|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
So. The situation was this:
Long story short: No major damage, nobody poisoned, swarm gets killed farily quickly (partly because I messed up the splash weapon rules - I thought you only needed to hit the swarm's square instead of the swarm itself), a bit of healing required afterwards. The scenario overall was also well received, so this is not about some day-ruining argument or anything.
However. A few players were fairly unhappy about the swarm acting first because they clearly approached it with the intent of striking first once it reacts. In the end I called "even or odd?", they called even, I rolled odd, so the ruling stood and the swarm moved first. No hard feelings on either side. Though I got thinking: How would you have ruled in this instance?
My reasoning: You cannot decide that all of a sudden you're in combat. They inched nearer and nearer but were still surprised at how quickly and suddenly the swarm attacked them (displayed by initiative).
Yeah. I hate players who want to know where they are. And those who want to know more about that country or even NPCs they interact with are the absolute WORST.
Yes, that's something I wish I had done back when I started. It just seemed so...contrived that people from all over Ustalav (and in one case Lastwall) were invited to come to a funeral and all arrive JUST when the funeral begins.
Additional ideas: If they choose to wait and lack any direction some traveller could talk about "Some old fellow dyin' over in Ravengro, terrible thing, a Professor or something" in the tavern. That might get them going. Bonus points if Lorrimor mentioned that he thinks he's onto something and it might get dangerous in his letter.
Mr. Dodo wrote:
On the carriage thing: how should i justify it? Like, why are they on that carriage, instead of trying to reach the Ravengro on their own? Who paid the carriage? why did they meet in another town? Who introduced them? >_<
They could gather in a town because the Professor wanted to meet with them. He doesn't show, they take the carriage to Ravengro and arrive just in time for the Professors funeral.
Makes more sense than "You gather from all over Ustalav and arrive JUST in time!". ;)
Did they read the Player's Guide?
Also, how much do they know about the AP and Pathfinder in general?
If they know that CC is a horror adventure path and they are experienced, they can pretty much guess they will face undead first because most other horror creatures kill low level groups outright.
If they know the title of the module they can figure it out.
On the other hand I feel like the module slowly introduces undead and if you buff up the shopping abilities in town they should be able to buy stuff to counter the undead.
You couldn't have picked a wronger forum. Yes, that's not even a word, I know. ;)
Pathfinder Society is all about playing "by the rules", no homebrew-stuff there. You're looking for the Homebrew/Houserules forum. I flagged the thread so that it will be moved there. :)
From first sight, though: It seems as if the fighter loses very little (first feat is predetermined, no heavy armor) and gains very much (2 skill points, new (arguably better) class skills, more choice in bonus feats - he's not even forbidden from using his bonus feats the "normal" way but instead gains it as an option.
Suggestion: He's not proficient with heavy armor, perhaps he could lose some of his Armor Training class features?
I have decided that this happened:
Scions of the Sky Key I&III:
Before Scions I - Sharrowsmith destroyed part of the ruins. This not only majorly angered the kobolds but also awoke the Golden Guardian from his hibernation. He noticed that he kinda dropped the ball by letting all the kobolds into "his" city and proceeded to kick them out.
The kobolds decide that they have to appease their god and because obviously the miners are at fault they will be appropriate sacrifices.
During Scions I - The PCs come in, rescue the minors and slay some kobolds. Now they have no sacrifices and dare not kidnapping more miners. They decide to use their mining capabilities to get some gold.
Between Scions I and III - The Golden Guardian calmed down somewhat and decided that it's kinda cool to have his own tribe of worshippers as long as he doesn't have to do anything about it. It's beneath him to help them clean up their city, but as long as they present him with some gold he kinda likes his new life. Hey, he's CN - he can change his mind like that.
During Scions III - He still is not in the mood to clean up the caves. But as the PCs enter something changes - these are not primitive people like the kobolds but obviously people on a mission. These folks are usually bad news and he has to do SOMETHING to impress the tribe...so he attacks.
Mr. Bubbles wrote:
Taldor doesn't discriminate against Sarenrae anymore?
This is exactly why I wanted to start this thread. If most people (me included) read a thing once it will be "valid" in our heads until we read a contradiction.
Also, please not let this thread devolve into ANOTHER discussion about why Erastil's (or any other) change was good or bad. As James said, it was an error, plain and simple. An interesting one perhaps and nothing prohibits you from using him this way in your own campaign, but an error.
It was not my intent bringing up content with a "We were robbed of this!" outcry. That's absolutly not what a retcon is for me.
