexagons. You know somehow that this is the tower of a place called the Citadel. An old man with a snowy white beard and dark robes is here, he is your master Freyu. Your brother Orm says, "And if we are delayed, master?" Freyu looks carefully at us, then says, "If you must, send word with someone you trust. Tell them: The fair sun shines brightly, but the stars have secrets, lost in the day, that only the night can reveal.
(OK. Lots of my homebrew changes in that one.)
2) Print them on index cards, or print them and tape them to index cards, if you are as bad as I am at trying to get print on cards.
3) Group them into 3 categories: Important (these are the bold ones in the module, the game is broken without them!) Moderate (ones that help with the game, like the lost in the maze one) and Unnecessary (ones with just some flavor to them.)
4) Increase your stack by printing lots of duplicates of the important ones, and a few of the moderates. Put all the important ones and some moderates in the stack, leave the rest to replenish your stack.
5) When a PC is attacked with a memory, fan out the stack and have him pick one. Then weed out the duplicates of that one, and add some of the less important ones.
6) When the fight was over, I had one unnecessary memory left. If the characters are having too easy a time, and you've still got a lot of memories, maybe you need to have an extra spider emerge from the shadows. If you end up with important memories left, you might have to have the monks wrapped in a web and do the smashing the web releases memories trick. If you run out of memories, there's no problem, that just means the spiders are out of ammo.
The PC who get the "make haste to Derwyth's home" memory or others that deal with travel can recall the map that the master laid out for them. It should tell where the druid lives, and where the pass and the tower are.
I just used these as given. If you don't have a source for a certain monster, roll again or substitute something appropriate.
1-2 Griffons EL 4-6
I saw this on the site The Register. It is a recent poll of Dr Who fans.
The Register wrote:
As much as I like Doctor 5, I have a hard job saying Caves is better than Blink or Talons. I think all the fans of 4 and 10 split their vote, but the 5 fans all voted for Caves.
Not a big fan of pyramids or city, and Bad Wolf was a complete mystery to me until I realized it was really a vote for both parts. Otherwise, it's a pretty good list. It really needs Girl in the Fireplace in it though.
This would be easily covered for shadows if they have a racial susceptibility to light/fire. Other incorporeal creatures that have been previewed (the allip, for instance) were not noted as being vulnerable to fire.
It was a good theory. But the shadow's in the new preview and it doesn't mention fire. And the description of incorporeal matches the others.Holy water is identified as the only non-magical thing that can harm them. (And since when is holy water non-magical anyway?)
Pax Veritas wrote:
Sure. However, it was like 2 years ago so it may take me a week or two to dig up.
That seems about right, seeing as how they cause third degree burns. yuk,yuk.
I don't have a problem with "potion of X" because potions and wands are all stored spells. If you call the spell "Cure Critical Wounds", you should call the potion that too. If you've given all the spells cooler in-world names, then my hat is off to you.
I do have a problem with +1 Sword and +2 Gauntlets of Dex, etc.
The players, of course, always groan and write +3 Chainmail on their sheet anyway.
Much love for UK4!
When I couldn't find my hard copy from the old days, I went looking for a digital copy. I found a little company called Paizo. I think I paid 1 or 2 dollars for it. If you told me then I was going to spend many hundreds of dollars at that little site, I would have thought you were bonkers.
I converted it to 3.5 and I think it was well received by my group.
Here's what I think I will do: have Kassen's ghost appear slightly earlier. During the fight, he will offer advice to the party and trade barbs with Asar. After it, he will give the party the stuff from his tomb he can bear to part with, the usual reward, but leave the armor and sword. I think this will make the battle more memorable.
It also solves the following problems:
"To cast a spell with a somatic (S) component, you must gesture freely with at least one hand. You can't cast a spell of this type while bound, grappling, or with both your hands full or occupied."
Although correct in 3.5, all other rules involving grappling seem to contradict this. Most notably:
"Instead of attempting to break or reverse the grapple, you can take any action that requires only one hand to perform, such as cast a spell..."
I think that the first quote should read "bound, pinned, or with..."
If true, a particularly insidious error that seems to nullify an intended rule change.
Seeing as it is mildly on topic, and people are actually reading this thread I'm going to mention that when Concentration lost its spot on the list of skills, it also lost its spot on the standard stat blocks, and it is also isn't on any of the 4 or 5 character sheets I've looked at for Pathfinder, including Paizo's.
It is at least as useful (at least to the classes that ever use it) and about as easy/hard to figure out on your own as CMB, so I think it deserves a spot in stat blocks/char sheets.
The sidebar near the shadow says:
The PCs can use energy damage (such as from a burning torch) to hurt the shadow, but it only takes half damage from this source as well.
I am a bit mystified by this.
Incorporeal: Creatures with the incorporeal condition do not have a physical body. Incorporeal creatures are immune to all nonmagical attack forms. Incorporeal creatures take half damage (50%) from magic weapons, spells, spell-like effects, and supernatural effects. Incorporeal creatures take full damage from other incorporeal creatures and effects, as well as all force effects.
"immune to all nonmagical attack" means throwing alchemist fire or poking with a torch will be ineffective, right?
Even assuming this is wrong, a torch does 1 pt of fire damage. Half of that is 0. I realize that in 3.5 a successful attack is supposed to do 1 pt barring DR, but the PRD says:
Minimum Damage: If penalties reduce the damage result to less than 1, a hit still deals 1 point of nonlethal damage.
So at best you arrive at the illogical idea of a torch doing 1 pt of non-lethal fire damage to a shadow.
I didn't play the beta. Would this sidebar comment have made more sense then and was never updated?
Sean K Reynolds wrote:
Jason says he planned to put a key for the door between 6/8 in area 2, or meant that door to be unlocked. Use whichever solution you prefer. :)
Another solution: There are 100 keys in the pool. What do the other 99 do?
However, when I thought about that, it occurred to me that some people will overthink the solution when they find the magic key and it doesn't unlock either door. They might start on the brute force method.