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, Pawns Subscriber. Pathfinder Society Member. 270 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 2 Pathfinder Society characters.


1 to 50 of 270 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns Subscriber
Splendor wrote:

What about a fabricate spell? (to make a gold statue using the gold in the area)
Lyre of Building? (another gold statue)
Planar Ally (earth elemental), how much easier can he collect gold and gems?

From Lost Cities of Golarion:

But despite the opulence of its
architecture, the display is mostly ornamental and consists
of leafing and facade work that uses a relatively small
amount of actual wealth. Thassilonians were driven by
greed, not decadence, and stored the bulk of their riches in
well-guarded, heavily warded and trapped treasure vaults
secreted away in the darkest depths of the Hypogeum.

From the RotRL and this entry - I'm thinking that the amount of "A day's work scavenging precious metals and gems from Xin-Shalast's architecture yields 10d6 gp worth of commodities" is actually *using* methods like this.

The idea (I believe) is to get the players to see a dazzling city of riches where every doorknob is a diamond - only to find out it's just costume jewelry - yes you can make money scrounging - but it's not worth the time or effort.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns Subscriber
Are wrote:
Ckorik wrote:

Page 355 - The Thing from beyond time.

Missing Plane Shift from spell like abilities (which it is noted as using in it's stat block)

The plane shift is part of its "angled entry" ability. The text of that ability should probably have been provided, but it can be found in the regular Hound of Tindalos statblock (in Bestiary 2), as can the text of the "otherworldly mind" ability and the "ripping gaze" attack.

I'm guessing the text of these three abilities was cut from the adventure for space reasons, but some of them are pretty important for running the monster (particularly the gaze attack).

Edit: That makes me wonder how many other creatures with otherwise full statblocks are missing ability-text..

I'd agree with you but we get gear listings and notes for 'wardens of wind' and 'thunder' several times throughout this chapter - when they could have done as they did in book 3 and just said 'see stats on pg whatever'.

I know the hound has it - it's just an error :)

And on to:

The online document says:

Page 363-354
Karzoug: Based on his point-buy he should have a Wisdom of 18 raising his Will save to +21.

Actually his Wisdom should be 18 but is *almost* accurate in his stat block - it should be 16 with his will save at +20 (he has a -2 for wearing the talons of Leng.)

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns Subscriber

Page 355 - The Thing from beyond time.

Missing Plane Shift from spell like abilities (which it is noted as using in it's stat block)

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns Subscriber

No by definition you could dual wield 2h weapons but by RAW (faq'd) you can not add 1.5 str to those weapons - although you could get the damage die.

What you *can* do with 4 arms is wield 4 weapons - and when you have a high enough attack bonus to make 4 attacks - attack with each weapon - getting the enchantments from each.

As the recent clarifications regarding weapons (you must make an attack to get the benefits) this would be a legal way to stack such things.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns Subscriber
Strife2002 wrote:
Ckorik wrote:

With rend - I don't think it would be higher as it's supposed to be (love the word usually here) one of the attacks dmg plus 1.5 str.

The statblock lists 1d6 (wrong due to the improved natural weapon) but with the extra point of Str, and using bite as a primary you get the following:

Raging stats:
Str 28, Dex 14, Con 24, Int 7, Wis 14, Cha 10

Melee Bite +19(1d6+9), 2 claws +20(1d8+11/19-20 plus 1d6 cold); rend (2 claws, 1d8+16 plus 1d6 cold)

I *think* that should make the entry correct.

That's what my bite and claws come to as well, but my rend is different:

1d8+13 plus 1d6 cold (if you decide you think Weapon Spec should apply [and I'm starting to], then this becomes 1d8+15).

TY - and I like the idea with Khalib - the Yeti's aren't really meant to be a huge challenge at this point - having the disguise popped - and confusion would give them a *chance* to RP the snowmen into allies - or at least non-aggressors. At the very least it would give a glimpse of a later enemy - have Khalib use a quickened DD to pop away once the ruse is up and let the party get a good 'look' at him before he does.

Mind you I'm assuming my PCs will have a true seeing up and instead of the helmet want to dispel the effect -

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns Subscriber -Magic#v5748eaic9rc5

Alchemist, Tentacle/Vestigial Arm: What does "extra attacks" mean for these discoveries?

It means "extra," as in "more than you would be able to make if you didn't have that discovery."

For example, if you're low-level alchemist who uses two-weapon fighting, you can normally make two attacks per round (one with each weapon). If you take the tentacle discovery, on your turn you can make
* two weapon attacks but no tentacle attack,
* a weapon attack with your left hand plus a secondary tentacle attack, or
* a weapon attack with your right hand plus a secondary tentacle attack.
At no time can you make a left hand weapon attack, a right hand weapon attack, and a tentacle attack on the same turn because the tentacle discovery says it "does not give the alchemist any extra attacks or actions per round." This language is calling out that the tentacle is not a standard natural weapon and doesn't follow the standard rules for using natural weapons (which would normally allow you to make the natural weapon attack in addition to your other attacks).

Likewise, if you instead took the vestigial arm discovery and put a weapon in that arm's hand, on your turn you can make
* a weapon attack with your left hand and one with your right hand,
* a weapon attack with your right hand and one with your vestigial arm, or
* a weapon attack with your left hand and one with your vestigial arm,
At no time can you make a left hand weapon attack, a right hand weapon attack, and a vestigial hand weapon attack on the same turn because the vestigial arm discovery says it "does not give the alchemist any extra attacks or actions per round."
The exact same restrictions would apply if your race had claws or you had some other ability to add claws to your limbs: the text of both discoveries says they do not give you any extra attacks per round, whether used as natural weapons, wielding manufactured weapons, or adding natural weapons to a limb that didn't originally have natural weapons.

Remember that these two discoveries do not have any level requirements, and therefore are not especially powerful; permanently adding additional attacks per round is beyond the scope of a discovery available to 2nd-level alchemists.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns Subscriber
Strife2002 wrote:
Ckorik wrote:

I believe page 328 - Abominable Snowmen needs adjustment:


Bite should read

Bite +14 (1d6+4 plus 1d6 cold)

Rend should be primary damage + Str 1.5 the rend ability should change to:

rend (2 claws, 1d8+12 plus 1d6 cold)

The original line didn't account for the extra strength - or the improved natural attack feat. The cold ability from the base Yeti indicates that it works with any natural or unarmed attack - and rend - the yeti statblock also uses the cold damage in the rend.

