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

Ckorik's page

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber. Pathfinder Society Member. 883 posts. 1 review. No lists. No wishlists. 2 Pathfinder Society characters.


RSS

1 to 50 of 883 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

What counts as a God and or servitor in your world?

Demi-gods - affiliated or otherwise?

Nascent Demon Lords?

Unique Devils?

Demon Lords?

Elder ones?

there are after all things which even Gods fear in the outer realms....

Something more powerful but less invested in mortal affairs? Something less powerful but taking a more direct interest?

(Look for a product called "Petty Gods" on Drive thru rpg if the latter - it's a great old school style that has some great ideas in it)

Just curious....


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Given the cost to use the spell there are two main advantages:

casting time is 1 action

versatility is unlimited (subject to GM approval)

Some spells are useful as a wish in different ways - players are unlikely to abuse this due to the cost...

in theory.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
James Jacobs wrote:


Or bow. (The one that rhymes with drow.)

Or bow. (The one that doesn't rhyme with drow.)

The really important question:

Drow like dough

or

Drow like now

Obviously the second one is the correct way - however you could run for president with the quote above.... covered either way....


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I don't understand how your groups dealt with the flood.

My party could have killed her - but the flood (which requires very very hard swim checks to work within) kept them from being able to do things like:

Fight from the tops of buildings - too far apart to leap between - as soon as she gets to one... CHOMP.

Grapple her - how do they get *to* her to grapple?

Etc.

One of the party members was drowning and it took about half the town to save them pulling on a rope... :)


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
GeraintElberion wrote:
Converting for player numbers with an AP would be the kind of content that a podcast like Private Sanctuary / Know Direction could cover.

Or it could be part of what Paizo could cover - considering they wrote the game some support for the GM's that run it wouldn't be a bad thing - we do have ... how many numbers of 'options/feats/rules' books?


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Eirvit wrote:

I would love it! I don't know if there's enough of this sort of stuff out there (or if I'm just having a hard time finding it). I enjoy the Chronicles podcast and what recently has begun (in terms of GM advice) on the Trailblazer Network. I would love, love, love something I could check in with more regularly. The more the better. I wonder if a community of GM bloggers is possible. A full community of bloggers would provide the potential for a shortish article to be posted daily.

Or maybe I'm imagining something slightly different than is suggested here. I would like a ring of GM bloggers who are sharing what is happening in their campaigns specific to rules questions/disputes and storytelling lessons that individual GMs are learning along the way. Does anyone know if something like this already exists? I'd be grateful.

I've been bugging James for an advanced GM's guide now for around a year - in a recent discussion he talked about how that most likely isn't going to happen due to the fact that (paraphrasing) they pay people money and run a business and the interest in such a product is not enough to justify the expense.

We did get a GM's guide - well because every edition has had one - and so we got one - because like the core rulebook it's kind of a loss leader to get people to buy the product. What was suggested however was possibly a blog series to do the same thing - then the art, formatting, printing, and other costs wouldn't need to be baked into the production.

What we also know from following James Jacobs like a stalker - is that they have an "in house GM" review all the adventures before publication and they make suggestions to the adventures that would help you or I run the thing. Who the "in-house GM" is was not made clear - my guess is that it's rotating and not someone involved in the production otherwise to keep a fresh eye on things. From blog/forum posts we know that James Jacobs, Eric Mona, Jason Bulmahn and others have all run or currently run campaigns in the offices of Paizo itself. My guess would be that a majority of the company in some way either plays or runs games - though I expect it's not 100%.

What I would like to see at the end of the day is *some* kind of GM resource that lets us get answers and guidance to some of the trickier questions that float around - preferably as optional or 'NON FAQ' type answers with perhaps even more than one way of doing things - Now I'm not opposed to 'official' information but if we get a blog format I'd prefer even 'official' stuff followed by the favorite 'I don't like it - here is how I'd do it' - why? Because it'd be nice to see how the people who make the game - play the game, and to get suggestions and help in running the game without the answer having to be 'THE OFFICIAL WORD' or people spending the next year arguing over if the text before the third period was in fact referring to the adjacent clause in subparagraph 10 section 2a.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

If only we had a new resource that discussed and clarified concepts like this that cause so much confusion....

Support the creation of that resource - click here and show your support!


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
James Jacobs wrote:
magnuskn wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
magnuskn wrote:
The book would be more of a GM book, that is for sure, and I'd be sure to get it ASAP. Given the niche books you guys are putting out sometimes (Arcane Anthology comes to mind), I wonder why writing a book like this would seem so daunting to management. The Gamemastery Guide was also mostly an advice book, after all.
Arcane Anthology is in the "niche" of a "book that provides players with more options." As far as our sales can tell, that niche appeals to a HUGE number of players, whereas a book about GM advice would appeal to a fraction of probably 1/5 of the total base (GMs who aren't too proud to learn more about GMing).

