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. 505 posts. 1 review. No lists. No wishlists. 2 Pathfinder Society characters.


RSS

1 to 50 of 505 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns Subscriber
Queen Moragan wrote:
If you're going to add spell casting time to initiative, then you should add weapon speed factors to initiative, and armor check penalties to initiative, and have multiple attacks occur later in the initiative order. Just to be fair.

I'm not trying to be fair - I was curious if anyone had tried this - the intent of this type of rule would be a (very slight) nerf to casters - which would allow extra reaction time to try and disrupt a spell being cast.

In many (most) cases of combat I've run I expect this wouldn't really change much - however it would open up new tactics and make casting slightly more dangerous.

A side effect of this would be limiting a casters movement on the field (to move before cast) - which would also change tactics.

Casters still alter reality and in general have 'combat ends' options - but it would open the door to more chances at disruption - and make higher level spells be more dangerous to cast. There is a definite meta-game change that would take place and it would shift some balance of power to melee (more so the higher level everyone is - which is where the balance swings badly towards casters).

Or are you suggesting melee are balanced against casters level 10+ ?


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns Subscriber

Given the recent 'ring of invisibility' threads I've been referencing my old 1st edition DMG quite a bit lately...

One thing that (I had forgotten) stuck out at me was the way spellcasting used to be handled - Casting a spell was never something completed on a wizards own initiative - they would begin the spell and then had to spend time casting it.

To keep people from having to pull out old books to reference here is the gist of it.

1st edition broke down time as thus:

Turn = 10 rounds
Round = 1 minute
Segment = 6 seconds.

There were 10 segments to a round - 10 rounds to a turn.

How it broke down for spellcasting (simplified) was as such:

Caster init = start casting, add cast time = segment spell is cast.

Melee init = roll + weapon speed. If this was a number in between the casters start and final number - a melee could attack the caster (and stop the spell instantly).

Now... to just get this off my chest - I like the concentration system I personally wouldn't change that - however I was curious if anyone has attempted a mix of the old school and new school to essentially bring melee/caster balance - considering the usual answer to this topic is to 'buff melee' I was curious if this approach of making casters slightly easier to disrupt has ever been brought up?

Proposal for a modification mixing old and new:

Spells take a casting time = to the level of the spell in initiative order - with the exception of spells that are already 1 round casting time which still require casting until the start of the casters next turn.

Example = Wizard casts a Magic missile - rolled a 14 on initiative - at count 14 he begins to cast - at count 13 the spell goes off (making almost no difference for a 1st level spell.

Example (2nd level) = Wizard casts invisiblity - rolled a 14 on initiative - at count 14 he begins to cast - at count 12 the spell goes off (allowing something to see the casting and react if they happen to have initiative count of 13).

Example (5th level) = Wizard casts a cloudkill - rolled a 14 on initiative - at count 14 he begins to cast - at count 9 the spell goes off meaning that there are 5 rounds someone could react to the casting.

Final adjustment - if the casting time lowers the imitative to 0 or lower - move those 'segments' into the next round starting at the top of the initiative order - this doesn't count as a 'spell cast this round' against the spellcaster.

This is the general idea - specific spells could be given a slower or faster cast time which could further allow balancing of the bigger super powered spells and or make some lesser used ones more valuable than they currently are - feats could be added to adjust casting time and such.... it would add a new danger to casting on the battlefield that currently doesn't exist....


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns Subscriber
James Risner wrote:
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
the phrase 'at will' would be wasted ink if it meant 'unlimited uses', all support the case for definite meanings of these phrases.

Idiom:

at will
Just as or when one wishes.

Nothing about mental. "At Will" is a medical/legal term. It means basically as many times as you like. Or in D&D 1e world, it means "unlimited uses".

Perhaps - but you do have to admit that in 1st edition (2nd is slightly more clouded with the odd difference between the PHB and the DMG) the one thing rings did not do was take a command word.

1st was very clear about it - 2nd was all over the place (special place in my heart for the odd/broken weirdness that 2nd gave us - much fun was had until near the end when it became monty python on steroids)

3rd put command word on rings - and then made the ring itself no longer a state but a spell - regardless of how long you noticed the change (I say you meaning many posters reading this - not you specifically James) please understand there were many of us apparently that totally missed that change - much like the little things that did change from 3.5 to pathfinder that can get us - this is one of those things that if you played 'one way' in 1st... 2nd didn't change enough to change the way we were playing and frankly it was easy to miss the change moving to 3.

That's like 30ish years (for myself) of using the item one way - yeah maybe 14 of those I was wrong - but 16 I was right. I just thought it was odd to add a spoken command word to that item - I still do. I do think people are perhaps being too stuck on what 'at will' must have meant - enough people played it both ways that surely we can agree that many read it as one or the other and once they did - that's how they stuck with it.

I'd be curious to do a study on this kind of thing and see if there was a general geographical spread that biased how you read and played these types of rules - it might be fascinating :)

There is no reason to dismiss how many people read the rule and played it (in the earlier additions) as if it was non-logical or false - that's a bit too much.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns Subscriber

While rules don't make the game - be consistent if I have to make a ruling I do to move the game along - if we need to lookup a rule it's a 2 min rule - if nothing if found quickly we rule it and move on - I research after the game is over and if I made a mistake I either adopt a new homerule or I admit what I did wrong and how we'll rule it in the future.

It's not really the fine details of the rules but the consistency - if you ban something for your players your monsters shouldn't be able to do it either - and if you rule how something works in one session your players should expect it to work the same way in a later session.

After that it's mostly about having fun and telling a story - try to add sound/smell and texture details to your descriptions - have the world react to the players so they feel like they are playing in a reactive world (this is the biggest advantage to tabletop over a computer game after all).

That's about all I got - I never feel like I do a good enough job and constantly try to find new things to help move things forward.

Brewer's guide is pretty good (IMO)

Here is a link https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?resid=652EA6399D011D3!107&ithint=fi le%2c.pdf&app=WordPdf&authkey=!AK5Gvgq8AwYimSM


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns Subscriber

Starting the next book so I figured I'd pick up a new thread.

Page 11 - Voices of the sun:

Ability scores seem off... From what I can figure they have an extra +1 on charisma - as this results in a 17 it makes no difference to the game but just weird.
How I figured this....

Spoiler:

Harpy starting stats (for elite array)- this is done subtracting 10 or 11 from the base harpy stats for an even number.
+2,+4,+0,-4,+2,+6

Mummified =
Str +4, Int -2

1 stat from level up

Final stats for the voices =
20,20,-,7,14,17

Ok so working in reverse - strip the mummified template off we get:

16,20,?,9,14,17

This should be the final array of a harpy/rogue 6.