Ugh, one final thing, I promise. Bite attack WOULD NOT get the cold damage. The cold ability from the base yeti says OTHER CREATURES that use natural attacks or unarmed strikes against it take the cold damage, and then the yeti deals it when it uses claws and rend.

Also, regarding rend, the bonus to damage may be even higher. Depending on if we're supposed to account for their Weapon Specialization (claws) feat.

Ohhh good catch on the wording. I totally misread that. Although I'll go on the record as saying 'weird' :P

With rend - I don't think it would be higher as it's supposed to be (love the word usually here) one of the attacks dmg plus 1.5 str.

The statblock lists 1d6 (wrong due to the improved natural weapon) but with the extra point of Str, and using bite as a primary you get the following:

Raging stats:
Str 28, Dex 14, Con 24, Int 7, Wis 14, Cha 10

Melee Bite +19(1d6+9), 2 claws +20(1d8+11/19-20 plus 1d6 cold); rend (2 claws, 1d8+16 plus 1d6 cold)

I *think* that should make the entry correct.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns Subscriber
Are wrote:
Ckorik wrote:
Dragons get Bite + Str 1.5, Claw + Str, tail slap +Str 1.5, and wings + Str 1.5

Dragon wings get STR*0.5, not STR*1.5

Yup - my bad I even triple checked thank you!

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns Subscriber

Page 338 - Ghlorofaex

The attack line in the online document is still wrong - it should read:

Bite +29(6d6+16/19-20), 2 claws +29 (2d8+11), tail slap +24(2d8+16), 2 wings +24 (2d6+16)

interesting that the tail sweep under special attacks shows the correct damage.

Dragons get Bite + Str 1.5, Claw + Str, tail slap +Str 1.5, and wings + Str 1.5

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns Subscriber

I believe page 328 - Abominable Snowmen needs adjustment:

(not sure if this matters *but*)
Bite is a secondary attack - it has a -5 in it's to hit calculation so should be listed after the claws

(these are actual errors)

Bite should read

Bite +14 (1d6+4 plus 1d6 cold)

Rend should be primary damage + Str 1.5 the rend ability should change to:

rend (2 claws, 1d8+12 plus 1d6 cold)

The original line didn't account for the extra strength - or the improved natural attack feat. The cold ability from the base Yeti indicates that it works with any natural or unarmed attack - and rend - the yeti statblock also uses the cold damage in the rend.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns Subscriber

Page 554 of the CRB

Spell-Like Abilities (Sp): Spell-like abilities, as the name implies, are magical abilities that are very much like spells. Spell-like abilities are subject to spell resistance and dispel magic. They do not function in areas where magic is suppressed or negated (such as an antimagic field). Spell-like abilities can be dispelled and counterspelled as normal

*edit* that is to say - isn't this correct? That's the 4th printing CRB

*edit a second time*

After changing my search a bit apparently this was changed in errata - SLA's can not be counterspelled.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns Subscriber
Strife2002 wrote:

Actually for 8th level, the domain spell was whirlwind. It looks like they gave her the Weather domain and then applied the Ice domain changes over top of that, so the only domain spell that was correctly replaced was the 7th-level spell freezing sphere. If going strictly by-the-books, you'd want to replace whirlwind with horrid wilting.

Is that allowed? The Ice domain is a subdomain of water - not weather. Sleet Storm and Freezing sphere actually make better sense for her anyway considering.

If that's true she should be listed as a variant shouldn't she?

I saw the dual entries - but was too tired to figure out which one was correct (re wild empathy).

Using the monster rules making a nymph with druid levels increases their effective druid level - so the spell likes should be 15th as far as I can figure out - otherwise she wouldn't have the higher level spells at all.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns Subscriber

Page 319 - Svevenka has water walk listed as a level 3 druid spell - this spell is no longer on the druid spell list. Replace with sleet storm (a level 3 druid spell) She is listed as having 'call lightning' as a domain spell - this isn't a domain spell for water/ice - replace with water breathing.
Replaced Sleet Storm at level 4 with Ice Storm - the level 5 ice storm is a domain spell so I left that. Sleet Storm isn't on the water/ice domain list. the level 4 domain spell should be control water and it's already in the list (but not listed as domain).
6th. Control Winds is listed as a domain spell - but her domain is Ice (inherits from water) so this should be Cone of Cold
7th Freezing Sphere is a domain spell.
8th - no domain spell listed - so I replaced finger of death with Horrid Wilting (the correct domain spell)

I did double check the icy template that was applied - it doesn't modify the spell list.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns Subscriber

Thank you for this btw :)

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns Subscriber

Under Open locks:


The DC to open a lock depends on the lock's quality: simple (DC 20), average (DC 25), good (DC 30), or superior (DC 40).

If you do not have a set of thieves’ tools, these DCs increase by 10.

Under Thieves' tools:


This kit contains lockpicks and other tools you need to use the Disable Device skill. Without these tools, you must use improvised tools, and you take a –2 circumstance penalty on Disable Device checks.

Which is it - or is that supposed to be cumulative - and if so why not just include it in one place? It doesn't make sense to have a double penalty.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns Subscriber
Riding Bull wrote:

** spoiler omitted **

What Nobodys Home said - and....


Any Paladin would fall (in my game) - the sawmill isn't the only building around and setting a fire in a city (even if the mills are slightly separated) is a major bad idea (see Chicago).

I'd most likely make a note of shifting everyone's alignment to chaotic.

I'd add 2-3 wrath marks on the sin card.

The sawmill contains any evidence at all that could be used to prove their innocence. Without that they have made an enemy of Magnimar - Justice Ironbriar - the cult of Norberger (sp?) etc. I'd also have Xaneshia move from Magnimar on the news and setup a new base of operations with a keen interest on taking out the party - thus lots of ambushes and such assuming they make it out of Magnimar.

Burning things down is so lame - why adventure if you just want to nuke the world? My party burnt Thistletop (the fort) after they were done (they didn't find a good 1/4 of the stuff) and now that treasure is gone - they'd need weeks of hard labor to sift through the ruins to get back into the dungeon (which being Thassilonian didn't burn).

Heck I'd most likely make sure they heard rumors of the vast horde of magic that was found ruined in the ashes just so they realize how much they missed out on.

