Bagpuss's page

Are these going to in stock soon?

Holy expensive mini, Batman. That's a medium, right?

I like the look of them, but the thumbnails just link back to this page (not to a larger image). Would like to take a closer look.

Is this really a backorder, or is it impossible to get? AEG don't even have it on their own webpage, so I'm assuming the latter but thought I'd check. I know that Cryptmaster can stand alone, but I like the original Tomb.

So, I have a single player wanting to play some Pathfinder. Rather than having them control a whole party, I thought I'd give them two gestalt characters, start at level 2 (to play a 1st level adventure) and maybe use the fast experience progression. Was going to have a Human Fighter-Ranger and a Gnomish Cleric-Sorcerer.

Anyhow, has anyone played gestalt characters in Pathfinder, particularly if they've done it with one player? Any Paizo adventures lend themselves well to it?

There's been a similar thread before in which two posters said their house rules (which are the same as I'd use if there's no official ruling, and so would Research, in chat just now) for spell resistance vs a wondrous item is done with a caster level check using the item's caster level. Is this official anywhere? It seems to me sense to me -- a Major Crown of Blasting is pretty crappy for the money if the CL is the minimum for the searing light spell (5) but OKish if the CL is the item's CL )17) -- but I wondered if there was anything official about it.

Rumour has it this has been cancelled (no longer on WotC catalogue or Amazon.com, apparently); is that true?

So, how does your Ranger do significant damage, when Favoured Enemy doesn't apply? I'm mostly interested in archery rangers, although TWF Rangers are interesting too (I guess the TWF tree and maybe Power Attack). Otherwise, how do they keep up with Rogue, Fighter, smiting Paladin, etc?

Are there any random encounter tables for Cheliax like there are for Varisia (in RotRL #3)? I can't find any, but that doesn't mean much.

First question is about Grab and Constrict:

Grab says:

If a creature with this special attack hits with the indicated attack (usually a claw or bite attack), it deals normal damage and attempts to start a grapple as a free action without provoking an attack of opportunity. Unless otherwise noted, grab works only against opponents at least one size category smaller than the creature. The creature has the option to conduct the grapple normally, or simply use the part of its body it used in the grab to hold the opponent. If it chooses to do the latter, it takes a –20 penalty on its CMB check to make and maintain the grapple, but does not gain the grappled condition itself. A successful hold does not deal any extra damage unless the creature also has the constrict special attack. If the creature does not constrict, each successful grapple check it makes during successive rounds automatically deals the damage indicated for the attack that established the hold. Otherwise, it deals constriction damage as well (the amount is given in the creature's descriptive text).

Creatures with the grab special attack receive a +4 bonus on combat maneuver checks made to start and maintain a grapple.

Format: grab; Location: individual attacks.

And Constrict says:

A creature with this special attack can crush an opponent, dealing bludgeoning damage, when it makes a successful grapple check (in addition to any other effects caused by a successful check, including additional damage). The amount of damage is given in the creature's entry and is typically equal to the amount of damage caused by the creature's melee attack.

Format: constrict (1d8+6); Location: Special Attacks.

So, my question is this: if a creature makes a grab as a free grapple attempt after hitting with the indicated attack, does that grapple roll count as a "grapple check" for giving constrict damage too? Or does "grapple check" mean rolls made once the grapple is established, so in that first round the damage would only be from the attack? I can sort of see ways to justify either interpretation from what's written. Also, what does a 'hold' mean? Does it merely mean the character failing to make a grapple check or escape artist check to escape?

Second question: When advancing a monster so that it increases in size, do the dice types of its attacks increase accordingly, as happens for weapons (in the Equipment chapter of the main rules book)?

Is there an ETA for this (or is it coming out at all)? It was published in May or something, I thought.

I liked a fair amount of this volume, but the stuff about how you get into the society was way too organised and monastic for my liking. Years of training cleaning floors, etc? Having to stay as a "member in good standing"? Was this so strongly implied in the Campaign Guide? I had felt that they were more loosely bound than that; this feels more like joining the Benedictine Order Of Eagle Scouts.

I also wondered why there were no evil characters at all amongst the members who were sketched in the book. Or did I miss an alignment restriction (possible, I was reading it late at night)?

I do like the crunch, particularly the Wayfinders and the Boon Companion feat. I haven't really looked closely enough at the PrCs.

How do people use this? Cover up the as-yet unseen parts of the map? How do you make the reveals?

I am assuming that the bonus hp from the beta are gone? Can't find them anyhow.