Okay, understandable. However, I still say you can pitch this to management as "a book to help new and experienced GM's". Especially since without GM's, there is no game. The Gamemastery Guide got made, too, after all.

Sometimes a book is simply needed, even if it ain't as economically feasible than a "big book of feats and spells".

Been doing that on and off for many, many years. What would REALLY help would be if the customer base were vocal about wanting a book.

Hey James - I just wanted to let you know I put this in my sidecart within the first 10 mins or so that it went live.

I wouldn't want to get anyone angry talking about anything else - but I agree with you that it'd be nice for people to talk about other subjects where they are allowed.

/cheers.

p.s. if you really want a book like that go post something - it's linked - the poor Paizo staff have done everything but link directly to the topic and they can't for obvious reasons - go there and we can talk about how awesome an idea that this is... spread the word... spread chaos.... pet fluffy bunnies...

it's all good.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

As per a recent thread where it was discussed that this type of product is deemed unfeasible (due to business reasons which I'm not here to critique or complain about) it was suggested that discussion of this type of product have it's own thread.

So here it is.

Given that the *product* atm seems out of reach I'm going to focus on the blog side of things - so with that in mind - what I'd like to see:

A New blog setup with a (bi-weekly?) post that gives GM's advice and guidance on how to run the rules. NOT an errata or FAQ. I'd rather see *from a GM perspective* how Paizo would handle things like mounted combat, underwater combat, aerial combat, spells such as freedom of movement, odd corner cases... (perception to see the sun?). I'd like to see posts by Paizo GM's and possibly devs with ideas and suggestion that don't fall into (if this is a blog format) published rules, although if a FAQ deserves a talk, that'd be ok also. For an example of what I mean take a look at this: http://paizo.com/paizo/blog/v5748dyo5lc12

High level play, how to scale up or down, when to gestalt or not, how to play high level without rocket tag, what to do to avoid rocket tag, etc.

So - I'm posting this looking for the following: Would you guys also be interested in this kind of product from Paizo? If So what other suggestions for topics could you bring up?


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Quote:

Effect Spells: Most effect spells summon or create something and are not subject to spell resistance. Sometimes, however, spell resistance applies to effect spells, usually to those that act upon a creature more or less directly, such as web.

Spell resistance can protect a creature from a spell that's already been cast. Check spell resistance when the creature is first affected by the spell.

This is true for any effect spell - which is something to consider for other illusions that have spell resistance...

like silence.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Wonderstell wrote:
Ckorik wrote:
Has anyone considered putting magic on durable arrows? Would that work?
Durable Arrows wrote:

These arrows are tightly wrapped in strands of some kind of alchemical glue.

Benefit: Durable arrows don’t break due to normal use, whether or not they hit their target; unless the arrow goes missing, an archer can retrieve and reuse a durable arrow again and again. Durable arrows can be broken in other ways (such as deliberate snapping, hitting a fire elemental, and so on).

Drawback: If crafted with magic (such as bane), the magic only lasts for one use of the arrow, but the nonmagical arrow can still be reused or imbued with magic again.

Nah, it wouldn't.

blah. It would be nice to see 'arrow only' enchants that were actually... reasonable in cost.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Agree with others - now that it's done and the party is having fun with it I'd roll with it and see where it leads.

Sometimes as a GM you do something that makes a big 'oops' - if it causes your table to hate the game - admit the mistake - discuss a fix and fix it - move on. If, however the table is having a great time with it - then you have to consider that perhaps a gonzo type of fantasy is what people want, and roll with that and enjoy.

Stuff like that is where you end up with stories 10-20 years from now about that time your dwarf turned into a bird and the wild adventures that ensued.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Has anyone considered putting magic on durable arrows? Would that work?


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

illusions don't get a save unless interacted with - creating a stone wall - the golem being mindless - should treat it like a stone wall - that is taking an action to attack it and bash it down.

At that point it would get the SR roll - and if that failed (from the golems perspective) it would get a will save....

Just like the pit - it should treat the pit as a real obstacle if it's in front of the golem - it can't determine it's fake from just seeing it - seeing the illusion doesn't give you a will save - and until interacted with the golem doesn't get an SR check or will save.

At the very minimum it should cause the golem to loose an action or movement. Unless you created the pit directly under the golem - in which case it gets the SR check and such as soon as the spell is cast - because you've forced the interaction at that point.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
James Jacobs wrote:
I'm confident that spending several pages overall on tips to adjust adventures for size or options would NOT be popular.