A mature approach I suppose would be to stop the session for a moment and make sure the party is notified pre-burn that if they have no issue with destroying treasure as a time saving tactic - you'll have no issue using sunder against them as intelligently has possible. After Magnimar you get to fight alot of ogres and giants - many of which are terrifyingly good and breaking the PCs equipment.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns Subscriber
magnuskn wrote:

Most of them are decently built, though, with some weird stuff which has to be there for "make the stats fit Valeros image" on top.

And you are pretty much off in regards to the Wizard/Seoni comparison. The stats are mostly right, I can only see some additional points put into Wisdom and Charisma, which are not the most important stats to a Wizard in the first place. That the character apparently has better equipment than Seoni also shouldn't be any surprise, Paizo threw ludicrous amounts of treasure at the players and mythic rules make crafting magic items easier by a ton, too.

I admitted as much about the build once I got more details. I think the difference in points must be a racial thing (as I said above).

As to the first part.... I think that's part of the problem - the encounters in AP's are designed for people who take Timmy feats - my current group does this - and I've played with people in the past where half the feat selection is Timmy feats. I personally like well built characters (and I don't mind ones that are sub-par - but built poorly bugs me) - Mythic makes it much easier to take Timmy feats and still be well built - perhaps that's the problem.

The other half of the problem is that combat gets crazy complex at higher levels - the power jump at level 12 is not easy to adjust for.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns Subscriber
Seannoss wrote:

Iconics are built off of 20 pts...also added to my confusion of PCs for APs.

Many of the enemies have a +15 to +20 or more on all saves. (At the start of book 4)

Most of the PCs have saves (with a buff or two) that can get to the same range or higher, and they have surges. Spell casters are very little challenge to high level foes...if they use spells that have saves.

So having DCs in the mid 20s or so is not impressive.

Doh - I always thought they were 15.

It's due to magnuskn's convo's with JJ that I know what they develop for. His back and forth opened up alot of 'inside the mind' type stuff.

* The APs are designed for 15 point buys
* The 'average' player is expected to have played through 1 AP and been with the game for 6 months to a year
* If your group is more experienced or has system mastery then you need to up the encounters to compensate.
* JJ plays a 20 point buy game with very experienced players and just adjusts on the fly for his own games
* Most customers (from Paizo's data) never run a campaign past level 12

He's suggested to magnuskn for his group to go in with possibly a 10 point buy and apply the advanced template twice to each monster - I dunno how that would work out, but if you feel underwhelmed it's really up to you to convince your GM to either play the enemies up with better tactics - or to make them tougher. Just remember the GM can kill a PC if they want at whim - it's not always easy to figure out what is 'fun' for the players and what is a drag.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns Subscriber
Seannoss wrote:

How the PCs got higher stats does matter, as this is a mythic campaign and by the rules mythic characters have higher stats. At tier 4 a PC has two +2 stat buffs, that explains the higher casting stat by 4, which is 4 higher and not the 2 you suggested. Without equipment lower the wizards Int and Wis by 4 each. The wizard class adds 3 to Con (or any physical attribute)

Beginning stats for this character would be
St 10 Dx 14 Cn 13 In 18 Ws 12 Ch 10 (as I said this was too high by 2 pts)

I believe that is a 20 pt build, and is higher than APs suggest but is in line with the iconics. My fault, I didn't know baselines when starting this campaign.

But I see several forums that would state this build is weak because it didn't start with a 20 stat.

And honestly spell DCs don't matter. All the PCs and most of the enemy can make any save that is required of them.

2 higher - I forgot mythic was 2 points per 'bump' - the thing I was missing was the wizard ability - that's a school thing right - er transmutation I think?

Your build (all things considered) isn't too far off of the iconic - 3 build points as far as I can tell. I'm guessing your race makes the difference with the missing 2 build points, as Seoni is a 15 point human.

DC's really don't matter to you at all? You never have a monster fail a save? That's more worrying to me than anything else I've read.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns Subscriber
magnuskn wrote:
Kain Darkwind wrote:
It doesn't matter why your character is higher than the iconic build, just that your character is. The iconic is the baseline. If you exceed that baseline, you shouldn't be surprised at the lesser challenge.
Oh, BS. The iconics are built on the basis of their character pictures as done by Wayne Reynolds. They never have been touted as some sort of baseline against which player characters have to be measured and you just pulled that right out of your tuchas.

That's BS. James Jacobs has said over and over the AP's are built with a 15 point buy standard in mind and the Iconics are meant to represent average PC's. I've seen him reply to you directly that it's *exactly* how they balance the published materials and that you will need to adjust if you aren't happy with how it's published.

I don't have an issue with people running super powered campaigns - but yeah when you run characters that are more powerful than the average - expect to either need to buff things up and adjust the tactics or be disappointed with the challenge level. Otherwise it's like running Doom and turning 'godmode' on then complaining because you didn't really find any hard spots.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns Subscriber
Seannoss wrote:

Umm...and the wizard's prime stat is 4 higher because of mythic points. The Wis is 4 higher because of an item given out by the AP. Con is 3 higher because of enhancement school ability. So that is not 12 pts, or I don't think so... it is early and I'm not finished with my coffee yet.

Edit: However, you are right to a point. Looking over stats I think it is 2 pts over, so Cha should probably be a 10. Doesn't change much.

Ok stats for Seoni *without* items on:

Str 10, Dex 14, Con 12, Int 10, Wis 14, Cha 20

Your stats:

Str 10, Dex 14, Con 14(17), Int 24(28), Wis 12(16), Cha 12

So is the (28) because of an item or because of mythic or both? by looking I can't tell.

what are your stats without mythic and items.

I see 2 points more in Con Seoni has 2 points more in Wis so that's a wash. Points 11 and 12 in your non casting stat = 3 build points. When I see someone put down a stat in the form 24(28) the (28) is supposed to mean modified - comparing modified builds you get:

Seoni: Str 10, Dex 16, Con 12, Int 10, Wis 14, Cha 24
You: Str 10 Dex 14 Con 17 Int 28 Wis 16 Cha 12

Your build has a net gain of 10 more stat points - Now *how* you got them really doesn't matter at this point - the GM gave them to you - At least up to Tier 5 you only get 2 more ability points than any other time.

So looking at it - from the numbers you have 8 more ability points that didn't come from the mythic rules - over our 'standard' npc. 8 ability points is unreal - it's the difference between Legolas and a standard orc. The point is - if your GM isn't buffing the encounters for your optimization then the encounters are going to feel milqtoast.