Take the starting stats and apply the elite array to get:
Str 16(14+2), Dex 19(15+4), Con 8(8+0), Int 9(13-4), Wis 14(12+2), Cha 16(10+6)

Attacks for the +1 composite longbow should read:
+13/+8/+3 1d8+6 (Attack bonus = +11 base, +5 dex, +1 enchantment, -4 non-proficient)
as harpies and rogues are not proficient with longbows - damage listed was off by 2 - the longbow is +5 str as noted in the statblock so damage should be +6 (+1 enchantment, +5 str)

Attacks for the +1 khopesh should read:
+18/+13/+8 1d8+6(17-20) (Attack bonus = +11 base, +5 str, +1 weapon focus, +1 enhancement) - damage listed and attack bonus was 2 higher (for the bow as well)

Attacks for talons should read:
Talon x2 +11 1d8+2 (Attack bonus = +11 base, +5 str, -5 secondary) damage is 1/2 str due to secondary

Skills:

I count 7 skill points unused (based on Harpy skill 4+int per HD, rogue levels 8+int = (4*7)+(8*6)-(2*13) = 50, 43 are spent as near as I can tell) however as listed I can't figure how they got a 6 in disable device. I get:

+1 skill point, +3 class skill, +3 1/2 rogue levels, +5 Dex, -2 no tools, -2 armor = 8

As disable device is not available untrained it has to have at least 1 point in it. This really doesn't affect gameplay - just found it odd.

Hit points - I get 116...

7d8 = 31 (mummified changes all hit die to d8's - modifying the harpy base hit die)
Rogue 6 = 27
31+27 = 58 (13d8)
+3 hit points per hit die (undead, using cha) = 39
6 rogue levels +1 hit point per level = 6
toughness = +1 hit point per hit die = +13
39+6+13= 58

13d8+58 = 116 - hit points listed = 142 - unsure where the extra come from.

Saves:
Base harpy saves +2, +7, +6 - Subtract base stats to get actual bonuses of - Fort +2 (Con 10), Ref +5 (Dex 15), and Will +5 (Wis 12)
* note - base saves remove the feat 'great fortitude'
Harpy saves (assuming the starting stats with elite array)= Fort +1 (con 8, so 2-1), Ref +9 (Dex 19 so 5+4), Will +7 (Wis 14 so 5+2)
Rogue level 6 = Fort +2, Ref +5, Will +2 and +1 dex
Final saves before mummification = Fort +3, Ref +15, Will +9

Mummification change makes Cha the fort save making it Cha 16 (+3) + Rogue 6 (+2) add harpy base +2 = 7

Saves after mummification = Fort +7, Ref +15, Will +9

Saves listed in the book = Fort +9, Ref +17, Will +11

I have no idea why they are so different. These guys have no feats or magic items that modify saves.

CMB should be +16 (not 18) - 11 (BAB) + 5 (Str)
CMD should be 32 not 34 - 10 (base) + 11 (Bab) + 5 (Str) + 5 (dex) +1 (dodge feat)


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns Subscriber
James Risner wrote:

I started in 1983 and I totally don't remember using it as mental activation. I keep hearing people saying this and I couldn't understand why I didn't remember any of it.

Well I know now. I just read my old 1st edition DMG. Printer on 16 May 1979.

There is not a single use of the word mental in reference to activation methods in the whole book.

The only section that mentions an activation is the "Use of Magic Items" section.

This means that if you used a Ring of Invisibility as a mental activated item in 1st edition, then you did it without a rule telling you to do so. Read Page 119 and find where I'm wrong.

Actually if you read your 1st edition DMG you'll note that command word activated items (such as rods, staffs and wands) still used segments to activate the effect.

Rings did not (unless specifically called out to do so) - the ring of invisibility in 1st and 2nd edition gave you invisibility at no action cost (instantly) whereas most magical items (specifically those that cast spells) took action economy in the form of segments used.

Quote:

Activating a rod or staff takes one round and requires the

user to speak its command word aloud.
For instance I point to the wand of fire - one of it's abilities
Quote:
Pyrotechnics: This function exactly duplicates the spell of the same name. It requires 2 segments to activate. It expends I charge.
You have to use the players handbook to reference time ...
Quote:

Rounds

are subdivided into 10 segments, for purposes of determining initiative
(q.v.) and order of attacks. Thus a turn is 10 minutes, a round 1 minute, and a segment 6 seconds.

Where a ring was 'at will and instant' - requiring no casting time or activation time to use - thus a fighter with a ring of invisibility could 'activate it' on his turn after his attack(s).

I will agree that 'at will' didn't call out mental activation - but it didn't mean 'spoken command word' either - anything requiring a 'spoken command word' was specifically called out - rings were not on that list by default - and at will could have simply meant twisting the ring on ones finger to reactivate it. (it's just as valid honestly) - it's also noted that command word items could be foiled by silence and were specifically called out for that - where at will items were not.

Quote:
A wand of polymorphing, or other similar device performing a like function, would require a key word and the new form to be made by the power: “Xot’s the word, be a bird!” or some such. Magical silence will most certainly prevent such devices from functioning.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns Subscriber
Mythic Evil Lincoln wrote:

My concern with balance is relatively simple: at what general power level (CR) is a party of Level X and Tier Y actually in danger of losing a fight?

I know well that CR is an imperfect measure, but I still think that these numbers are helpful for generalizing.

So, I'd still appreciate the people who have experienced actual numbers telling me just how much of a bump they feel the given tiers give -- especially since it does not appear to be uniform across all tiers.

Certainly it is possible to get more accuracy than the system presented in the book. CR + 1/2 Tier is evidently not accurate at all!

I don't really know that it's the tiers that blow things up. I would say it's the feats. And then I would say it's specific feats and mythic spells.

Mythic vital strike for instance - makes your vital strike do more damage minimum than you could have done rolling max dice. And that's on a normal hit - it is logarithmic in power on a crit and scales in a logarithmic fashion with the rest of the vital strike feat chain.

It is so overwhelmingly good that if you try to optimize at all and don't take mythic vital strike then you are gimping yourself.

But if someone takes mythic weapon finesse for instance - honestly that doesn't do much at all. Two characters with one mythic tier that take these two feats will be very different - one you won't hardly notice is mythic except when they spend power to do something cool - the other is going to stomp all over your game and make it call them daddy.

And that's just one example - if the mythic vital strike guy takes mythic power attack and continues to optimize while the mythic weapon finesse guy doesn't - by tier 3 you will be looking at the difference between a walking deity and just a very powerful character.

It's not as simple as 'tier = higher CR' - it's more than some feats and spells (when made mythic) are just downright broken - if you limited mythic to tiers (with stats and path abilities only) and did not allow feats at all (or hand picked them avoiding broken ones) you wouldn't have the problems I think - at least not the rocket tag ones. Your players will still be able to pull off higher damage - in that case you'd need to watch for the normal level CR breaks in damage - that is around apl 11 and 18 - both points without mythic see very large increases in damage - I'd say mythic tier + player level = 'real level' in terms of damage (without the broken feats added in) and so you will see jumps when your players are at those marks.

Only a few of the tier abilities are 'wow' (like resting twice a day) until you hit the 'you don't die - you reform after death' type stuff - those are blatant in what they do so you should be able to decide for yourself if you want that kind of game or not. Resting twice a day is really cool - however that can play out similar to how the game runs already with the '15 min adventuring day' a lot of parties already do.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns Subscriber

1st edition DMG

Quote:


Command words
In order to use a rod, staff, or wand it is usually necessary to know the proper command word.
Page 119

This is the only section on how command words operate - however each of those magic item sections also note command words - rings do not. I would also note that rings operated at CL 12 for all effects.