Myself, I'll still use a flat +6, which was one of the biggest fun-enhancers from our Beta game (longer adventuring day at 1st level, less "player not at fault" deaths, whole thing on less of a knife-edge all-round at low level which actually led to better drama, etc). Anyone know why it got ditched? I don't think that most people were objecting to it during the playtest, were they?

So, I am risking the complete explosion of my demented inner collector by looking into getting some Dwarven Forge stuff. I figure I'll start by spending $300 bucks, plus shipping, or so then pick up extra stuff at Birthdays and Christmas (my son has already asked for a set for his 1st birthday, and my wife is just so excited about getting more for me to game with. Not to mention my own birthday, which I am thinking of extending to a Birthday Month with daily presents).

What to buy? It looks to me as if with only $300 I should get a basic dungeon set and one of the expansions and then pick up some other stuff to make up the money (or wait until the advanced set I reappears and get that and advanced set II and the basic set and bust my budget by 30 bucks or so). The caverns are way cool but I think that to make a complete cavern system is even more expensive than corridors and rooms, so I should buy into that more slowly (basically be able to start with the odd cave/cavern and then add more until I can build a complex).

What sort of outlay are we talking to have a reasonable AP-size underground complex of rooms and corridors set out at once? $1000? More?

Also, what are people's favoured storage methods for this stuff? I am pretty sure my wife was desperate to get more bookshelves for my office for her birthday...

I picked this up in the Game Parlour in Woodbridge, VA, last weekend. Didn't realise that it was new; anyhow, I love it. Now, to paint it...

So, in the Beta, as the progress wizards get to have a spell they can always cast once per day (or else drop a level and cast it twice per day), other than the first level spell (twice per day) and fourth level (replaced by other power).

These spells should, as they can't be changed (so even worse than for sorcerers, although this is clearly a bonus over 3.5), scale well. What spells do people think would be good choices? They shouldn't get lame as the saves don't rise fast enough and shouldn't be capped so low that the effect becomes worthless. One could go with utility spells, but that would mean that the extra spells aren't that cool at the time that you get them, when they could be really handy in a fight.

For first level, I was thinking that Grease might actually be alright, given that balancing creatures are flat-footed, which is good for rogues (as per another thread I have asked, I don't see that the exception in 3.5 for creatures with over 5 ranks in balance has made it into the new acrobatics description). Ray of enfeeblement avoids the problem of save DCs being too low by not allowing one, although it's capped at 1d6+5 Str loss (which isn't much fun as that means an average of 4 loss to AB plus the same knock on damage). True Strike never gets old, either.

Second level? I guess Invisibility is always worth having, although even the nerfed Glitterdust always makes invisible creatures' locations visible even if there's no stun (and there's no SR).

Third level: haste is always nice. Ray of exhaustion causes fatigue even on a successful save (and I guess that another Ray would assure exhaustion, therefore, as per the spell description). Protection from Energy caps at 10th level, alas. Displacement is a 50% miss chance for any enemy that isn't True Seeing, which is pretty cool. Phantom Steed gets better and better and can eventually fly at 240' per round...;

I haven't really got any further than this. And maybe I missed a discussion when the playtest was on.

So, in the Beta, as the progress wizards get to have a spell they can always cast once per day (or else drop a level and cast it twice per day), other than the first level spell (twice per day) and fourth level (replaced by other power).

These spells should, as they can't be changed (so even worse than for sorcerers, although this is clearly a bonus over 3.5), scale well. What spells do people think would be good choices? They shouldn't get lame as the saves don't rise fast enough and shouldn't be capped so low that the effect becomes worthless. One could go with utility spells, but that would mean that the extra spells aren't that cool at the time that you get them, when they could be really handy in a fight.

For first level, I was thinking that Grease might actually be alright, given that balancing creatures are flat-footed, which is good for rogues (as per another thread I have asked, I don't see that the exception in 3.5 for creatures with over 5 ranks in balance has made it into the new acrobatics description). Ray of enfeeblement avoids the problem of save DCs being too low by not allowing one, although it's capped at 1d6+5 Str loss (which isn't much fun as that means an average of 4 loss to AB plus the same knock on damage). True Strike never gets old, either.

Second level? I guess Invisibility is always worth having, although even the nerfed Glitterdust always makes invisible creatures' locations visible even if there's no stun (and there's no SR).