I've seen time and time again people digging up older material as evidence for things that have been changed since then and nowhere to point them to and say "Yeah, but in official right-now Golarion this has been changed."
I thought it would be cool to point out these things as "Look at how much Golarion has changed, how it evolved, how the canon changed to remove errors that have been made."
It's something that is rarely seen - most worlds I know tend to sweep things under the rug but not really change them (Uberwizards who just don't get mentioned anymore, for example) whereas Golarion actively gets changed to a new, improved state with a blatant "Yes, we thought this was a cool idea, it didn't work, so now we changed it."
While reading the Pathfinder TVTropes entry and looking up some stuff about Taldor I noticed some retcons in Golarion.
This are some things I found.
Please do add your own!
James Jacobs wrote:
Okay, one follow-up questions:
Inner Sea World Guide doesn't mention anything about the bearded class structure, neither that it exists nor that it has been abolished.
So, I assume there a list of all the retcons that happened so far. Does Paizo plan on releasing this at any time?
(It's quite frustrating not finding information on a subject and the only mention of it being retconned is on TVTropes or buried in some forum thread. Also for the historic value. ;))
Here's the leery-post. As I said, it's a bit old and I stumbled upon it while looking up some Taldor stuff.
(EDIT: If my post comes of as confrontational or annoyed, this is not the intention. It's just the way I write and you're awesome for answering all our questions.)
some Taldor questions. Some referring year-old comments of yours I stumbled upon while looking stuff up.
1. You said you want to retcon out the whole bearded/unbearded thing because it's too complex. Does this mean the whole "rigid class structure" is something you want to remove?
2. If not, how exactly would one go about to raise to the bearded ranks? If a character joined the Taldan army trying to rise through the ranks, could he ever truly become a noble?
3. You said you are getting leery of Taldor (though that was quite some time ago). Is this still the case and why is that?
4. Is there another book on Taldor planned besides the now almost 7 year old "Echoes of Glory"?
That contradicts other parts of the Guide then:
Season 7 guide, page 37 wrote:
Step 8: Have the player note all items purchased or sold, including spellcasting services, in the notes section (V). If the character gained an ongoing condition like a curse or disease during the scenario, the player should note that here as well. See Dealing with Afflictions on page 38 for more information on noting conditions gained and cleared during a scenario or after its conclusion.
Season 7 guide, page 38 wrote:
So while this is applicable here because the affliction would result in an unplayable character this is not the case for all curses, diseases and afflictions.Nevermind that the Conditions Cleared box was removed a long time ago, of course...
I suggest stopping this discussion and to open another thread to not derail this thread further.
The alignment bit is irrelevant, a curse is a condition that must be cleared by the end of the scenario or you are reported dead. Also, this particular werebear is most definitely not good.
This is incorrect. This particular curse would "result in an unplayable character" (at least I think so because werebears are not legal for play), so it has to be cleared. But curses do not have to be cleared at the end of the scenario as a general rule, only noted on the chronicle sheet if they are not broken.
In addition it is called Curse of Lycanthropy. As such normal means of removing curses should work regardless of the time taken. Neither Heal nor Remove Disease would normally be able to remove a curse and so I read the section as adding extra options rather than limiting existing means of dealing with a curse.
That might be the case and lycanthropy is classified as a curse.There are however reasons why this shouldn't work.
A cleric has to be 12th level and cast remove disease within three days to cure it. This would be pointless if any 5th level cleric could just throw out a remove curse and be done with it.
The problem is that there is a line from 3.5 missing in Pathfinder:
This is actually adressed in Classic Horrors Revisited. I only have the German version, so I'll try to translate it back into English as back as I can:
"Almanach der klassischen Schrecken wrote:
Magic effects such as remove curse can be used [to remove the affliction], but are only effective during the full moon when the werewolf is at its strongest.
Seems to me like they only forgot to include that line in the bestiary. The same rule is also stated in Broken Moon.
Bearing in mind I GM mostly for newer players, my players tend to stick to the core classes. Exceptions are my girlfriend (witch) and one D&D 3.5 veteran and powergamer (magus kensai bladebound/fighter).
When I GM in our FLGS the owner tends to play an inquisitor while the VL goes for an investigator.
I feel like I missed something between scenarios.
Scions I: The kobolds prayed to the guardian. He was hibernating until [INFO FROM Scions I REDACTED] woke him up and he kicked out the kobolds.
Scions II: Irrelevant.
Scions III: The kobolds are back downstairs and pray to the guardian, yet he starts attacking the PCs as soon as they enter...why, exactly? This part does not make sense to me. He turned back to tolerating/ignoring the kobolds (or even hibernating, this is not quite clear) but immediatly attacks the PCs?