For what it's worth I'd take a GM tips section of every adventure path over any other section put in except town/city articles. And yes I'd take that over monsters, deity articles, story, extra lore, you name it. Oddly I don't need art, or graphics, or maps (except as perhaps examples - meaning like are of effect or attack of opportunity type graphs) - As a GM I'd find this type of article more valuable than any other thing in the adventures currently outside of the adventure.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
James Jacobs wrote:


Now... it's important to remember that while 6 players may be the norm for your group, it's not the norm for EVERY group. We don't have the luxury of customizing each adventure to each table, nor is it valuable to "waste" wordcount on "Here's how to adjust things for your table if you have three or one or five or six or eight players.".

Here is where I get to champion once again a call for a GM book that focuses on all the things we GM's have struggled with...

Scaling, mounted combat, flying, odd rules situations, how to deal with some of the more problematic spells... Just think if you had such a product you could point at it as the official 'this is how you adjust' instead of talking about word count ;)

Anyway - had to take the opportunity to plug this idea!


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

To further add to the fun...

All sight is light that is reflected back at our eyes - and so you get these perception modifiers to these things - however light that is generated isn't reflected - it's actually emitting photons that travel to our retinas. Thus when viewing a candle (aprox max distance 1.26 miles before it's undetectable according to recent studies) it's not because it has a great perception modifier - it's because enough photons make it *to* us that allow us to see it.

The sun honestly isn't visible to the naked eye - I've seen pictures of the sun made by NASA - I can't see that even if I use a filter to protect my sight and look directly at the sun.

I do see the light. Which is actually traveling *at* me and so has a 0 perception modifier to see it - as the only light that I ever actually see arrived directly in my eyes at the time of seeing it (assuming looking directly at the sun). Of course any serious simulation that wants to take itself to a level of detail to work it out would *need* to account for the fact that photons from light sources are traveling directly into our eyes. I mean to say it's not like we can see a galaxy that's 1.5 billion light years away - but we can see the light that it emitted 1.5 billion years ago and thus 'see' it.

Also note - you can see a 747 in the air 5 miles up - however it's larger than the biggest creature in the game. Try seeing people on the ground from that high up with the naked eye. At night however you can pick out light sources (from say a car) - again because it's actually generating photons that meet us rather than relying on our eyes alone.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Dukai wrote:

no...Sammy T is right. Sacred Summons has to match alignment subtypes not creature alignment. The creature does not gain the good or evil subtype, only the good or evil alignment. The spell gains the good or evil descriptor, but the descriptor does not impact creature subtype.

Dang...I was all excited for a second there, lol.

But then why have this line at all:

Quote:
Summoning these creatures makes the summoning spell's type match your alignment.

Seems like alot of wasted words that have been in there from way before sacred summons - to me that implies that the spells subtype does become your alignment...

Regardless it looks like it does work with herald caller - as that ability doesn't work off of subtypes but specifically the alignment of the creature being summoned.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Sammy T wrote:
Dukai wrote:
I think this means that "*" creatures (pretty much all the animals) are completely viable for the HC and Sacred Summons combination, right?

The subtype of the summon, not its alignment, must match your aura. Your aura matches your deity's alignment.

Let's use Sacred Summons for Asmodeus for example.

While your alignment is LN, your aura is LE to match Asmodeus.

Summon Monster

Look at the subtype row. It if is "Evil" & "Lawful" it is valid for a standard action Sacred Summons.

While a fiendish creature would have your alignment, nothing in the Fiendish Template changes the actual sub-type of the summoned monster. So, a fiendish eagle would not be eligible for a standard action Sacred Summons.

It's not the template that he's talking about. It's this:

Quote:


When you use a summoning spell to summon a creature with an alignment or elemental subtype, it is a spell of that type.

So for creatures with a listed subtype - the spell is always that 'type' and the creature is always that alignment - but what about the creatures with * next to them - they have no subtype?

Quote:
Summoning these creatures makes the summoning spell's type match your alignment.

So the way I read that - is that if you summon a fiendish dire rat - then the spell matches your alignment, as does the creature. Now does that help a LN cleric of Asomdeus? I don't think so - the creature would be lawful neutral. However if you are Lawful Evil - then not only would your creature be Lawful Evil - but it would then match your aura...

Quote:
When using summon monster to summon creatures whose alignment subtype or subtypes exactly match your aura, you may cast the spell as a standard action instead of with a casting time of 1 round.