Third level: haste is always nice. Ray of exhaustion causes fatigue even on a successful save (and I guess that another Ray would assure exhaustion, therefore, as per the spell description). Protection from Energy caps at 10th level, alas. Displacement is a 50% miss chance for any enemy that isn't True Seeing, which is pretty cool. Phantom Steed gets better and better and can eventually fly at 240' per round...;

I haven't really got any further than this. And maybe I missed a discussion when the playtest was on (and I guess that the thing about save DCs coming from Charisma modifier is a misprint?).

So, in Logicninja's famous and awesome Guide to Being Batman, it's mentioned that Grease is a great spell because even if people don't fall over, anyone making a balance check to move through the area who less than 5 ranks in Balance is flat-footed and is thus sneak-attackable, which is confirmed by the SRD. That's a cool synergy between mage and rogue, in my opinion.

In the PFRPG Beta, balance is replaced with acrobatics, which says that anyone making a balance check is flat-footed. So, this increases the power of Grease, in effect, so long as you have a rogue handy. Is this supposed to be the case? I don't have a problem with the power-up of Grease -- that's just how I noticed it -- but am not convinced that a really expert acrobat should be made flat-footed regardless of their expertise.

What's the plain side like (colour, etc)?

Not much to add to what I've said in other threads, really, but thought I'd write down some musings having played through much of Burnt Offerings (so, only low-level) that are based directly on play. Play has been delayed by my wife and I having a baby just as we started, plus we are alternating with another campaign, but this is it so far (nothing terribly new or surprising here):

6 characters: human fighter, half-elf rogue, half-orc druid, elven wizard, human paladin, human cleric; encounters scaled up with Joey Virtue's thread used as a guideline. Using Medium advancement rules at present. PFRPG 20-point buy. Using Critical Hit and Critical Miss deck for players and opponents.

Hand of the Apprentice isn't scary-powered but dropping or scaling the Int bonus to damage (whilst leaving it on to-hit) is probably a good idea. As it doesn't AoO, presumably can move through its square? What about ending their round in the same square?

Grapple still needs to be clearer. A session of 'grab the greased piglet' with Erylium demonstrated that to some extent.

Players seem to like the early balance of powers.

The extra hit points are a good idea, including the boost at level 1 (we used the flat bonus of 6hp). Has meant that two characters that went down to negative hit points didn't die (but players still felt the burn; they weren't doing anything stupid and it really was just bad luck).

The skill consolidation does make players feel like they can do more stuff (and they can).

The fly skill looks like a PITA. Didn't prepare enough to use it for Erylium, though, so my fault there.

Really like the way that Appraise and Detect Magic work together now. Identify is also now cool.

Jason's proposed Paladin change significantly better.

Jason's proposed Animal Companion rules significantly cool.

I like the new experience system.

Looking ahead, the players like the look of some later changes, such as the level loss from being raised or resurrected being restorable. Dropping multiclass xp penalty a Good Thing. Sneak Attack affecting all a Good Thing (but please extend to criticals as well).

Is there an ETA for this?

So, this is in part a crossover with the feats section but it's directly aimed at PFRPG combat rules.

In this thread, Mattastrophic and Jess Door made the case that you need Power Attack back as in 3.5 -- ie, capped at full BAB and the player can pick how many points of to-hit to trade for damage -- for AC to function properly. You can see exemplar posts here and here but basically the argument is that regarding hitting, what AC does other than its "saving throw" role is to reduce the amount by which the opponent can Power Attack because at some stage the miss chance becomes too high. In that way, AC has a purpose even when it's not stopping the wearer getting hit, because it reduces the damage they take. This reduces the swingyness of combat, particularly at high levels, and is particularly important when to-hit chances are very good (as is the case for some level-appropriate monsters) and some characters find that AC is otherwise a bad investment.

So, in part that's an argument for reverting Power Attack to its 3.5 state (and I hope Jason does it) but also it's an argument for some weaker version being available as a standard combat option, where players can give up some to-hit for some extra damage. I'd be OKish with each two points of Attack Bonus traded, up to BAB, being worth one point of damage or, better, much happier wth it being one-for-one but capped at BAB or 5, whichever is lower (I like this as it makes Power Attack a feat that can wait for a few levels). Then the Power Attack feat would give tha standard 3.5 Power Attack-ness.

A similar argument can be applied to Combar Expertise (and I'm not sure about the 3.5 cap of +5; I'd like to increase it at higher BABs, although not to BAB all the way through).