Never bothered me much. Let's agree to disagree!
(It really is a tradeoff between AC and mobility. There will be situations where you curse your slowness and situations where you curse your lower AC. Guess it depends what you feel fits your character better.)
Give Painlord's What to Expect at a PFS table a quick read. You should not treat it as gospel obviously, but it give some good suggestions - a silver morning star is great because it's both bludgeoning and piercing, for example.
Torches or (in my opinion better) sunrods are always a good investment - last time my party went into a dungeon they were surprised how little a light spell really illuminates. Not to mention the headache it generates if only one person has it prepped.
Other than that - consider buying a few scrolls. For example, comprehend languages is something you rarely use, so you probably won't learn it. But if the need arises and you have a scroll handy you will be celebrated.
As for throwing weapons...I hate those things and always go for a bow, sling or crossbow. But in my experience as a melee character you rarely need to go ranged in low levels (I know, blasphemy!) and if you do the fight is often over after five to ten rounds.
Minor thing (and unlikely because the temple is quite narrow), but is Asvika or one of her looter friends supposed to be carrying the sack of loot? Or is the sack inside a backpack (which would make little sense to me)?
Theoretically it's possible for the three to sidestep the PCs and withdraw from combat, taking the loot with them. But all three need both hands to effectivly fight (the looters with their shields, Asvika with her dagger + her casting hand), so...they refuse to give up their loot, start combat, drop the sack and try to get out of there without their loot? Makes even less sense to me.
I mean, there are sacks with backpack straps, but I imagine this is not meant here.
question is pretty much in the title:
If a paladin smites an evil creature, does his attack count as good?
Background of the question is a monster with regeneration 5 (good weapons, good spells).
I think that RAW the paladin is not able to block the regeneration by merely smiting the monster, instead he'd need to cast bless weapon for the task or beat it to a pulp and suffocate it.
Also note that while "at my table I'd allow it" is a valid and appreciated answer (because that's how I would rule it at my home game), this is intended for PFS play. So answers based on rules are very valuable. :)
Come to think of it, I really like names in Discworld. While obviously a fantasy setting, most names are easy to remember, the weirdness often applies to last names and many characters have a nickname:
Another thing you only find in Germay:
My home group had Leonard , Fur, Besh, Nyssa, Olo (Yolo Olo if he did something extremly risky) and...Exelius. Guess which name took forever to memorize.
My local lodge is also conservative with names so far, all quite short and nothing too weird. But now that I think about them, I can only remember Will the witch, and that's because I watched Buffy. And Wolfang, the brother of Leonard. I always hoped one of them would die so that I could deliver the tragic message to the other IC.
LAST NAMES are quite a different matter. I keep getting weird looks for Bodo Mudfoot because his name is so thoroughly unassuming.
SPOILER Kylo Ren wrote:
If you put spoiler marks around something, please note what it's a spoiler for.(Star Wars Spoiler, if anybody wants to know. Not a major one though, I suppose. Haven't seen it yet.)
I may have missed it, but is there any way for the PCs to figure out that their enemies are Aspis agents? The can deduce from Jace's note that they are not very nice people and maybe even criminal, but that is hardly enough evidence to actively attack them; one of the first things they can do in the chase is to knock over their enemies to gain an advantage.
If they played the first part they know an Aspis agent left in the same direction they are going, but the Consortium shouldn't know about the "weapon" (though maybe this will be explained in Part 3, didn't buy it yet). So no reason to really suspect them involved in this.
How Valacosti managed to call his allies to the village so quick - well, that's magic for you, but still...
That's exactly what I mean and how I read it too. But you could make the argument that since Seasons 0-3 were written for 4 players in mind anyways it does not make any sense to handle them differently than Seasons 4-7 (the 4-player-adjustment is the "default" anyways, so to speak).
Given the APL of a six-player-group is between two subtiers (e.g. APL 3 in a Tier 1-5) but no character is actually in the higher subtier (e.g. six level-3-characters), do they have to play in Subtier 4-5 with 4-player-adjustment or can they decide to play the lower subtier? (Rule is clear for seasons 0-3, no clarification needed there)
Pathfinder Society Roleplaying Guild Guide, p. 33 wrote:
In the fringe case where there are no players that are high enough to have reached the subtier level (such as a party of six 3rd level characters), the group may decide to play down to the lower subtier.
It is unclear whether this statement applies only to seasons 0-3 (because it's located in the season 0-3 paragraph) or to all seasons.