Thus if you had the same alignment as your deity - and your aura matches - it works...?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
thejeff wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
thejeff wrote:


The real problem though is that extrapolating from the given penalties leads to -4 for every doubling of size, not for for every 4'. That leads to something in the neighborhood of -120 to the Sun's Stealth.

Even if you say that every 4' of radius, the sun is still invisible by Pathfinder rules. Remember that the Sun as seen from earth is actually quite small -- it's comparable to ta quarter held at arms' length. The problem is that the linear distance penalty is too harsh, and it shows up more notably the longer the distance.

By itself, this would be an interesting stupidity, like the fact that the 'dead' condition doesn't prevent you from taking actions. But it has in-game consequences.

For example, a heavy catapult has a range increment of 200 ft, so it can actually hit things at ten range increments or 2000 feet. There's a some penalties involved, but they're not onerous, especially if you're just throwing incendiaries at a wooden roof. Hitting with the catapult is fairly easy with a skilled crew.

But, as the defender, can even see the catapult as it's being set up?

By RAW, no. Let's set it up at half its effective range (1000 feet). A heavy catapult is a Gargantuan object, so it has a DC of about -12 to see it -- that is, you need to make a perception check of DC -12 to see an uncamouflaged catapult within ten feet of you.

At 1000 feet, your vision penalty is -100, meaning you need to make a DC 88 Perception roll to see the crew setting up a Gargantuan siege engine a fifth of a mile away -- otherwise, the first you'll know that there's a siege engine out there is when the rocks, cows, and barrels of oil start raining down on the inside of your keep.

Things, of course, would be even worse if I have someone actually camouflage the infernal device.

It's actually worse than that conceptually.

The guy manning the catapult is likely to be able to target and hit things he can't even see.
He needs...

Isn't that very much like what happened in real life? The guys with a trebuchet (max range in real life around 900 feet) pretty much could pelt a castle all day without fear of retaliation, except by other trebuchets firing back, which required spotters and adjustments to set range and such.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
thejeff wrote:

It is a bit reductio absurdem, though I think there are valid issues there.

That said, the diameter of the sun would be closer to the square root of the surface area or, since I can just look it up: 865,373.7 mi. I'm not at all sure what you meant by "actual size", but there's nothing reasonable that would be double the surface area.

The real problem though is that extrapolating from the given penalties leads to -4 for every doubling of size, not for for every 4'. That leads to something in the neighborhood of -120 to the Sun's Stealth.

Yeah I started at diameter - but creatures are not given penalties due to the part we can see - so I figured the surface area was a better measurement, which is what I used.

For those curious if we just calculate it based on the sun being a circle - there is no chance to see the sun at all. Surface area though gives us enough of a bonus that you could reasonable apply many factors into the equation and still come out as 'can see by default' - although if you were really willing to dig into the larger math perhaps that may not be true, I was unwilling. I think in general (especially using the -1 per 10 feet example) is just to use a simple +1 per 'x feet' of size.

To use a baseball example - I have very little depth perception in real life - I also can't follow a baseball well at all. This is why I played football (and a lineman at that) - easier to deal with. I wouldn't take it for granted that anyone can see a baseball being thrown - because it's not really that much a given as those of you who can see it think it is - as an aside it makes 3d movies and such unwatchable for me - so yeah.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Question - if you are evil - and summon a fiendish animal - according to my understanding of the rules the summoning spell takes that descriptor - and the animal does as well.

Example: I summon a fiendish dire rat - both the rat and the spell get the evil descriptor.

Does that mean that the creature 'matches at least one aspect of their deity' as per herald caller? We've decided it does in our game - but I'd like other opinions.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
thejeff wrote:

Near as I can tell, that isn't in that page. The only references to stealth and size points to "Table: Size Bonuses and Penalties", which just covers the usual size categories and says nothing about extrapolating beyond them.

Nor are those size categories separated by 4'. Gargantuan is 32'-64' and Colossal is 64' plus, but their modifiers are -12 and -16 respectively.

The natural extrapolation from that table would be -4 for every doubling in size, not for every 4'.

Even if they were, those are height or length measurements, not area, so it would be appropriate to use the radius of the sun, not its surface area. That's a minor point though.

Sure - but the size of the sun is given in square feet - which implies (but I'm too lazy to do the math) that it's actual size is double what I listed in feet. To be sure I took some shortcuts but just because the rules stop at a given size doesn't mean we can't extrapolate. My point was due to the size of the sun (1.3 million earths can fit in the sun) anything we use perception for to determine the modifier must take this into account.

Trying to say the distance factors but the size doesn't seems silly - then again the entire thread is a bit tongue in cheek anyway :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
mechaPoet wrote:

So, again, I'm not gonna tell anyone to knock it off with the math stuff if you enjoy making the calculations. But...