Yes, there's something of an iteration when you meet a new enemy, but that's part of the fun (and illustrates the advantage of knowing your enemy from experience of fighting them before). Apparently some players (from reports; I've not seen it in my games, but play styles obviously vary) do obsess over by how much to Power Attack, but dealing with that is a DM issue at the table, I think (it hardly seems a necessary result of the rules and the DM can easily insist on a quick decision, given how short combat round are). As a pay-off, we get some more interest in combat but also AC stops being a saving throw and actually serves another purpose, damage limitation...

So, does anyone know if FFG are going to pick this title up, or is it gone out of print with the demise of Black Industries?

Like the title says.

I'm a big fan of the expansion of sneak attack to most all creatures, because it removes the utter lameness of, for example, fighting undead or constructs or a bunch of other monsters than can dominate an entire adventure; it also makes sense because most creatures (excluding oozes, etc) would, in fact, be susceptible to particularly precise attacks. However, I did like the reasoning behind the old "if you can crit it, you can sneak attack it" rule and I'd like crits expanded for the same reasons that sneak attackability is expanded.

Plus I'll get more use from my critical hit deck, of course.

Shall Not Pass only works in adjacent squares. This means (by design) that it won't work with the new Lunge feat but also that it won't work for people using pole arms.

Firstly, I'd like it to work with Lunge. The two together would make the meleer much harder to ignore (as the detour to avoid a 10' threatened radius is significantly longer) and given that it's two feats (one of which gives you a -4 to AC that you'd have to take for the round on the off-chance that someone's going to try to go past you) I don't see what the problem is. Indeed, the two together (ie, Lunge + Shall Not Pass with 'adjacent' rewritten to 'threatened') are a pretty sweet fix for one of the problems with 3.5 combat, which is to say that the 'caster protector' role doesn't work properly; you can just breeze by the 'protector', take a single AoO, then try to rearrange the caster. Meleers just shouldn't be ignorable or easily avoidable. Lunge helps, but it still only means one single attack's worth of damage; combined with Shall Not Pass, though (if SNP were reworded) it'd make 'protector' into a more viable role even against monsters that played smart.

Secondly, what did Pole Arm wielders do to deserve this? Why on earth can't they use SNP, i.e., what is it about a Pole Arm that makes this stopping AoO impossible for them? Doesn't seem logical to me and also doesn't seem 'fair' in terms of game balance.

Yes, the problem here is Spiked Chain. Does anyone like Spiked Chain? It makes fighters in 3.5 viable as Spiked Chain Improved Trippers, but surely we'd like to see other viable fighter builds and lose the Mighty Fromage weapon? Unlike most cheese, Spiked Chain doesn't even taste good. Ditch Spiked Chain and make SNP apply to threatened squares (of if you really think that would be too much, have an Improved Shall Not Pass that extends to threatened squares), I say.

I know this is crossing over into spells, feats and combat/magic rules territory as well, but it would be interesting to see what Wizard builds + spell preps and tactics are game-breaking (most particularly in the case where the caster can't necessarily afford to nova, which interest me more in any case given that I like to run adventures with logically important timelines, even if it's just because of adaptation of forewarned opponents).

Squirelloid seems to have gone from the boards for the moment, but his thread on the planar-binding exploit illustrates that planar binding is broken, plus other wealth exploits.

The fact that casters can get really high ACs seems to be something of a problem, too (partially mitigated if something like CoL's proposed reduction to the cost of achieving Armour Class through armour/shields/items is adopted).

Casting whilst facing distractions also seems to be too easy.

This is probably mentioned in the Beta and also on the forums, but I can't find it at present. So, what do non-casters do for concentration checks now that Concentration's been merged into Spellcraft?

The Designer's Note on page 14 of the Beta has some options for starting hit points. I'm about to DM a party through RotRL with the PFRPG and was wondering what people would advise for starting hit points from that list? I am leaning to 'Standard' or 'Racial' (other info: 6 total players, but maybe an average of 4.5 players per session expected. I am going to use 20-point "High Fantasy" pointbuy for abilities).

Is there some way we can register errata before the focus moves to their section of the book? I can appreciate that a 2000-post general errata thread would be annoying and hard to use for people reporting errata as well, so maybe there's a reason to have different threads for each section but is it possible to make them available all the time? For example, there's an error in the Staves section of the magic items on page 360, where it's initially stated that staves have 50 charges but later that they have 10 (in keeping with the Craft Staff description on page 83); if I wait until the focus moves around to that before I report it, I'll just forget it before then.

Of course, if there already is a general errata thread, just point me to it and delete this...