AD&D 2nd edition DMG continues this with no command word language for rings - the specific description for ring of invisibility (unchanged from 1st)

Quote:

The wearer of an invisibility ring is able to become invisible at will, instantly. This nonvisible state is exactly the same as the wizard invisibility spell, except that 10% of these rings have inaudibility as well, making the wearer absolutely silent. If the

wearer wishes to speak, he breaks all silence features in order to do so.

At this point I remind you that command word activated items actually used segments of time to cast and would not go off when you activated them - much like spells. That is one of the reasons the 'at will, instantly' is important in the early version of the language - unlike 3.0 and forward spells didn't take a standard action and a spellcaster was vulnerable to interruption frequently (like summoning spells, or silence is currently).

3.0 is where it changed - first adding command words to rings and then changing the description of the ring of invisibility:

Quote:

Invisibility

By activating this simple silver ring, the wearer can benefit from invisibility, as the spell.

Faint illusion; CL 3rd; Forge Ring, invisibility; Price 20,000 gp.

3.5 kept this wording. As did pathfinder - apparently something many of us didn't notice.

I'll chalk this up to another 'magic items from 3.0 onward kind of are disappointing compared to the magic items from 1st/2nd edition. This is just another instance of the same thing.

*edit* fixed broken quotes


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

The devs have stated the answer so this will likely lead to a "no reply needed". I don't see them changing the answer to "ok it has no duration". At best you will have errata stating that certain magic items have a limited duration.

Then people will still complain that it was a bad decision, but normally when someone says no and you keep asking they tend to say "no" in much more stern voice. That "voice" in this case will be errata if they answer it again. Anyway I am done here most likely. There is no point in debating since people are trying to change the words to say what they want them to say despite the devs saying "this is how we want this to work".

I don't disagree with you - however what other recourse is there for people who have been playing from the first AD&D book and used the item the same way up until Pathfinder decided to change it.

Not all change is bad - in fact the reason I love pathfinder is it cleaned up alot of the problems with the d20 system - however in some cases they make a bad call - monk flurries was one - this is another - honestly not enough for me to make a fuss over - I'll just houserule it to work the way I've expected it to for the past 30+ years. It was specifically 'at will' in the old AD&D DMG.

As was said earlier in the thread - this type of activation and power has been playtested over the years to be very sure it doesn't cause an issue in play - so I'm unsure why the change happened - perhaps it was intent - perhaps this was accidental - some of the FAQs I think have been made because intentional rule changes in one area had a side affect on others that wasn't caught in the language until much later (see sunder for example). Once pointed out the Dev's are faced with leaving well enough alone (re-enforce printed text) or making further changes that could have wide impacts (see un-intended changes just above) - no dev wants to change language that can cause further issues - it would have been nice for them to FAQ it with something more like 'if no activation method is listed - it is up to the GM to decide activation on an item'

Which would have honestly solved the issue.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns Subscriber
JohnHawkins wrote:
Thanks for that

Sure thing - if anyone is looking for something specific that has a broken link I can see if it's in my files - I grabbed what I wanted so I don't have everything but I'm happy to check and repost.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns Subscriber

Another point would be to get very serious about what actions do what - you get one swift per round - and immediate actions take your swift for the next round - because it's an action type that typically doesn't have multiple uses outside of mythic (quickened spells and certain class features that use swift or immediate) it's easy for players to get too many actions in a single round - it's a good idea to have players make a cheat sheet of what abilities they have and what actions they take so you can limit the mythic power that's actually usable.

If you find a power that is too powerful balance seems to be best found adjusting # of rounds it's active - action type - and mythic power cost - between those three things you can keep things from getting out of hand.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns Subscriber

You can check this thread http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2rq1q?Mythic-Adventures-lets-fix-it#34

- I would love to talk more about things people find bad in Mythic and what fixes are for them... but responses tend to clump around people who think that melee doing 1000 points of damage is fine and trying to balance the game is 'nerfing melees' - and others who just want to pan the entire system.

Some mythic stuff is broken - honestly I don't know what or all of it - you can see some suggestions I have in the other thread.

One suggestion that we are using is to treat a mythic game like a superhero game - and add the 'earth shattering' narrative to combat - don't be afraid to make things over the top and 'comic-book like' and you can enjoy what it does and use it to tell a cool story.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns Subscriber
C.J. Withers wrote:
Will this contain every mini I need to run the whole adventure?

The pawn sets never do - they contain unique monsters - npc's - and such - even with all the bestiary sets you typically don't get every monster or encounter - although with all 4 bestiary boxes it's much better than it was.

I find between the bestiaries and the pawn sets I have most of what I need and make do with substitutions for the others.


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

In addition to the npc card sheet for the players ... a guide to turtleback ferry based on the one done for sandpoint...

Click here

Does anyone have a copy of the Sandpoint guide, it seems that all the links I found did not work anymore?

Sandpoint guide

NPC cards to go along with said guide


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns Subscriber

Just a note - you can also help the process by taking 10 on your crafting check.

You can't take 20 (that assumes a fail) but if your final craft dc is less than 10+(your crafting check) you can take 10 and automatically make the item. This includes rushing the work or any other increase in DC as long as the final DC is less than 10+(your crafting stat).

This means that items you have the spell for and or the materials and lab on hand are almost always automatic successes - and if you want to make something that is harder you can but with a chance of failure.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns Subscriber

In addition to the npc card sheet for the players ... a guide to turtleback ferry based on the one done for sandpoint...

Click here


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns Subscriber

Just on a note - our table uses initiative for out of combat reasons - it's usually reserved for situations where everyone wants to do everything at the same time - in which case we either roll or I just say initiative order and go around the table.

We don't do it to fake anyone out - just sometimes our group has a hard time letting people go first when excited lol.

That being said - we do this and are used to it - I don't think using initiative on occasion outside of combat is a bad thing - it can create tension - it sometimes leads to combat - sometimes doesn't - sometimes helps to determine exactly where people are when a trap or other thing goes off - I don't think trying this for the first time when a monster pops in front of them is a good idea however.

In this case I think the players are justified in feeling tricked.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns Subscriber

I made it a DC 18 fort save - poison based giving dwarves a bonus to the save.

Consequently my dwarven PC now has a drink named after him... because he now likes it with a little 'slime' added rofl.

I sent my players a video of what a hagfish actually does to water (google it) so they'd understand just what the dwarf drank.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns Subscriber

Also adding RotRLAV edition monster and item cards for Skinsaw Murders.

Item Cards
Monster Cards


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns Subscriber

Not my point - just was saying cure/inflict aren't aligned - your response read like they were.