This has been discussed at length at several places, but to my knowledge no FAQ thread has been started yet. Feel free to mark this as an FAQ candidate.
This is something that has been discussed at length and is still not clear even though it was mentioned in the suggestion-thread for the season 7 guide to organized play. Some think this rule only applies to season 0-3 scenarios (because it's placed in the paragraph adressing 0-3 scenarios), others that it applies to all scenarios (because it would seem fairer, I suppose).
Let's just agree that it is unclear and until someone official adresses it it will remain unclear.
So...has the missing scaling for the Otyughs been adressed somewhere? I didn't find something and by the looks of it I will be GMing the scenario in a few days for a group with an APG of 2,6 (2,2,3,3,3,3). This means that they will play subtier 4-5 with adjustment for 4 players - something the first encounter lacks. I'm a bit worried this might result in a fair bit of trouble since I know this party quite well - two characters are quite triggerhappy...
Interesting question. I could see both arguments:
1. No, that wouldn't do the trick. The statblock given for the possessed NPC mentions nowhere that he is undead, thus he's not affected by positive energy. His body "shields" the vilkacis within. Note how the vulnerability to silver specifically mentions that the possessed creature too gets dealt the bonus damage, implying that most things affecting the vilkacis do not affect the creature possessed.
2. Yes, because the energy goes "through" the body and attempts to attack the vilkacis within.
I probably would not allow it in my campaign because I feel like possession should be more difficult to overcome than just blasting cure moderate wounds, lay on hands and channel energy onto the possessed person. So just do what you feel appropriate. I feel like it is a great way for the players to get creative and not just fire everything they got. In our group the paladin immediatly critted the possessed person with his hammer (x3 damage) and splattered his brain across the floor. That guy will have some nightmares once they figure out how easy it is to overcome the possession...
I'd warn the GM beforehand that a newbie is at the table - most GMs I know welcome them with open arms and will try to keep in mind to explain what's happening a bit more ("You rolled a 18 with your perception, that hit the necessary DC and so you find something...") or give some tips ("You know, instead of delaying your whole turn you could ready your action and hit the enemy as soon as he gets into range, if that's what you're planning to do.")
Quite honestly, in my experience nobody (except for whackos like me) likes to read all the rules before playing. One of my players did, the rest picked it up during the first few games and read the rules once they had some context to put them in ("Now that I know how skills work in general I want to find out what EXACTLY I can do with bluff and how it works!").
Few things are more intimidating than saying "You want to play? Great? Read this, this, this, oh, and this...you can skip this, except if you want to play a caster, but then you might want to read this..." followed by "What do you mean, you didn't know you had to roll concentration if you get hit during casting? I told you to read the rules for magic!"
I think both The Confirmation and The Wounded Wisp are very strong evergreens, though with a different focus - The Confirmation is the classic "wilderness and dungeon" setup and a guide to bring them to where they need to be, whereas The Wounded Wisp is based in the city with a heavier focus on roleplay. If your friends have no experience with P&P The Wounded Wisp can drag on, I think, especially if they are insecure. I'd start with The Confirmation and go easy on them with some encounters (no swarms against newbies, for example).
I think Beckett's point was that theoretically an oracle could run around claming to be a cleric of Aroden. If someone doubts it it could just whip out some devine spells and say "See? Aroden granted me my spells!"
Doesn't really change the basic rule, however. Clerics, inquisitors, paladins etc. have to have a deity in Golarion. And since PFS takes place on Golarion (or at least all PCs live there)...
If you don't want to get spoiled, you should maybe not ask a question in a thread clearly marked with "[SPOILER]" and shutdown all potential spoilery discussions between GMs in the thread but instead make a new thread.
That said, my group was adamant in telling Shaine about the book, but the one most vocal about not hiding it (Liberty's Edge IIRC) was also the one who in the end managed to help the DA players fulfill their goal by arguing on their behalf.
By adding ghost touch to their weapon they'll screw themselves over massively in every other department. Ghost touch isn't a flat "+x gp" amount, it raises the bonus by one. Meaning the next enchantment will be even more expensive. Spoiler for books 2 and 3 about the incorporeals:
One little group of encounters in book 2 and one encounter (two if they are murderhobos) in book 3
That does not justify a full ghost touch approach in my opinion. My group solved it by liberal use of magic weapons and cure X wounds spells. You don't have to be equipped to deal with everything perfectly, just to deal with it.
The minotaur in question just happend to pass one of his weapon caches on the way to the battle to substitute his lost weapons. He's crazy prepared.
(Of course I'm making that up, but this is totally how it could've happened!)