I feel like the game system's granularity of DC does some weird stuff in blurring the line between simulation and simulationist game. For instance, all the examples that people are providing are about mapping Pathfinder rules onto real, physical world objects and scenarios. But they're supposed to be game rules. When it comes to these Perception DC's, personally I think the most important question isn't "Can I model my ability to see a lighthouse?" Rather, I think the more important thing is "Is it interesting for a character to have a chance to fail or display their skill in this moment? If so, how hard is it, given the chance mechanic in this game?"[/b]

And again, to be clear, I think most people get that. I think the questions about how to model Perception checks in real life, either in a way to account for them or to show how they fail, can be interesting, but again I'd like to steer the discussion in a different direction.

Namely:
Is there something about the Pathfinder rules that invites the criticism of its ability to model the real world, even though they're supposed to be game rules?
Does the game suffer or benefit from that criticism? (Does this depend on the type of player?)
Do you think a realistic (or at least more realistic) physical modeling of real world simulation would improve this or another RPG for you? (Personally, I'm inclined to say no, and to lighten the rules text on it and relegate that function to the narrative.)

Not in my case - it was just a silly exercise to see if the math would indeed work - I think it does. I'm sick today so this was a minor diversion from feeling miserable in general... :P


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Creighton Broadhurst wrote:
usefull stuff

Thanks - that answers most of my questions - two followups...

* Do the 'mini articles' you guys post count (from what I read so far it looks like they don't - although these are awesome and I wonder if I'd consider a separate 'funding' for these at a much smaller scale)

* You make a distinction between 'paid' and free - but my assumption would be if I pledged $5 per product then a typical month would be 20 and some months due to the way we have odd weeks would be 25...?

Is that correct?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Tacticslion wrote:
Ckorik wrote:
-4 per 4 feet of size
Sorry, I'm probably blind. Where is this? That is a very interesting thing I've not seen previously as a RAW argument. (I'm also on my phone, so I'm not as easily able to look up links at present.)

http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/monsters/monsterAdvancement.html

Every 4 feet a creature gains in size it has a -4 to stealth - This is essentially the rule that covers how something is easier to see when it's really big - I just applied it to the sun as if it were a creature.

*edit* linkified it - sorry you did say on your phone - my bad


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Creighton,

to make it easier for my poor brain (that just got done figuring out stupid perception for the f'n sun of all things..) Give me an example of min/max product this would commit to?

Lets take a high road - I pledge 10 bucks per product - am I paying for all the free stuff as well as the printed stuff - or is this a per cost type of thing - I'm interested but want to figure out what my monthly outlay is - you guys a pretty prolific....


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

-4 per 4 feet of size
+1 per 10 feet of distance

surface area of the sun 6,088,000,000,000 in square km
one square km = 1.08 (rounding) square feet

sun = 6,575,040,000,000 square feet

+1,643,760,000,000 perception modifier for sun

Now distance from earth = 92,960,000 miles * 5280 feet = 490,828,800,000 feet from earth

divide by 10 for perception modifier = - 49,082,880,000

The sun has a +1,152,937,120,000 circumstance bonus to see it due to it's size.

Works within the rules.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Torath wrote:

The disagreement isn't as much as you might think. My disagreement isn't with the rules as written or as interpreted. My problem is that the chosen chance we would be heard wasn't made clear before everything went south. You could have just said... As a group of players you've planned for an hour and you should know based on your character's perceptions of +20 or more that it's nearly impossible for them not to hear you use that wand from that place you think is safe behind a different building (because you can clearly hear THEM).

Did you hear them? I would agree that's a fair point - especially if you were planning something for so long. That being said perception is one of those goofy things - and a GM has to figure out if it's reasonable to hear something usually incorporating a ton of variables into the mix - sometimes the players expect more secrecy than they have and vice versa - sometimes not all variables are taken into easy account.

The other thing to account for is essentially the fact that Pathfinder - even with the intrigue rules - makes it very clear that *all* spellcasting requires a firm loud sound, and even if silenced visible and telltale signs the magic is happening. A wand is no exception the command word must be spoken loud and clearly to work. The visual effects are flashy - always. I always let my players hear spellcasting (usually when they start to hear it - the perception modifiers make it difficult or impossible to determine *what* is being cast - but they still hear it).

On note even a silenced, stilled, component free spell will be visible and detectable by the rules. You get the feeling that the guys involved in the design *really* (no - really may be to light a word) hated people who hid spellcasting. As such unless you house rule stuff magic is pretty much a giveaway to an enemy and players (and GMs) have to work with and around that fact.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

As an alternative - you can always give them a magic item in Scribbler's lair that lets them plane shift once a day.