Our games (regardless of GM) play as the deity giving the spell to the cleric - it also alows the GM to give extra spells on occasion which is kind of nifty.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns Subscriber
wraithstrike wrote:
Shiroi wrote:
I'll point to the Legend of Drizzt for RP precedence, a Menzoberranyr Cleric of Lloth used a cure spell on a Dwarf to keep it alive to torture. That wasn't even from a spell, it was straight up an evil act so an evil goddess granted the magic, which she normally wouldn't do. If you have a genuine RP beef with this guy, I'd rule as a DM that you could use the spell FROM YOUR OWN SPELL LIST, let alone to be able to use a wand of it. Now, if you tried it again on someone or something else, I'd wipe your spells per day in half as divine retribution. Don't push your luck too far with it. But since you're doing your diety's will, as a GM I'd say to go for it. (I might also discretely boost your enemy to account for the unexpected, so that it was the same combat but you *felt* like you'd done something awesome, which is the point.)
They used more 2nd edition rules when they used the rules at all. IIRC playing baldur's gate which was also based on 2nd edition I had evil clerics casting sure spells.

I thought clerics of any alignment could cast cure or inflict - the only thing the alignment did was restrict spontaneous conversion.

Cure and inflict by themselves aren't aligned.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns Subscriber

For those of you who are going to use the Turtleback Ferry document found elsewhere in this thread - I've created character cards to match the sandpoint ones.

Click here to get them.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns Subscriber
Douglas Muir 406 wrote:
Ckorik wrote:

Another suggestion - from the Wrath of the Righteous threads one thing that people have done that put the 'omg' back into Demons - is make their teleport ability use a move action instead of standard.

Wow, that's brutal. Note that with groups of demons that means you'll pretty much always be flanked. And unless you can Dim Lock them, it makes them damnably hard to kill. And intelligent demons would fight to 1/2 hp, then bamf away and collect a bunch of friends...

Are there threads on how this plays out in practice? Because while I see the attraction, I could also see this getting seriously out of hand.

Doug M.

Yes - brutal - but it does make them alot more of the 'scary monster from nightmares' than they currently are.

I would expect them to get allies based on how they currently would go about this - that is go get them at the start if they need to and then perhaps before 'death' if they had particularly good relationships with their allies - to me demons are never afraid of death unless they somehow planeshifted to the material - usually they are summoned so they just pop back home when they die - doesn't mean they *want* to die but they aren't as terrified of it as a normal enemy is. YMMV based on how demons are played in your campaign.

Keep in mind that they already can teleport at will - RAW they can only do so as a standard - which still gives them a 5 foot step and move equivalent, or another move action after the teleport - this change allows them to use a special ability or single attack after the teleport - so it doesn't change them substantially - but does give them better action economy which makes them much tougher monsters.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns Subscriber
Zhayne wrote:
MeanMutton wrote:
Grymore wrote:

I have a neutral cleric whose deity is Urgathoa--the back story is that Urgathoa has saved the character who was slain by an evil necromancer. Urgathoa believes that one day the necromancer will threaten her, so she saved the character and would empower him to exact vengance upon the necromancer who killed him--and his step mother and father. Thus a nuetral alignment for a nuetral evil diety.

I accept that I cannot cast spells with a "good" descriptor. But can I use a wand of protection from evil?

It is still on my spell list. And given the back story, there may be just enough wiggle room to permit it.

What do you all think?

I would argue that if you can't cast a spell than it isn't really on your spell list. UMD would be required.

My sorcerer hasn't learned magic missile, so he can't cast it. Does he need UMD?

As I noted above ... an evil cleric can prepare a good spell perfectly legally; he just can't cast it. Ergo, it MUST be on his spell list.

The FAQ I quoted seems to disagree otherwise why not just indicate the use of a wand in the FAQ? I'll agree however that there isn't anything explicit that you can't prepare the spell - the question really comes down to - do you want your game to have the very paradoxical situation of a deity infusing the power of a spell against their alignment into a cleric and then refusing to let them cast that spell?

If so I suppose it's on their spell list - RAI I'd say it's 100% against what the rules are trying to enforce. I do agree with others however that the magic circle and protection spells shouldn't be aligned.


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

Another suggestion - from the Wrath of the Righteous threads one thing that people have done that put the 'omg' back into Demons - is make their teleport ability use a move action instead of standard.

We did this as a house rule in our games- it changes everything about demons and frankly makes them way more deadly. Considering the nature of what they are it seems fitting to give the outsiders a bit of a bump in terms of what they can do.

Yeah, that would make them more deadly. Are you at least having them provoke attacks of opportunity when they bamf?

We haven't - they can't full attack when they do this - so for the most part it has kept them from being surrounded, and they can get away from a trip or something - it does change the tactics on the battlefield quite a bit and makes them pretty nasty, however in game it's not been an overwhelming advantage. The flavor of how they move around and how to fight them definitely changes though and gives them a bit more options to avoid the typical adventurer tactics (surround/flank/trip/drop into a pit/etc).


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns Subscriber

Another suggestion - from the Wrath of the Righteous threads one thing that people have done that put the 'omg' back into Demons - is make their teleport ability use a move action instead of standard.

We did this as a house rule in our games- it changes everything about demons and frankly makes them way more deadly. Considering the nature of what they are it seems fitting to give the outsiders a bit of a bump in terms of what they can do.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns Subscriber

From the Advanced Players Guide FAQ:

Quote:


Cleric, Outsider Subdomains: How am I supposed to use the planar binding domain spell granted by these subdomains?

This is an error, in that there is an alignment incompatibility between the outsider subdomains and the magic circle spells needed to bind the respective types of outsiders. For example, a chaotic cleric with the Protean (Chaos) subdomain would need to cast a [lawful] magic circle against chaos domain spell to bind a chaotic protean, but her chaotic alignment prevents her from doing so (see Chaotic, Evil, Good, and Lawful Spells in the Core Rulebook).

The solution is to allow the use of that planar binding domain spell without requiring the magic circle spell. (If the cleric wanted to create a calling diagram to improve her chances, she could enlist the aid of another caster to cast the required magic circle spell.)

This text will be updated in a future printing of the Advanced Player's Guide

I highlighted the relevant sections to this question - the answer is within RAW the only way to do what you want is either hire another cleric - or get a magic item with X/day castings (or permanent) - or carry around a cache of potions....


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns Subscriber

Hero Lab does a pretty good job. You can also add templates, class levels, customize the monster and feats it gets, and other stuff pretty easily.

Cheap it isn't though :(

For *just* statblocks you could pull them from the PRD.

Or are you looking to create new monsters?


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns Subscriber
Calth wrote:

Right, you can make a full-attack with a light or one-handed weapon. So yeah, you can make a full attack with a single natural weapon, still...

Each natural attack is both a light and one handed weapon - so you can make a full attack with natural attacks when grappled.

The rules are clear on that.

Quote:


Natural Attacks: Attacks made with natural weapons, such as claws and bites, are melee attacks that can be made against any creature within your reach (usually 5 feet). These attacks are made using your full attack bonus and deal an amount of damage that depends on their type (plus your Strength modifier, as normal). You do not receive additional natural attacks for a high base attack bonus. Instead, you receive additional attack rolls for multiple limb and body parts capable of making the attack (as noted by the race or ability that grants the attacks). If you possess only one natural attack (such as a bite—two claw attacks do not qualify), you add 1–1/2 times your Strength bonus on damage rolls made with that attack.

Some natural attacks are denoted as secondary natural attacks, such as tails and wings. Attacks with secondary natural attacks are made using your base attack bonus minus 5. These attacks deal an amount of damage depending on their type, but you only add half your Strength modifier on damage rolls.