As to your casting stat - you have +2 to all spell DCs (of all schools) that the stock PC doesn't have - that's like getting spell focus and greater spell focus in every school for free. That's huge.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns Subscriber
Seannoss wrote:

@Peter Stewart:

Here's the wizard in my campaign...nothing special I'm guessing from the posts. In fast she compares well to 12th lvl Seoni.
12th lvl enhancement, 4th tier archmage

Str 10, Dex 14, Con 14(17), Int 24(28), Wis 12(16), Chr 12

spell focus/tattoo: trans, spell spec/greater: haste, craft arms/wonderous items, spell pen, empower spell, extra traits

mythic: wild surge, harmonious mage, abundant casting, crafting mastery, component freedom(m), enduring armor, mythic spell lore

major items: robe of archmagi, headband +4 int/wis, 3 lesser meta rods.
almost all of those provided by the AP

I don't consider this an outlaying character; other than the player didn't pick feats randomly like some pregens do.

Str 10, Dex 16, Con 12, Int 10, Wis 14, Cha 24

Base Atk +6; CMB +6; CMD 25

Feats Alertness, Combat Casting, Dodge, Eschew Materials, Extend Spell, Greater Spell Focus (evocation), Improved Initiative, Quicken Spell, Spell Focus (evocation), Toughness

Skills Bluff +22, Climb +3, Knowledge (planes) +15, Perception +4, Sense Motive +4, Spellcraft +15

Languages Common, Varisian

SQ arcane bond (familiar, blue-tailed skink named Dragon), bloodline arcana (+1 DC for metamagic spells that increase spell level), metamagic adept (3/day), new arcana

Combat Gear potions of cure moderate wounds (3), scroll of fly, scroll of protection from energy, wand of magic missile (CL 7th, 32 charges); Other Gear dagger, quarterstaff, amulet of natural armor +4, belt of incredible dexterity +2, cloak of resistance +3, dusty rose prism ioun stone, headband of alluring charisma +4, ring of counterspells (contains magic missile), ring of protection +4, backpack, trail rations (4), granite and diamond dust worth 250 gp, 734 g

Seoni has a 24 CHA *with* a +4 headband on.

That's not a base 24.

You are (in terms of build points) about 12 points more 'optimised' than the base Seoni - so yeah - that's a huge difference in power.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns Subscriber

Considering he's doing 'Magic' I'd suggest trying out the card game as well - no studies or anything to go by but I can't help but imagine there is a large overlap between people who enjoy card games like magic and people who would enjoy the pathfinder card game.

And that's just another vector to get people interested in the 'full monty' experience.

*edit* not sure if your store would be up to this - but another way to possibly crack interest is to have a store copy of the card game or BB and let people check it out (or even give it a try if you have a play area) while they are in the store.

I've ended up buying some boardgames due to my FGS having a collection of games for 'loan'

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns Subscriber
Scott Wilhelm wrote:
but that is a badly designed magic item.

To be fair - I think some of these were designed before the change (errata) to the rules that removed the 'must have a weapon of equivalent magical bonus to sunder'

After that change any nonmagical adamantine weapon became better than anything non-adamantine for sundering.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns Subscriber
Dr Grecko wrote:
thejeff wrote:
That seems a bit extreme to me. No spellcraft in dim light?

That's what the rules say anyway. Vision and Light

PRD wrote:
In an area of dim light, a character can see somewhat

Of course that varies depending on race. Darkvision changes the variables, and probably low-light.. But, since spellcraft requires you to see "clearly", dim light is clearly no-no for spellcraft for some races.


Here's another interesting thought. Since disbelieving an illusion still keeps a translucent out-line. One could potentially cast an illusion of a wall, that if identified via spellcraft, is now a translucent wall. (ie. allowing light, but not detailed images, to pass through)

With a now translucent wall between you, you are now free to cast without fear of your spell being identified.

*edit - removed the extra "some" in the prd quote.

Well that would give some interesting options to the mix - fog cloud to hide your casting - or even a smokestick at low levels. I don't think the illusion works quite that way though - the 'translucent outine' to me meant the lines themselves were translucent - like a wireframe made of semi-see through lines - I wouldn't expect the middle to block line of sight.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns Subscriber
N N 959 wrote:

ckorik wrote:
A spell without a somatic component can't be seen when cast - perhaps heard - but spellcraft doesn't allow a check on vocal spells. I will need to be careful of checking the spell components when doing this type of check.
Lie much?

No - the statement stands - when you look up what somatic means and have the epiphany that it doesn't mean 'material component' perhaps you will understand.

No where have I ever once talked about material components.

*edit* - definition - from the rules.

Somatic (S)

A somatic component is a measured and precise movement of the hand. You must have at least one hand free to provide a somatic component.

- material components are denoted by the following:

Material (M)

A material component consists of one or more physical substances or objects that are annihilated by the spell energies in the casting process. Unless a cost is given for a material component, the cost is negligible. Don't bother to keep track of material components with negligible cost. Assume you have all you need as long as you have your spell component pouch.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns Subscriber
N N 959 wrote:
What I am hostile to is GMs who insist on interpreting the rules to screw over players. Do you think that makes for a better game? What I am hostile to is GMs who have one set of rules for players and ignore those rules as they metagame the NPCs. If you want to house-rule the game into stupidity, be my guest. But don't try and do it under the auspices of RAW.

Your 1 point in spellcraft trick doesn't work by RAW except for low level spells that you are right next to. The shadow evocation you originally listed is a level 5 spell.

15+5 = 20 = so if you were within 10 feet of the caster with 1 point in spellcraft (assuming no other mods) you have to roll a nat 20 to identify the spell.

N N 959 wrote:
Some GMs hate the idea that 1 rank in Spellcraft means you can ID any spell that you make the roll on, but that's the rule.

Who is trying to metagame using RAW here?

N N 959 wrote:

The worst rationale for changing the rules is it "makes sense". The game is filled with things that don't make sense. If the entire game had to "make sense" it would be unplayable. As silly or as implausible as the rules may seem to any individual, the rules are there for a reason: they facilitate an experience.

Nevermind - I see who is trying to use RAW for an advantage at no cost - which is the only case I'd ever bother to get picky with a player over the modifiers. Which I've stated - at least twice in this very thread.