This not only gives them a way back - but it means if they use it and left enemies up - they'll have time to heal/prep for their return. And if your players are as scattered in levels/spells as you suggest - a hard magic item only requires the spell be on their class list to use - not a use magic device or possible scroll fail.

Another option is to suggest one of the magical players take leadership - and give them a cohort that is single classed that happens to have the ability - along with some of the other spells that will help keep the dungeon from being a slog. Given your current campaign status if you decided to go that route (which would keep your own prep down quite a bit) you could play up the information they gather from the library and make sure they know beyond all doubt that the runeforge is sealed from time, and very very static - meaning they aren't going to be in a rush to finish. I'd then make sure each wing had one or more (more is preferable) items that require research and or help/investigation to decipher giving them reasons to head back after each wing. Perhaps either before their first foray into a wing or just after they can also catch a 'raid' from one wing to another and see a bunch of mooks get slaughtered just trying to breach another wing - letting them know that the situation is almost self containing and the enemies can be picked apart without them feeling 'stuck'.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I'd add a couple of points for consideration.

Were the guards on alert? If so I think a roll is justified in that they are trying to be quiet and watching/listening for things. If not I'd say that they should most likely have a standard 'take 10' on perception which is the example used most often for take 10 - a guard at a gate watching for contraband/known criminals/etc. Being 'on alert' is stressful and leads to making mistakes if done for too long a period of time.

If they were not on alert a further issue would be if they were distracted not paying attention at all - but without a pre-notice that there was something to be extra careful about (or threats to pay attention more than normal) I'd just have them take 10.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

If you have a computer - dm's familiar is your friend for large combats - just prep what you need (20 ants) and when you pull them to the combat board it will number them for you - roll initiative and such.

It will also roll saves and all kinds of fun stuff - letting you keep track of individual hit points. After that use whatever you like to keep track of them at the table - I bought some numbers on stickies I can toss on anything so ant #1 is always ant #1.

After that have fun! using this program has really made combat much more manageable for me. Another suggestion for large groups of enemies (especially for low HD ones) is to group them up:

20 ants - 1/4 hd each.

4 ants per group for 1 hd monsters - now you only have 5 to worry about - combine hit points and give the 'group' a larger attack bonus - but keep damage the same. For each 1/4 hit points the 'group' looses it looses the bonus to hit.

Or even some variation on that theme - to keep your sanity. This trick also works to use large numbers of lower level monsters and keep them a 'threat' for higher level groups. You are simulating aid another and flanking but keeping the # of rolls and things to track down to a minimum to keep combat moving.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Quote:
Talents marked with an asterisk add effects to a rogue's sneak attack. Only one of these talents can be applied to an individual attack and the decision must be made before the attack roll is made.

From the rules at http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/classes/rogue.html

That's pretty clear cut.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Zedorland wrote:

I’m tired of "mechanical failings = flaws = good role playing"

Let’s clarify what this means, because it has come up several times. This guide is not recommending that every character is built on the same cookie cutter template. It is not saying that every character has to buy the same items, use the same feats. It is not saying that everyone wants to and should play superman.

Honestly it's a valid point for those of us that played 'back in the day' - but you have to take into consideration that the point swing was nonexistent then also - if you had a fighter with a 7 str, and a fighter with a 18 str - the difference in 'to hit' and damage was only 2.

Wisdom didn't matter at all for non-clerics. A wizard with a 15/16 intelligence could pretty much count on playing fine all the way up to high level without issues, and lower int still played fine for the majority of the 'common levels'.

When your max negative is -1 and your max positive is +1 playing a character with some horrible stats just didn't make you feel like a gimp. What did was rolling 1 for your level up hit point roll.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I would make at the very least the last one in one of those areas.... it wouldn't hurt to have the other two earlier and give them something to mull over/research/investigate/wonder about.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
silverhair2008 wrote:

Okay, I need some suggestions. There are three specially marked Daggers that are needed to enter Level 3B. They are conceivably hidden somewhere in RA.

Has anyone used the Daggers or have you planned out where you will put them so they can be found?

Well the oracle should 'know' where they are - I would say my response is based upon how you plan to use them?

If you want them to be 'found' naturally I'd put one early on in a random horde. If you want them to be searched for I'd hide them down in the lower levels and let the players research/legend lore/etc. to figure out where to go. Some of it would depend on how deep into the dungeon they've already gone. If you want to use them as a source for adventure I'd put one in the Tsar, one in the pyramid tomb where the sword of air resides, and one down with one of the liches in RA.