You can make attacks with natural weapons in combination with attacks made with a melee weapon and unarmed strikes, so long as a different limb is used for each attack. For example, you cannot make a claw attack and also use that hand to make attacks with a longsword. When you make additional attacks in this way, all of your natural attacks are treated as secondary natural attacks, using your base attack bonus minus 5 and adding only 1/2 of your Strength modifier on damage rolls. Feats such as Two-Weapon Fighting and Multiattack can reduce these penalties.

So each natural attack is a separate limb that can make an attack using the full attack action. Each limb counts as light weapon - and is one handed (and could wield a one handed weapon).

In this case the plant creature could wield a dagger in each vine by raw - are you still going to say that they can't make a full attack? That's the point of natural attacks - they break the BAB progression, which is why if a single limb is holding a weapon - other natural attacks are treated as secondary - because the weapon holding limb gets full BAB progression *in addition to the natural attacks*.

For an example I point you at the entry for Demon, Marilith on the PRD:

Quote:
Melee +1 longsword +24/+19/+14/+9 (2d6+8/17–20), 5 +1 longswords +24 (2d6+4/17–20), tail slap +19 (2d6+3 plus grab) or 6 slams +22 (1d8+7), tail slap +19 (2d6+3 plus grab)

Notice that she gets 9 attacks using the full attack option with weapons in her hands - or 6 slams (one for each natural attack) - in either case she also gets a tail slap with grab (and constrict btw).

So are you trying to seriously say that by RAW you can negate 6 of the Marilith's 10 attacks on a full attack action - by simply grappling it?


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns Subscriber

This gnome is obsessive about exploring new lands - the only thing that pauses this obsession is a good mystery - which will distract him while he tracks down the root of the puzzle.

He's good with traps and can make alchemical items - to make up for his size he can craft his own enlarge potions and uses poison along with inspired strikes to damage things.

He's traveled enough that he is a rambling living wiki on almost any local gossip in whatever town he happens to walk into - and somehow manages to find people he knows or are friendly to him, giving him a huge advantage in tracking down local rumors or information when on a case.

He is in Sandpoint for the festival - and happened to charm the local poison maker giving him a nice stash of supplies to begin the adventure with (although he is still learning how to handle the vile stuff without getting it on himself).

(in game this guy will be your rumor hunter, knowledge local and history, geography (swap for other skills if your wizard is obsessed with being the only knowledge person) - use magic device should be kept at max along with perception and disable device. Diplomacy for gather information and being a decent face when needing to influence people. With the ability to enlarge yourself adding STR and medium size you *can* overcome the gnome size issue if needed - however as you level up in investigator you should get more bang for your buck out of poisons and inspiration. At level 2 you should start putting points into craft[alchemy] to create your own poisons saving tons of cash)

Unnamed Hero
Traveller gnome investigator 1 (Pathfinder RPG Advanced Class Guide 30)
CG Small humanoid (gnome)
Hero Points 1
Init +2; Senses darkvision 60 ft.; Perception +4
--------------------
Defense
--------------------
AC 15, touch 13, flat-footed 13 (+2 armor, +2 Dex, +1 size)
hp 9 (1d8+1)
Fort +1, Ref +4, Will +2; +2 bonus vs. [language-dependant], glyph, symbol or writing-related spells
Defensive Abilities defensive training
--------------------
Offense
--------------------
Speed 20 ft. (15 ft. in armor)
Melee rapier +3 (1d4-1/18-20)
Ranged light crossbow +3 (1d6/19-20) or
. . ranged touch attack +3 (As Spell)
Spell-Like Abilities (CL 1st; concentration +1)
. . 1/day—arcane mark, comprehend languages, message, read magic
Investigator Extracts Prepared (CL 1st; concentration +4)
. . 1st—enlarge person (DC 14), shield
--------------------
Statistics
--------------------
Str 9, Dex 14, Con 12, Int 16, Wis 10, Cha 11
Base Atk +0; CMB -2; CMD 10
Feats Weapon Finesse
Traits black sheep - aliver "pillbug" podiker, friend in every town
Skills Acrobatics +3 (-5 to jump), Climb -2, Diplomacy +5, Disable Device +2, Knowledge (geography) +7, Knowledge (history) +9, Knowledge (local) +8, Perception +4, Sense Motive +4, Stealth +7, Use Magic Device +4
Languages Common, Elven, Giant, Gnome, Goblin, Sylvan
SQ alchemy (alchemy crafting +1), hero points, inspiration (4/day), magical linguist, trapfinding +1
Combat Gear bloodroot (2), blue whinnis, drow poison; Other Gear leather armor, crossbow bolts (20), light crossbow, ranged touch attack, rapier, alchemy crafting kit, backpack, bedroll, belt pouch, flint and steel, ink, black, inkpen, mess kit, pot, soap, torch (10), trail rations (5), waterskin, 43 gp
--------------------
Special Abilities
--------------------
Alchemy +1 (Su) +1 to Craft (Alchemy) to create alchemical items, can Id potions by touch.
Black Sheep - Aliver "Pillbug" Podiker +1 Knowledge (Local) and it is a class skill.
Darkvision (60 feet) You can see in the dark (black and white vision only).
Defensive Training +4 Gain a dodge bonus to AC vs monsters of the Giant subtype.
Hero Points Hero Points can be spent at any time to grant a variety of bonuses.
Inspiration (+1d6, 4/day) (Ex) Use 1 point, +1d6 to trained skill or ability check. Use 2 points, to add to attack or save.
Magical Linguist +1 effective level for [language-dependent], glyph, symbol, or writing-related spells. +2 save vs. these spells.
Trapfinding +1 Gain a bonus to find or disable traps, including magical ones.

Hero Lab and the Hero Lab logo are Registered Trademarks of LWD Technology, Inc. Free download at http://www.wolflair.com
Pathfinder® and associated marks and logos are trademarks of Paizo Publishing, LLC®, and are used under license.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns Subscriber
Quote:
1) It seems fairly certain that Slapping Tail can only be used for AOOs because otherwise they would not have mentioned the AOO thing at all as ANY natural or manufactured weapons can make AOOs.

That's how it reads to me

Quote:
2) The reason that it costs three times what a normal natural weapon costs in racial point is primarily because of the higher damage and the higher str to damage modifier. But this doesn't necessarily seem like enough unless you take into account my third point.

I think you are missing a big part of the benefit here - you can make natural attacks in addition to your other attacks - if you pay attention to the FAQ system and recent (past year) big issues and questions answered - you would have noticed the 'do I still threaten 5' when I use a longspear if I want to use the other end as a improvised weapon' - which was answered as 'only if you use it as the improvised for your entire turn' (paraphrasing) - and the other biggie 'can I still threaten with armor spikes if I use a 2h weapon' which was answered with 'no - you can't *gain* more attacks than BAB progression allows - it's too powerful' (again paraphrasing).

This lets you use a reach weapon to threaten 10 feet away - *and* still threaten 5 feet away using the tail. That's a *HUGE* advantage almost no other character *can* get without extraordinary work.