N N 959 wrote:

In this case the RAW is clear. Presence or absence of material components has no effect on IDing per spellcraft. Ask yourself why the developers went that route? Clearly they knew Still/Silent Spell and Eschew Materials were options for affecting Spellcraft and they provide one single penalty. Again, ask yourself why.

That's easy - they changed the rules from 3.5 specifically to allow counter spelling SLA's which wasn't possible with the previous rules.

N N 959 wrote:

Obviously I'm using your post as a basis for a general statement. I really don't care what you do in your personal game nor do I have any issue with you on any personal level.

You seem overly hostile over the entire case - no one is talking about material components - the debate is if the phrase in spellcraft for making the check "must be able to clearly see the spell as it is being cast" means sight only. It doesn't say you must be able to hear the spell - it doesn't say you must be able to smell the spell or identify components - only that you must see the spell. It's pretty obvious from the other thread where the lead designer piped in that the change made things open to gm interpretation - i.e. the rules are not very clear - and he uses a +4 modifier for each meta applied (for silent and still) - that's a pretty reasonable ruling.

I'd be much harsher (as I've said before) at my table if someone tried to metagame a 1 spellcraft skill character though - and if someone want's to cheese the rules that way then I have a choice of banning it - changing the rules - or using the rules to determine just how hard it is to identify a spell being cast - it just so happens the rules are there - use the same modifiers as perception. And yeah - I'd have no problem applying distracted for an entire host of reasons - otherwise I'll have the raging barbarian in combat with 3 enemies trying to game the rules - if someone wants to play a computer game or a card game they are at the other table. Luckily this has *never* come up or been an issue with the people I play with - it's more about the fun than anything else.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns Subscriber

The spell "Guards and Wards" has the following effect:

Confusion: Where there are choices in direction- such as a corridor intersection or side passage- a minor confusion-type effect functions so as to make it 50% probable that intruders believe they are going in the opposite direction from the one they actually chose. This is a mind-affecting effect. Saving Throw: none. Spell Resistance: yes.

How would you go about describing this to the players - and or running it in this day of drawn out maps and such - I'm curious because I was trying to figure out what to do with this mechanic - or if it would be a neat 'one time thing' but grow totally obnoxious to play out at the table.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns Subscriber

From the same thread JB posted how he handles it in his own games:

"The rules are silent on this issue, meaning that it is really up to your GM. I would, personally, rule that each missing component adds +4 to the DC to identify the spell. There are, after all some tell tale markers, even if all of the components are removed. If they are all removed, I might rule it impossible to ID before the effect occurs, but it depends on the circumstances."

Makes sense to me.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns Subscriber

After reading through it RD - I'd say those properties don't show up - they aren't active without very specific circumstances and seem to be more a property of the rune itself and how it has uses for some types of magic.

Think of the rune as an 'intimate connection' during a scry - a wizard with a lock of your hair to use doesn't make that lock of hair magical.

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

Ohhh my group just had the first foray into the adventure today.

So far they have navigated down into the tomb - and a few trap - fighting off the child dolls. (they are all first time players so it is going really slow - but they had a great time so far)

Most deadly thing encountered so far? 60' pit and a flubbed climb roll (using a rope mind you - ended up with a 3 total). Fall - took damage to -con - gave the party a few seconds to save her - luckily the fighter who was second down had a potion of cure light on him - and stabilized the poor bard until the rest of the party could make it down.

Oddest question I was asked - how much does that chest weigh... I had no idea so I winged it at 25 lbs. Not bad so far it's been interesting running complete newbies - they named their party... 'dungeon seekers' :)

Ooohh and hats off to Jim Groves for interesting descriptions - the first room with the torch holders - and the 'effect' that happens - had 4 torches lit in all the corners with a big 'what's happening' moment - I think 'ancient tomb like a pyramid' really has players expecting the worst!

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

If you want to play it up make them potions that used Honey - Honey found in the tombs of ancient Egypt was still good even after thousands of years - that's one of the things they'd use to preserve stuff back then.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns Subscriber

I'll apologize I think I was wrong - this was hashed out some time ago here:

In essence - you never have to roll to maintain on the first round of a grapple - regardless of your other attacks - and you have to use a standard (or move with greater grapple) on second/third/etc. rounds so no full attacks (or FoB) on those.

After reading through that thread it makes a solid case for the entire thing.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns Subscriber
N N 959 wrote:
Ckorik wrote:

Spellcraft DC to identify a spell = 15+ spell level + modifiers... Distracted = +5 (for skill checks unless you have a feat combat is always distracting) Distance = +1 per 10 feet

I've never once seen a "distracted" modifier applied to a Spellcraft in normal combat. Nor should it. There's nothing in the rules that says someone who cast magic isn't obvious as doing so. In fact, neither Silent Spell, Still Spell, or Eschew Materials indicate any modifier to a Spellcraft check. So as long as I have line of sight and you cast as spell, I can try and identify it.

Sure, range modifies apply. But you're not going to sell me on distracted. If one of my enemies starts casting spells, you can bet your sweet bippy that ALL of my character with Spellcraft are going to take notice. Now, maybe you're caught in a grapple, it might apply. But magic is a big deal and people are going to pay attention in battle.

Add to that fact, the game basically requires that all sides know the actions that each side is taking. I've seen GMs try and play games with facing and what you can see, and it's a load of BS. It's a game. When someone across the room shoots a bow, everyone gets to know what...NPCs and PCs. Is it a prefect reflection of reality? Probably not, but it's part of how the game works. Quit trying to screw players over on their skill checks.

No spellcraft specifically has modifiers that affect the roll. It's intentionally supposed to be harder depending on the visible factors to the target. If you are in combat (with range of another creature) and you are actually fighting I'd rule distracted. Assuming you are not within range I'd rule not distracted. And I never said silent or still spell gave a modifier to a spellcraft check - I said I'd actually allow a check against an invisible opponent (RAW you can't) if the spell wasn't silent (it's actually a -20 to the check but depending on the skill value and the spell level it's still a chance).

*but* - thank you for that writeup - you convinced me still spell doesn't allow a spellcraft check (even if it has a vocal component) - the check is *only* if you can see the spell being cast. A spell without a somatic component can't be seen when cast - perhaps heard - but spellcraft doesn't allow a check on vocal spells. I will need to be careful of checking the spell components when doing this type of check.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns Subscriber

Page 2 of the chart (I use the chart - it's the awesomesauce).

A grapple check is *always* a combat maneuver.