Given the danger that's below that I'd keep the things well hidden. Then again if you are trying to get your players into the 'don't go down unknown holes unless you are really ready for them' angle you could put them in minor areas and let them see how bad things can get. Are your planning to run this section as it's own dungeon - or are you just wanting your players to find the daggers as they go and perhaps find the secret area?


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
AvenaOats wrote:


9. Agree PvP crowd is the wrong crowd to make a mmorpg for and wrong for a story-centric mmorpg also.

12. Digitally making the world of GOLARION for thousands of players then from that adding the PF specific slice....

9 - I disagree - I think the answer here is that no one has done PvP in an MMO correctly.

PvP in any game that has equipment or levels creates a very sharp 'sheep/predator' environment - where anyone who has had the chance to level up and gear up can prey upon someone who hasn't. Opening the game up to people who want that environment and letting them play first would never attract enough sheep to keep them happy.

No one likes being ganked. Pathfinder (the brand) has made a huge investment in re-designing the game to have a smooth 'CR curve' where if you look at an adventure path there is very little chance that a party will encounter a situation that is 'over level' for them - now things can happen and they TPK but that's because fate is fickle - not because they fought a CR20 dragon at level 2.

PvP in an MMO is always like that - every time you step out you run the risk of a CR 20 dragon at level 2 - because gear and levels mean someone out there who has nothing better to do will be looking to pounce on you. Some find that fun - most do not. So yes - niche market and all that. However the branding doesn't help in that regard considering Pathfinder is (IMO) the most 'carebear' rollplaying game that has ever been produced. They have gone out of their way with 'wealth by level' and 'cr' and even designing their own monsters with crappy feat choices to make them less dangerous in most cases than they otherwise would be.

Look at huge PvP successes and you see they are a) not level based, and b) not equipment based. Note here games like Call of Duty (which sell 10 million plus each release) are real successes - Eve Online is close but still niche. Again I won't say there is *no* design that could work for this - but player policing hasn't worked so far when tried and no one is willing to implement a system that would be close to draconian enough to discourage bottom feeding (such as kill someone CR 5 or more under you and you are KoS to any guard/NPC and possibly permadeath - which *might* be enough to discourage that kind of thing).

/my two cents.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

So similar to Dark Sun?

the 'large view' premise of Dark Sun was that magic drains the land of energy and wizards (defilers) killed everything when they cast a spell - so eventually the land turned into a hard baked desert.

'Purifiers' learned how to cast spells (essentially normal casting) by only taking small amounts of energy and not causing death and decay - but the land is run by defiler overkings who outlawed magic other than their own - and the populace hates magic users because of the destruction so any wizards have to hide their magic etc.

It can be done - it provides an interesting twist to the entire thing also.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Quandary wrote:

Although on the topic of Domains, I really do wonder why we have Feats that allow ANYBODY to grab Sorceror BL Powers,

most especially Sorceror themselves are easily able to qualify for the full Feat chains there,
yet there is nothing for even Clerics themselves to grab further Domain Powers OF THEIR OWN DEITY...?

THIS is an idea that needs to happen.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Quandary wrote:

To follow up on the idea that Domain Powers are significant (mentioned by OP and I agree),

when considering potential trades against a Domain (i.e. removing 1 Domain),
IMHO it should actually be considered WEAKENING that Domain before removing it wholesale...

While I disagree with you that the cardinal fails at what it is supposed to achieve (just look at the 'what does a non wuxia fighter look like' thread for how much people actually value skill points - answer way more than I would have imagined) I do like your ideas on the domains. I think that could work for a casting cleric - but I think such a focus should come with a downside - and I totally think people who want 'full BAB all the time like 3.5' are just wanting to play a cleric that doesn't need anything else in the group - we don't play that game anymore.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

3.5 divine power

Quote:
Calling upon the divine power of your patron, you imbue yourself with strength and skill in combat. Your base attack bonus becomes equal to your character level (which may give you additional attacks), you gain a +6 enhancement bonus to Strength, and you gain 1 temporary hit point per caster level.

pathfinder divine power

Quote:
Calling upon the divine power of your patron, you imbue yourself with strength and skill in combat. You gain a +1 luck bonus on attack rolls, weapon damage rolls, Strength checks, and Strength-based skill checks for every three caster levels you have (maximum +6). You also gain 1 temporary hit point per caster level. Whenever you make a full-attack action, you can make an additional attack at your full base attack bonus, plus any appropriate modifiers. This additional attack is not cumulative with similar effects, such as haste or weapons with the speed special ability.