Quote:
3) That when a creature reaches Large Tall size, the tail actually becomes a reach weapon, similar to the Tentacles from Tentacle Cloak. If it were just that the range increased when you became large tall because your Natural Reach increases, there would yet again be no reason at all to even have this section in the text at all. It would be beyond overly redundant and you dont see any of the other natural weapon descriptions written with similar sections.

http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/additionalMonsters/viperVine.ht ml

As you can see from this link - some natural weapons do get reach - here is the kicker - according to the universal monster rules natural reach weapons *still* threaten adjacent to you - unlike manufactured weapons. This is still a *HUGE* advantage.

Quote:


So my conclusion on this is that it is a higher then normal dmg natural attack, that can only be used for AOOs, and at large tall size becomes a reach weapon. Anybody have any other thoughts on this one?

It's a way to have reach and still threaten close to you - at large size it becomes a way to threaten close to you *and* has reach - it's an incredible boon that can be combined with combat reflexes in a tripping build for very nasty effect.

Quote:


This one seems much more straight forward but in case this does get FAQd and responded to I'd like to make sure I get clarification. My understanding is that this means if an enemy provokes an aoo from you, you make your attack with you tail, and if you hit, that you get a free Trip Attempt as a free action immediately following that does not provoke AOOs from threatening creatures. This seem correct?

Yes - although I don't think this is anything you *couldn't* do by just taking the trip feat.

Still this is a way to get a feat for free.... cost seems reasonable, that's my take on it.


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


Actually, you could make the argument that the grappled condition does in fact interrupt your full attack.

A grappled creature is restrained by a creature, trap, or effect. Grappled creatures cannot move and take a –4 penalty to Dexterity. A grappled creature takes a –2 penalty on all attack rolls and combat maneuver checks, except those made to grapple or escape a grapple. In addition, grappled creatures can take no action that requires two hands to perform. A grappled character who attempts to cast a spell or use a spell-like ability must make a concentration check (DC 10 + grappler's CMB + spell level), or lose the spell. Grappled creatures cannot make attacks of opportunity.

So depending on how you are gaining these attacks, your action might be interrupted. I would qualify a natural attack full-attack as requiring two hands.

Quote:

Grapple: There are some contradictions between the various rules on grappling. What is correct?

To sum up the correct rules:

1) Grappling does not deny you your Dex bonus to AC, whether you are the grappler or the target.

2) A grappled creature can still make a full attack.

3) Being pinned does not make you flat-footed, but you are denied your Dex bonus.

Update: Page 195—In Table 8–6: Armor Class Modifiers, in the entry for Grappling, delete the superscript “1” after the +0 in the Melee and Ranged columns. In the third footnote, change “flat-footed and cannot add his Dexterity bonus” to “denied its Dexterity bonus”

Update:

...
This has nothing to do with the weapon category of natural attacks and everything to do with the two-weapon fighting errata that even non-arm limbs count as hands when you make attacks.

No - it's how they work - Natural attacks are not two handed weapons - you won't find a rule like that anywhere in the books - they are considered light weapons - this is explicit in the books.

Also explicit is the following (from universal monster rules):

Quote:
Creatures with natural attacks and attacks made with weapons can use both as part of a full attack action (although often a creature must forgo one natural attack for each weapon clutched in that limb, be it a claw, tentacle, or slam). Such creatures attack with their weapons normally but treat all of their natural attacks as secondary attacks during that attack, regardless of the attack's original type.

So a natural attack is an attack with a single limb - not two limbs - this universal monster rule has been in effect from bestiary 1 forward - if you want to rule that natural attacks are two handed that's a house rule and not RAW, it doesn't make it a bad rule but it's not how the game is designed.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns Subscriber
Calth wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Brf wrote:
When you do Grab, that does a normal Grapple, which ends your attacks, unless you take a -20 on the CMB check.

That is not in rule book. The -20 is to avoid the grappled condition yourself. It does not prevent the rest of your full round attacks, and even grappled creatures can make full round attacks.

If your enemy can be grappled and full attack you, there is no reason why you can not full attack it.

Actually, you could make the argument that the grappled condition does in fact interrupt your full attack.

A grappled creature is restrained by a creature, trap, or effect. Grappled creatures cannot move and take a –4 penalty to Dexterity. A grappled creature takes a –2 penalty on all attack rolls and combat maneuver checks, except those made to grapple or escape a grapple. In addition, grappled creatures can take no action that requires two hands to perform. A grappled character who attempts to cast a spell or use a spell-like ability must make a concentration check (DC 10 + grappler's CMB + spell level), or lose the spell. Grappled creatures cannot make attacks of opportunity.

So depending on how you are gaining these attacks, your action might be interrupted. I would qualify a natural attack full-attack as requiring two hands.

Quote:

Grapple: There are some contradictions between the various rules on grappling. What is correct?

To sum up the correct rules:

1) Grappling does not deny you your Dex bonus to AC, whether you are the grappler or the target.

2) A grappled creature can still make a full attack.

3) Being pinned does not make you flat-footed, but you are denied your Dex bonus.

Update: Page 195—In Table 8–6: Armor Class Modifiers, in the entry for Grappling, delete the superscript “1” after the +0 in the Melee and Ranged columns. In the third footnote, change “flat-footed and cannot add his Dexterity bonus” to “denied its Dexterity bonus”

Update: Page 201—In the If You Are Grappled section, in the fourth sentence, change “any action that requires only one hand to perform” to “any action that doesn’t require two hands to perform.” In the fourth sentence, change “make an attack with a light or one-handed weapon” to “make an attack or full attack with a light or one-handed weapon

Update: Page 568—In the Pinned condition, in the second sentence, change “flat-footed” to “denied its Dexterity bonus.”

PRD says

Quote:


Weapon Finesse (Combat)

You are trained in using your agility in melee combat, as opposed to brute strength.

Benefit: With a light weapon, rapier, whip, or spiked chain made for a creature of your size category, you may use your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier on attack rolls. If you carry a shield, its armor check penalty applies to your attack rolls.

Special: Natural weapons are considered light weapons.

So no - natural attacks are light weapons and can be used for a full attack even with the grappled condition.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns Subscriber

That's how it should work (all the way around - monsters with grab and constrict are can do this as well) - constrict is a powerful ability - the first death I had in my RotRL campaign was to a giant crab ... due to constrict.

As to game breaking? No - at level 9 a barbarian should be able to do a similar amount of damage.

Barb level 9 - +9/+4
Str 22 (start 16 +2 race, +4 level up)
Rage Str 26
Earthbreaker 2d6 x3

2hPower attack(-3,+9) + vital strike first round = +14(4d6+17) (21-41, or 55-75 on a crit)
2nd round = +14 (19-29, 53-73) and +9 (19-29, 53-73)

Total damage output over 2 rounds = 59-99, or 161-221 if all 3 attacks crit.