You'll see page 2 - option 3 'maintain the grapple' - it's a CMB grapple check - what you are trying to do is similar to many variation of what people do with the maneuver master archtype - it's one of the very few ways to use grapple and full attack.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns Subscriber
Azten wrote:

Don't forget you have to be able to clearly see the spell being cast too. If they're invisible you don't get the check.

There is a perception neg for invisible (it's either +10 or 15 to the check) - I'd still allow a check if the spell isn't silent.

As to the Int bonus and such - yes a Wizard is going to be *very* good at those rolls - the 'only need a 1' seemed to imply that any character with a 1 in spellcraft could potentially identify almost any spell. When it's just the Wizard making the rolls (personally) I don't get all picky about modifiers. If someone tried to use that 'trick' on a Barbarian I'd make sure it didn't work as much as I could - I say that and re-reading it seems a bit harsh - let me add if the Barb player had a positive Int bonus - put effort into a backstory about being interested in spells - etc. I'd most likely be ok with it - but by level three someone trying to game the system with a single point in spellcraft will make me play the 'lets add the modifiers in' card - at least until they decided to put more points (and invest in the skill) or stopped trying to play rules games.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns Subscriber

Flurry (full round action)
first attack trip (if it succeeds) ki throw
swift action grapple (if it succeeds)
second attack grapple - pin (as part of maneuver master)


Remember to use all the bonuses and such to each type of movement.

Assuming a flurry of (lets say) +7/+7/+2/+2

Trip would be CMB
1st Grapple would be CMB

Now you are grappled - you get a +5 on the check to maintain the grapple - and take a -2 on your attacks (except those made to keep the grapple)

Second attack is replaced by the grapple so it would be CMB+5

Assuming it works your target is pinned.

You still have two attacks - those are made at -2

So your last two attacks are +0/+0 (still better off on *most* creatures as they loose their dex bonus to AC and a -4 armor class).

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns Subscriber
N N 959 wrote:

Some GMs hate the idea that 1 rank in Spellcraft means you can ID any spell that you make the roll on, but that's the rule.

I don't see how that's possible.

Spellcraft DC to identify a spell = 15+ spell level + modifiers... Distracted = +5 (for skill checks unless you have a feat combat is always distracting) Distance = +1 per 10 feet

If you are within 10 feet of the caster hopefully you have better options - but even still it's a 15+5+1 for a level 1 spell = 21. I guess a 1 rank in spellcraft lets you roll a 20 to identify a level 1 spell but that's about it.

Does your GM not read the last part about spellcraft checks using the same modifiers as perception for identifying a spell rolls?

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns Subscriber

I know there are 4 bonus fighter feats - not counting command undead - I think I mis-applied the toughness feat. Perhaps I'm missing something but I'll need to go over my notes.

HP - 6d8(30)+6d10+(33)+66 = 129.

Perhaps I'm doing it wrong? Not sure -

The DR I missed - thank you for pointing that out. Same with the natural armor - I didn't realize it was intended to supersede the base creature.

As to the 'abilities that always apply' - I know that's what is said - I just find that isn't *always* the case. Sometimes they are applied - sometimes they aren't - sometimes (like the giant a room or two prior) they have power attack applied but only half way - this particular guy is built with alot of bonus types - so that's the reason I was re-working him to begin win (because when I can't make sense of it - that's the only way to figure out if it's broken or correct) - in many other creatures a spell being active (such as shield or heroism) is noted - but not every time - a note in the stat block saying 'applied' or consistency would help here. Particularly unusual bonuses especially.

I'll check my feats again when I have a chance - but appreciate the other information - I will say this - deconstructing monsters has taught me quite a bit about the rules and such! :) /cheers

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns Subscriber

Headless lord...

I still think this is wrong (with the updates applied as per earlier).

I get - he has 2 too many feats or I'm not sure where he gets them from,
his HPS are low (should be 129 by my calcs) both minor.

He should have DR 5/magic (not DR 10/magic)

He can also have a Gauntlet attack (if disarmed) from his full plate:

Gauntlet (from armor) +20/+15 1d4+11

I also get his AC at 33/11(touch)/31(flat footed)

10 + 10(armor) + 12(natural) + 2(dex) -1(size)

The stats he has all include the desicration aura ability he has, which isn't really mentioned.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns Subscriber

Well if you want to stop treating it like a video game - make sure they fail (not as in kill them - although you should let them die if the dice roll bad).

What I mean really is - like have you setup the goblin under the floor encounter yet?

If not - it's time to run it - the wife shows up with her kids in tow - baby on the arm - hardly able to talk - she begs for help. They go to help.

Play up the Dad - have him be alive when you show up - he shows them where the hole is and dies *in front of them*.

After have the woman break down on the PC's - no money - no place to stay - kids to support. Get them to *care*

Video games can't do this. Setup some more situations in terms of some stuff they can't just collect and hand in - perhaps a some things where they have to make a real choice that has no good results - don't overdo it but if your players need to get involved you need to up the steaks and get them to start realizing that there isn't an auto-win condition - once they bite you can back down from the 'drama and tragedy' stuff and get back to the main story.

My two cents.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns Subscriber

Sean - to avoid experimentation - did you find a brand or type of marker/color that worked better for you?

Did you just use acrylic paint? Just curious.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns Subscriber

This entire thread is just a reminder that:

* No two people have exactly the same definitions of what is lawful and good - while there are areas of overlap that most can agree on there are large areas where people disagree

* When applying lawful and good to the game using a hard mechanic like the Paladin - very very few can accept the idea of a morality that exists outside of their *present day* location and circumstances. (using the 'prostitution discussion' above - there are areas of the world where it's legal, licensed, not a stigma, and not treated with scorn - there are religions that feel the same - applying local laws, customs and or your own religious views onto the subject (while fine - don't cross lines your game you are uncomfortable with) - causes problems when the game obviously has the ability to accommodate other viewpoints that don't brand things like that as lawless or evil)

* Unless you talk to your game master ahead of time and feel *very* comfortable - or play in PFS where the flavor is tossed for pure mechanics - the Paladin as a class is just a trap for table drama. If the two people having the disagreement tried to play together - without the understanding it would lead to bad feelings as they consider the concept so radically different.