Lets see how that works out:

Level 7 to cast - at that level:

3.5 - BAB +5
With DP = +7/+2
+6 Str (+3 attack/damage) (+10/+5 with str)
+7 temp hps

PF - BAB +5
With DP = BAB +7/+7
+2 Damage
+7 temp hit points

Ok So I'll take an extra attack at full BAB over a 2nd at +5...

Level 15:
3.5 - BAB +11 (6/1)
With DP = +15/+10/+5
+6 Str (+3 attack/damage)
+15 temp hit points

PF - BAB +11 (6/1)
With DP = +16/+16/+11/+6
+5 damage
+15 temp hit points

Looks to me like Pathfinder's version is actually way better.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Mark Seifter wrote:
Chemlak wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
Firewarrior44 wrote:
They have Smite Thread as an at-will ability
I should have given paladins a +2 bonus in verbal duels for using the red herring tactic (where you derail an exchange into something else, handy if you were in danger of losing it).
Which tactic would be most useful for morphing the exchange into something about a succubus in a grapple?
That's be either red herring or an *erhem* "emotional" appeal. But this is starting to move to verbal duels now, also not the topic. Whoops! :o

Your attempt to tease about the verbal duels beat my DC - so feel free to elaborate more....


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Ross Byers wrote:
Ckorik wrote:
The only time in published items the spontaneous stuff gets touched the cleric always gives up a domain.

That's because, for instance, if you give up spontaneous cures for spontaneous domain spells, you can take the Healing domain and get spontaneous cures back (in addition to other healing spells), and still have a whole other domain of spontaneous spells.

Locking it down to one domain means that a player who really wants his cures back can take the Healing domain, but didn't manage to 'trade up'.

Herald caller gets the ability to spontaneously cast summons but does not give up the spontaneous cures - and still gives up the domain. From this I would gather that spontaneous cures aren't really considered as powerful as a domain - but even adding a specific spell line as a spontaneous cast choice is as powerful.

And I have to say - I agree with that.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I have to admit if I wanted to spontaneous cast domain spells I'd just play an oracle - I am not sure how I'd feel about that.

The only time in published items the spontaneous stuff gets touched the cleric always gives up a domain.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

On topic (and even still about the spell being discussed) I'm pleased mostly because I actually believe that the atonement mechanic is something that is supposed to be part of the game and that most people seem to think is a punishment or ignore.

I never saw it that way (and to be fair in my games if you mess up unless it was out of your way deliberate you get the feeling you need to atone rather than poof you are a bad fighter, ignoring that feeling for too long may lead to complications...)

I'm interested in the spell in question.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Ross Byers wrote:
Sundakan wrote:
What he's saying is the "willingly commits evil" clause and "can't lie" clause are in separate sentences, disconnected.

'Not lying' is an example given for 'act with honor' - It's a general shorthand for being deceitful or misleading, not an absolute. If there is a situation where lying is the honorable act (or where no one would actually be misled), the paladin can lie. Discretion being a part of valor and so forth.

Inversely, Paladins are barred from being misleading by selective truths, even though those are not actually lies.

Ha! You are braver than I am - I wouldn't dare to dream about suggesting that anything the paladin does or doesn't do in a game doesn't cause his immediate fall and transition to anti-paladin status on the forums.... ;)

The truth is the forums made me realise I wouldn't play a paladin at most people's tables. But to each their own!


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Sundakan wrote:
So does this outright errata the paladin's Code to be even MORE strict? Because it straight up says "WILLINGLY commits and evil act" in there.

To be fair it was always easy to do this to a paladin - just make them tell a lie. There is nothing in the code about willingly there.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

On a further note - I'm unsure what exactly is gained from the bonus feats - after thinking about it the metamagics in general are usually disdained by wizards in favor of using rods (clerics can already use these).

Sorcerers are the ones who can 'meta' on the fly making those feats much more useful - and at the same time have less feats to dedicate. I just am having a hard time understanding what a 'casting cleric' is supposed to get that they don't already have built into the chassis they use.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Ross Byers wrote:
Ckorik wrote:

Actually - here is a 'caster cleric' PRC:

"The Studied Priest"

This cleric must use a prayer book to memorize spells - they can only memorize spells that they find prayers for. They otherwise use the wizard class, but with divine spells.

You'll notice that such a character is significantly weaker than a stock cleric.

I won't disagree - but if the bonus feats are what really everyone wants for a 'caster cleric' (presumably for the metamagics) then the wizard chassis is really a better fit - by giving up the huge spell selection and having the limitations that go along with it.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Actually - here is a 'caster cleric' PRC:

"The Studied Priest"

This cleric must use a prayer book to memorize spells - they can only memorize spells that they find prayers for. They otherwise use the wizard class, but with divine spells.

1 to 50 of 883 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2016 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com 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.