The druid spent round 1 casting plant shape. I'd say his 2 round damage is pretty much on par (this is without anything else on the naked raging barb mind you)

The druid just also nerfed his movement to 10 feet per round - although he does have a 20 foot reach it isn't difficult to avoid him.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns Subscriber

#1) use the smudge tool or pixel copy tool in your favorite image editor - zoom into the pixel level (you'd already have had to snapshot and copy the map into the editor - that's a given) and then very carefully remove the lines trying not to make a visible 'tell'

#2) get the interactive maps - which allow you to click a checkbox in the pdf to turn these off *and* hide secret doors

The interactive maps come with the individual pdf copy of each AP volume - however I've noticed they bundle them for sale once the AP is fully published if you only want the maps.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns Subscriber

1)

Illusions are tough to adjudicate and RAW only offers some guidelines - in general a good rule of thumb is to keep in mind the 'total area' that the illusion can encompass - interaction typically means 'trying to determine if it's real' - as others have said it's usually a standard action minimum inside of combat - although I'd say if the illusionist is causing the illusion to interact with something intentionally that should allow a save without the need for an action. The fun thing of illusions is (if you are creative enough, and the gm is game) the ability to combine spell effects, or even duplicate higher level effects with a low level spell - when trying to judge this type of use just remember an illusion gets at least one save - and more once someone figures it out (at a huge bonus) and can be auto-disbelieved with proof - so a 1st level illusion duplicating darkness might seem powerful - in reality it's not in most situations.

2) I'd say based on the current RAW and writeups on illusions - no.

3) Yes assuming the entire area is within the limits of the spell - the enemy shouldn't get a save until their turn when they should use a standard to interact - at least the first person to do so anyway. Only once someone saves and shows the illusion to be fake do the rest of them get the automatic save. The key here is that the effect isn't actually touching the enemy - if the illusionist forces the effect to be in contact with the enemy I believe they should get the auto-save.

Another question important to the ramifications of 1,2, and 3:

You are supposed to auto-disbelieve if you *Know* it's an illusion - in such a way assuming the caster adds 'tells' to his spells for his allies he can create fog clouds over the party that frustrate the enemy but don't hinder the party - same with wall spells and other 'battlefield control or obstacle spells' - note however if he creates a wall and the party goes through it - that should trigger a save from the enemy.

And, a final question; That's a tough one - RAW I'd say - yes but only within the area of effect of the illusion. So for silent image "four 10-ft. cubes + one 10-ft. cube/level " - in the case of a skylight depending on how high up it is most likely not - and in that case the light being broken up would be enough of a 'tell' to get a save automatically. In any case I think uses like that will require a bit of the GM's touch in what they will or won't allow - I'd most likely try to keep lower level spells from duplicating much higher level effects - so for silent image I'd say lowering the light by one level might be appropriate, and perhaps for Illusory Wall (as a 4th level spell) I'd let it block any light source. Both are figments, but in this case I go with the 'the higher level the spell - the more you can do with it' - to whit:

Paizo PRD says "Figments cannot make something seem to be something else. "

Paizo PRD says "When the spell is used to hide pits, traps, or normal doors," (Illusory wall - figment)

The rules are slightly contradictory regarding illusions - so I fall back on the idea that the higher level the spell - the better it is at what it can do - also in the case of the more specific the spell *or* description - the better the illusion is.

I like the thought that an illusionist who wants to make a wooden chair and focuses on it can make a chair so real that you couldn't tell it was fake after falling through it - while something big - vague - and without alot of description will correspondingly be vague and easier to figure out.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns Subscriber
Strife2002 wrote:

Pg. 262 - Xyoddin Xerriock

For what it's worth I think I'd just add 'variant' to this one and call it a day - there is too much wrong for it to be just a mistake.

He was correct in the old version - here are some stats:

hp 93 (12d12+15); fast healing 10
Str 24, Dex 16, Con —, Int 9, Wis 8, Cha 12
Skills Balance +7, Bluf +19, Climb +15, Diplomacy +19, Escape Artist
+7, Hide +7, Intimidate +25, Jump +15, Knowledge (nobility and
royalty) +15, Listen +8, Move Silently +7, Perform (strings) +17,
Profession (cook) +7, Search +8, Spot +8, Survival +8

My guess is that when looking at high level pathfinder they came across this guy - and 93 hps at this level (or 106 if you work him up favorably under PF rules) is just too low to be any kind of threat - so instead of adding HD they bumped his CHA ... alot...

He also had no class levels in the old version (Male ravenous dread zombie human aristocrat 12) so it's obvious they worked him over and intended to bump him up.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns Subscriber
Rynjin wrote:

I'm not sure I agree with that in many cases. There are quite a few abilities from Trickster, Champion, and Guardian that are more than merely numbers.

The problem with (or advantage of, in some cases) Mythic is that many of the options boosters are for very niche builds. Stuff like Grapple specialists get a lot more besides numbers, but your standard 2H wielder...not as much.

Which is awesome for grapplers, not so much for the 2H as far as interesting options go.

I'll agree with this - it would have been nice to see similar options for weapons that combat maneuvers received - something like a feat that let you use any weapon feat chain for a surge - and the entire chain for 2 surges (like champion gets an ability that lets you use any of the maneuver feats).

I'd have loved to see mythic feats that were 'you can ignore any two prerequisite feats - when selecting a normal feat with this option'.

I'd love to have seen things like 'your sword strikes so hard that it creates a wave of force pushing anything in a straight line prone up to one size larger than yourself - spend a mythic point to increase this to two size categories'

Pure numbers would be... ok - had they crunched the math and added things like 'at rank 5 and above add 1000 hps per tier to an enemy'


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns Subscriber
Rynjin wrote:
Alaryth wrote:
I personally support that effort. This is NOT a question of Martial/ Caster disparity. The problem is that Mythic increases much the offensive power, but only slightly the defensive side. So I support totally this, with some modifications to power up the defensse.

On the Defensive side:

Adamantine Mind f+$#s up anything that attempts to use its puny mind affecting magic on you.

There are not one, no two, but THREE abilities that allow for 24 hour duration on buffs.

Not to mention the obvious like the higher Tiers' immortality, or the one Legendary Item ability that can heal you for a lot of damage or remove any condition.

Quote:
Adamantine Mind (Ex): Your mind is as hard as any armor, and is dangerous to engage. You gain a bonus equal to your tier on saving throws against mind-affecting effects. Whenever you succeed at a save against a mind-affecting effect, the creature attacking you with that effect must succeed at a Will save (at the same DC) or be stunned for 1 round.

On it's whole I don't see much wrong with this ability. If it's truly overpowered perhaps the following change?

Quote:
Whenever you succeed at a save against a mind-affecting effect,as a swift action, you may spend a mythic surge to force the creature attacking you with that effect must to succeed at a Will save (at the same DC) or be stunned for 1 round. As a swift action a mythic caster may spend a Mythic surge to negate this feedback.

Still gives the protection - punishes non mythic foes at a cost - and allows a mythic enemy to defend themselves back...


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns Subscriber
Onyxlion wrote:

The casters don't need mythic feats they are nasty strong with just the casty tiers. But if you really want to know the power of a mythic spell caster then go look at mythic cloudkill because that's the only spell they need to wipe most things out.