* Last point is - an addendum to the previous one - a secondary trap for the Paladin class is the presumption that the code is fertile ground for story focus. Again another thing that two people can have very different ideas about - many players are attracted to the Paladin class because they want to be righteous boot-kickers of goodness. They didn't pick it thinking that they were going to be subjected to moral traps and such - while those elements of the game can be fun - it really depends on the player - if they just want to be the shining knight and aren't ready for that kind of game - it ruins the experience. On the other hand someone wanting to play the nuance would be equally disappointed if that aspect were ignored. Something to discuss with your game master before rolling the character.

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

Bases with numbers or different colors would be awesome. A 'second base' that can fit under the existing to denote spell effects could be welcome as well.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns Subscriber

Try running her as the original encounter - note the addition of spells (fly, haste, silence are all biggies here) and the tactics which will created many many TPK's as written - I'm sure a mythic party would have a good time working at taking her out.


Xanesha CR 10
XP 9,600
Female Lamia Matriarch Rogue 1/Sorcerer 1
CE Large monstrous humanoid (shapechanger)
Init +7; Senses darkvision 60 ft., low-light vision; Perception +2
AC 25, touch 16, flat-footed 18 (+1 armor, +7 Dex, -1 size, +8 natural)
hp 141 (12d10+1d8+1d6+67)
Fort +9, Ref +18, Will +13; +4 vs. visual effects, +2 resistance bonus vs. poison
Immune mind-affecting effects; SR 19
Speed 40 ft., climb 40 ft., swim 40 ft.
Melee impaler of thorns +17/+12/+7 (1d8+8/×3)
Space 10 ft.; Reach 5 ft.
Special Attacks bloodline arcana: fey, sneak attack +1d6, wisdom drain
Spell-Like Abilities (CL 12th; concentration +19)
. . At will—charm monster (DC 21), ventriloquism (DC 18)
. . 5/day—laughing touch
. . 3/day—deep slumber (DC 20), dream, major image (DC 20), mirror image, suggestion (DC 20)
Sorcerer Spells Known (CL 7th; concentration +9):
3rd (4/day)—fly, haste
2nd (7/day)—invisibility, scorching ray, silence (DC 14)
1st (7/day)—cure light wounds, divine favor, mage armor, magic missile, shield
0 (at will)—acid splash, dancing lights, daze (DC 14), detect magic, ghost sound (DC 12), mage hand, mending
Before Combat If she realizes the PCs are near (as is the case if the faceless stalkers drop a bell), Xanesha casts fly, mage armor, and shield on herself. If she has a chance just prior to combat (as is the case if she hears the PCs approaching her lair) she also casts mirror image, haste, and invisibility, and then silence on a timber near the entrance to her lair. These effects are incorporated into her stats.
During Combat Xanesha activates her Sihedron medallion’s false life ability and casts divine favor (enhanced by Silent Spell if necessary) on the first round of combat. If she’s still invisible, she casts a major image to make an illusory flying demon appear in a cloud of smoke that then begins to circle the top of the tower. On round three, hopefully as the PCs are distracted, she attempts to petrify a PC near the edge using her mask; this, of course, makes her visible. After this attack, she prefers to fight in melee. She may try to topple a petrified PC off the edge to smash into fragments on the ground 160 feet below. If reduced to less than 60 hit points, she flies out into the sky around the tower to continue the fight using her spells.
Morale Xanesha attempts to flee Magnimar, abandoning her plot and the scroll hidden in her nest, if she’s reduced to 20 hit points or less. If she escapes, she cuts ties with her kin and Mokmurian, afraid of the punishment for failure. She grows obsessed with the PCs, seeing their capture as the only way she can redeem herself to Mokmurian—in this case, she becomes a recurring villain who might ally with any number of foes the PCs find themselves up against in the next adventure.
Str 20, Dex 25, Con 19, Int 18, Wis 14, Cha 15
Base Atk +12; CMB +18; CMD 35 (can't be tripped)
Feats Combat Casting, Combat Reflexes, Eschew Materials, Extend Spell, Improved Critical (spear), Power Attack, Silent Spell, Vital Strike
Skills Acrobatics +27 (+31 jump, +31 when jumping), Bluff +22, Climb +29, Diplomacy +14, Knowledge (arcana) +20, Knowledge (local) +20, Sense Motive +18, Spellcraft +20, Swim +29; Racial Modifiers +4 Acrobatics, +4 Acrobatics when jumping, +4 Bluff
Languages Abyssal, Common, Draconic, Thassilonian
SQ bloodlines (fey), change shape, trapfinding +1, undersized weapons
Combat Gear medusa mask; Other Gear impaler of thorns, sihedron medallion, snakeskin tunic
Special Abilities
Bloodline Arcana: Fey (Ex) +2 to save DCs from spells of the Compulsion subschool.
Change Shape (fixed Medium humanoid form, alter self) (Su) You can change your form.
Climbing (40 feet) You have a Climb speed.
Combat Casting +4 to Concentration checks to cast while on the defensive.
Combat Reflexes (8 AoO/round) Can make extra attacks of opportunity/rd, and even when flat-footed.
Darkvision (60 feet) You can see in the dark (black and white vision only).
Eschew Materials Cast spells without materials, if component cost is 1 gp or less.
Extend Spell Spell duration lasts twice as normal. +1 Level.
Fey +2 to save DCs from spells of the Compulsion subschool.
Immunity to Mind-Affecting effects You are immune to Mind-Affecting effects.
Impaler of Thorns (1/day) On hit creatures in 30 ft take -2 to att/dam/saves/ability & skill checks for 6 min (DC16 Will neg)
Laughing Touch (5/day) (Su) Melee touch attack leaves target able to take only move actions.
Low-Light Vision See twice as far as a human in low light, distinguishing color and detail.
Medusa mask (1/day) +4 save vs. visual effects, petrify 1/day
Power Attack -4/+8 You can subtract from your attack roll to add to your damage.
Sihedron Medallion Allows a runelord to scry on you and speak to you.
Silent Spell Cast a spell with no verbal components. +1 Level.
Snakeskin tunic +2 save vs. poison
Sneak Attack +1d6 +1d6 damage if you flank your target or your target is flat-footed.
Spell Resistance (19) You have Spell Resistance.
Swimming (40 feet) You have a Swim speed.
Trapfinding +1 Gain a bonus to find or disable traps, including magical ones.
Vital Strike Standard action: x2 weapon damage dice.
Wisdom Drain (DC 18) (Su) A lamia matriarch drains 1d4 points of Wisdom each time she hits with her melee touch attack. The first time each round that she strikes a foe with a melee weapon, she also drains 1 point of Wisdom. A DC 21 Will save negates the Wisdom drain. Unlike

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

I have a better option NobodysHome.