In keeping with the general disappearance of xp-sucks (spell xp costs are gone and even Resurrection level loss can be Restored, now) is the xp loss from the death of a familiar removed (I hope so)? How long does it take to get a new familiar (a year and a day as in 3.5)?

If this question's been answered before, I'd be happy to be directed to the answer.

I have wondered, in a few threads, whether some of the fixes for various issues that have been suggested in some threads would be better in a book of optional rules. I'm a long-time Rolemaster enthusiast and I greatly liked the Rolemaster Companions, books full of optional rules (sometimes removing, sometimes adding complexity/effort) most of which I didn't use but some of which were great (and nearly all of which were interesting to read and think about). I also like the 3.x Unearthed Arcana a lot, which unlike its 1e predecessor was rather clearer about the fact that the book wasn't supposed to end up in games wholesale (I seem to recall something to that effect in the 1e UA -- which is at home so I can't read it now -- but my recollection of its effect was somewhat different).

So, what options/fixes might be better in a book of optional rules? I'm particularly thinking of stuff that would otherwise break too much backwards compatibility to be in the core rules or might otherwise murder a sacred cow that could easily be kept in core or dropped as an option.

Things that occur to me immediately (from other discussions) are:

Multiclassing: fractional saves and BAB

Multiclassing: other stuff (like the old XP penalty, or some delay in getting all class abilities, etc)

Dropping alignment restrictions/other doctoring with alignments (including dropping them altogether)

Rejigging of racial bonuses (as per the complaints about Dwarves getting a Cha penalty, where some would prefer a Dex penalty)(wiser heads, of course, would just prefer a lot of dead dwarves)

Epic Pathfinder (unless that would really be worth its own book)

Class variants, etc, as per the 3.5 UA. Also I'd like to see more urbanisation of the Urban Ranger.

Genre stuff. Urban detective, what have you.

Extra skills maybe. Strictly optional, obviously.

Am I right that the 3.5 UA is Open Content, too? In which case, some of that stuff, for sure. Also a commitment from Paizo that their own adventure material won't depend on options (so reference to them would be accompanied by reference to how to run the adventure without them).

Anyhow, assuming the idea doesn't horrify, I'd be interested to hear other optional rules. Not that I have any reason to believe that Paizo would be interested in producing a book like this (but then, I guess that it needn't be a Paizo product or a commercial product at all, although I'd personally like to see an official book of options/expansions).

Presumably clarified elsewhere, but what does the 'take 10' element of the 5th-level Bard ability 'Lore Master' give you? Anyone can take 10, can't they, if they're trained? Or does it mean that you can 'take 10' even under fire?

(I know I asked this question before the Bard class was the focus and I maybe did get an answer, but I can't find it now).

Also, is there even an explanation of what 'tale 10' and 'take 20' actually means in PFRPG? I know what it means because of playing 3.5 and I guess no one's in the playtest that doesn't know, but it had better end up explained in the final game, which (one hopes) might attract beginners...

So, amongst those that think that the fighter is 'obvious broke' (including me), there's a bunch of ideas for fixing it.

Off-hand, I recall (and some of these will overlap and some are really general):

Bo9S-style mystic stuff. Or maybe the same sort of thing but recast into more traditional-sounding melee feats. Basically superhero fighters.

De-nerf Power Attack and Improved Trip.

More mobility, so movement plus iterative attacks (maybe trade some attacks for some movement), presumably through feats (thus targetting the feat-rich fighter).

Larger threat range so harder to avoid. Spiked Chain has this but maybe it can be featable and combined with the 'more mobility' thing above.

Better armour. Somehow. I was wondering about raising enhancement bonus limits on armour (but not changing spells' protection bonuses, although this arguably just makes fighters less dependent on casters, thus freeing up the casters to prepare more "win the fight on the 'b' of 'bang'" spells; I do, however, sort of like the idea anyhow) and adding DR to armour (without changing AC bonus) but I don't know if that'll work.

Hmmm, don't recall. What else?

Postmonster apparently ate the last one.

So, sorry for probably asking this question that's already been answered (and if the postmonster didn't actually eat the last one, more apologies...), but for the RotR AP with PFRPG, what pointbuy are people using? 15 point standard pointbuy or 20 points 'high fantasy'?

I'll probably average 4.5 players and our general tendency is not to optimise (so players won't be getting the most out of their classes).

Is this thread locked (but reply links are still there) or is it just me being locked out (possibly for being mean about FR fiction)?