Personally regardless of if my party uses DD/BE tactics I'm putting this on the EYE and tying it to some kind of nasty single character trap type thing.

The nice thing about this - is that you get a save - if you make the save you just don't teleport.

NOW - there is a counter to this - spellbane/wish/etc. specifically against teleport trap. - but - that's smart play and if things go down that way I'd enjoy having the wizards smug smile crumble if they do it.

I think the trap is a better spell than dimension lock personally - and abjuration isn't one of his opposed schools. The bonus is that you can key it to a password so it doesn't stop big K's DD's.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns Subscriber

Again - in the great sunder thread we had a author pipe in and note that the 'rules' given to content authors indicate to *avoid* using the attack action language if at all possible.

Perhaps the 'intent' was there - perhaps it was an oversight (Paizo admits to making mistakes - look at the NPC codex age category for Assimars Tieflings - years of a set rule oopsed in a new book) - it happens. It's not like it was a feat that did nothing.

Once the CRB was published the question came up - the used the *same* explanation used in 3.5 as a basis and then proceeded to follow an internal publishing rule of avoiding the language. That tells me it was a mistake - major? No. Just bad wording for something that could have used *fewer* words and eliminate confusion.

All the above says it is a holdover from 3.5 - eliminating the 'attack action' wording doesn't hurt the feat - it would however make it clear to the vast majority of players that for 14 years now mostly fail to spot the difference between 'the attack action' and 'the full attack action'. A distinction that had to be clarified over and over again with many people not understanding = failure to have clear rules = failure of the rule itself = bad design. Hardly damning considering 99% of the rules are fine - there are some bad apples though.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns Subscriber
Rynjin wrote:

Q: "Can Vital Strike be combined with-"

A: "No."

Ckorik wrote:
Vital Strike ... It's actually a really good feat for any martial until level 6
Too bad it has a BaB +6 requirement.

Irony is not a type of ore :)

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns Subscriber

Reading your timeline - and going over the adventure again...

The adventure gives the PC's the clues "Perhaps he will attack as soon as months end"

Your timeline has the giant army attacking in as little as a week.

The adventure also assumes you travel overland to the fortress - 15 days if pushing it - without time for encounter (which you are supposed to throw in as well).

Again your timeline seems way too aggressive. At least using the published material - it would be 2-4 weeks at the earliest the giants set out from the fortress. The first stop would be Sandpoint - and even giving giants a 3-1 speed advantage (which they don't have in the rules) - it would still be another week for them to make it to Sandpoint.

Given that armies always go slower - they should actually take about 3-4 *more* weeks to reach Sandpoint.

So really if you are dead set on the idea a real life timeline would be 5-8 weeks for the army to hit Sandpoint.

That seems like your players could craft all they want - and um just have *another* raid on Sandpoint type encounter.

(as a player I'd find doing the same thing twice boring just FYI).

The bigger question is - and this is always the case when the GM and players are at odds - why are your players forcing a break - if they really feel they need one perhaps now is the time to go over 'crafting on the move' rules (giving them a reason to use the overland routes). The players may just need some downtime - and unlike many that post about Runelords I haven't seen anything in the adventures that pushes things along at a breakneck pace - in fact given the start in fall and the fact that book 3 happens in the spring I figure there is most likely a good month or two between books 2 and 3 - This is only reinforced by the raid on Sandpoint and such being depicted as happening in the summer - the seasons in the literature don't match up with a forced march (which would have them starting book 3 in the middle of winter - a bad time for the rains to never stop in Turtleback). Given that it's February in your timeline I'd expect that the giants don't want to start a march on war until after the spring season (for realism anyway - foot marched armies traveled with the weather).

I couldn't find anything other than distances (and that the Frost Giants were not at the camp even after the expected 2-3 weeks it takes for the PC's to show up) that shows how soon this army is going to move.

Actually given the objective is to take revenge on the scribbler - without the evidence from the Sandpoint raid - I'd expect another group (small) sent out to verify the Sandpoint infor - that's 2-3 weeks *to* Sandpoint and 2-3 weeks back and then time to validate the info (however long that magical ritual takes). That at least would be me pushing things as fast as I could according to the story written.

But it's your game.

Question 1: How hard do I hit them with the hint hammer? i.e. in our next session do I let more hints drop? Or leave things as is and let events play out as they will?

I'd feel free to give any priest PC's warning.

Question 2: Assuming that they do take the time off to make magic items, does my current timeline & plan is looking like this, but am I missing anything? Should I do anything differently? Also I know the PC’s are chaos incarnate and will throw things off, but… yeah. That army is quite the juggernaut that’ll take a LOT of work to throw off.

If the players stopped the raid before it made it back to Jorgenfist - then the evidence that launches the army at Sandpoint hasn't been found. That evidence has to be found and analyzed before the army would move - the adventure as written assumes 2-3 weeks later the frost giants are not there yet (at the camp) - your timeline is way to aggressive based on what's happening as written.

Quesiton 3: Am I being to much of an ass here? This has the potential for some pretty epic rewards with mythic power. But could it also end the campaign. Advice is deeply appreciated!

I find if you think you are being an ass at all you expect your players to be upset about the whole thing - that's usually a good time to back down and realize that making scenarios to punish your players will get you a broken group (seen it happen too many times sadly). Remember - the point of the game is to have fun.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns Subscriber

Vital Strike is a great feat for monsters. It's actually a really good feat for any martial until level 6 - even then it's not bad until you spend more time trying to setup full attacks than worrying about single attack damage.

As to the wording - it's not worth arguing about - the official ruling is you can't use it with anything else.

The 'attack action' as a standard action is only used around 3 times all the material available rules wise in pathfinder - (I could be wrong but in the great sunder thread someone did a search it was very low).

The wording itself is a holdover from 3.5 that needed official clarification in that system to make clear (because it's not) - so the easiest thing to do is either make a ruling that you can use it once in an attack chain (which would make the feat pretty much a must have - but not really overpowered in my opinion) or pretend the wording is like *every other feat that uses a standard action*.

IE - Change this: "When you use the attack action, you can make one attack at your highest base attack bonus that deals additional damage"

To this: "As a standard action, make a single attack that deals additional damage"

If you change the wording not only will it keep your brain from hurting - but it reads like the rest of the rules at the same time - bonus!

1 to 50 of 270 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.