If you're real savy you'll combine it with the mythic paragon feat so that you kill anything no save 5+tier HD or less, 6+tier - 8+tier save or die, 9+tier con dmg, it also lasts mins per level and it's controlled moveable. Bye bye armies, towns, dungeons, everything immune to poison after tier 8 (except undead and constructs). It's also a relatively low level spell so you could even metamagic widen, extend, or maximize the con damage for the tough buggers.

Edit: Fixed HD ranges.

On the table - Mythic cloudkill

Quote:

Mythic Cloudkill

As a move action, you can move the cloud 10 feet in any direction.

Add your tier to the spell's level and Hit Dice categories to determine its effect on creatures. (For example, at 3rd tier a creature with 6 or fewer Hd gets no save, one with 7–9 HD must save or die, and one with 10 or more HD must save or take 1d4 points of Con damage.)

Augmented (6th): If you expend two uses of mythic power, the spell bypasses the poison immunity of living creatures.

combined with Mythic Paragon

Quote:

Mythic Paragon (Mythic)

Your mythic power is even more potent than that of most other mythic beings.

Benefit: Your tier is considered 2 higher for determining the potency of mythic abilities, feats, and spells. This doesn't grant you access to mythic abilities or greater versions of mythic spells at a lower tier than you would normally need to be to get them, nor does it grant you additional uses of mythic power or adjust the dice you roll for your surge.

So the progression of this ability is
  • autokill anything with 4hd at tier 1 - up to 13hd at tier 10
  • fort save or die 5-7 HD at tier 1 - 15-17HD at tier 10
  • 1d4 Con damage to 8HD(and up) at tier 1 - 18HD(and up) at tier 10

Adding paragon to this makes it worse.

At tier 10 this spell instakills most CR16 encounters, many CR17 - and even a few CR20+

Even worse for an extra mythic surge it takes away poison immunity - which will wipe out mythic encounters at these levels too.

Fixes...

My suggestions for consideration would be:

  • change the 'add your tier' language to 'add your tier to the spells top HD range, nonmythic creatures get no save for the effects if their HD are lower than your tier + the normal range. (This in effect doesn't autokill things at a higher level but makes the con damage automatically affect monsters at a higher level range)
  • change the secondary surge to remove poison immunity from non-mythic living creatures and mythic creatures with poison immunity require a save


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns Subscriber
Zhangar wrote:
Mythic power attack is fine, though I'd be really tempted to toss out that "double the damage bonus before applying crit multiplier" nonsense on critical hits for adding a completely unneeded extra step.

I don't think that the added damage is a problem at all - as is the feat is too good in terms of removing the penalty for one surge and no action for 10 rounds - IMO in terms of other abilities this facet of the feat sticks out as not working like the design of the rest of the system. However again I do agree that actual damage increase it gives you isn't the problem itself.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns Subscriber
Seranov wrote:

So the problem is that the blasting spellcasters feel weak?

Let me assure you, that's because blasting is terrible. The martials finally being able to act like they're serious threats (even if only in hitting things) is hardly a bad thing.

Don't think anyone has said that - however plain vanilla Pathfinder a blaster can keep up with martial damage output, so the fact that it's out of whack may indeed be an issue - I'll have to consider that.

Thanks for your input - if anyone else is super worried about caster/martial disparity within mythic I'm interested in seeing the broken feats on the caster side to add to the discussion - lots of people posting that martial feats are fine but casters are broken without nice examples for us to discuss - please add to the discussion, play experience is a bonus in this case.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns Subscriber
NobodysHome wrote:
GM Niles wrote:
I've already houseruled that you can only use 1 mythic point per round, period for any reason. Was that too harsh?

I agree with the others; the problem is augmented mythic spells or fighter abilities that take 2 surges; you'd kind of knock them out.

That one per two tiers Seannoss suggests sounds ideal.

Thanks, Seannoss! Stealing that right now!

Is it the surge # or feats that are 'always on' or last for 10 rounds?

I have a thread going in pathfinder general trying to come up with fixes if you are interested - limiting surges wouldn't stop mythic vital strike as it's 'always on' for instance, the math makes this feat way out there in power land - once you take it - you do more damage on your minimum hit than you *could* have done on a maximum hit prior to it.


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

We're playing WotR (I am a player) - there are, until now, no problems with the mythic rules - just the usual "problems" with the opposition. (no real problem, just if you begin to mildly optimize characters and have 25point buy, APs may have to be adjusted accordingly)

The GM of WotR and me, running RotRl, we both use quite similar methods to keep things interesting/challenging (I look at you, simple Advanced template and max HP).

How can Power Attack and Vital Strike be a matter of concern? Sorry, but this is simply beyond me.

Mostly, people who are perfectly fine with the rules do not write about that in the Internet. I am and do (in this case).

From a different thread:

NobodysHome wrote:

OK, we had our first "stupid damage event" of the campaign. The 12/5 fighter burned 6 mythic surges to do 804 hit points in a single round.

The casters aren't even coming close, though the sorceress' maximized mythic fireball that did 100 to everyone over a wide area did more damage total.

Yeah, we've started Book 4, and damage output is just getting silly. Single creatures aren't a challenge any more...

A 12/5 fighter can take out a demon lord (CR 30) in one round.

He's supposed to be 'level 14.5' according to the CR rules - If you don't take mythic power attack and mythic vital strike this situation can't happen. That should be a clue these feats are an issue. The focus however isn't just these two feats.

A suggested house rule would be to limit mythic surges to 1 per every 2 tiers you posses - which would cap out at 5 per round under the current system - however that still would make feats that last for 10 rounds or don't require surges more powerful than those that don't.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns Subscriber
Onyxlion wrote:

Your reasons don't change anything about what's said. The short of it is if you're having problems with HP damage nothing is going to help you because you will have problems with everything else as well.

I will admit that the wording on mythic vital strike is horrid.

Thanks for the input - I'll continue to try and work on a set of house rules that makes Mythic more balanced and look for more input from people who would like to contribute.

In general if you would like to add either a feat/path ability/or system that you feel is part of what is breaking mythic play please chime in and we'll ad it to the discussion. Thanks :)


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns Subscriber
Ipslore the Red wrote:

Your idea of making Mythic Adventures less broken is to... nerf MARTIALS?

Solid idea, abysmal execution. 0/10.

No - I'm playing a martial in the mythic campaign and these two scream about being broken.

These two feats are also the #1 and #2 complained about in terms of breaking the game by several GM's and so they got my full attention to see why they were being complained about - and I agree they are broken.

If you read my first post - I didn't say these were the only two feats that needed fixing - the idea I have is to identify the feats that are way too overpowered compared the most and then see if we can't come up with a solid set of house rules that reign everything back in.

To whit:

  • I am fully on board with mythic being superpowered - I enjoy systems like heroes unlimited and Mutants and Masterminds. Superhero games are actually the most often run at my table outside of fantasy/d&d/pathfinder type games - so mythic to us was a big excitement.
  • You'll notice I used a level 7 barb in my example - that's because I wanted to show how even at low levels/tiers these two feats start to cause issues.
  • I am at this point unsure which caster feats in the mythic book are causing the most problems - from anecdotal evidence it would be the inspired spells the conversation as of yet, has not gotten there
  • With 'being superpowered' in mind there still needs to be some kind of balance, and the question is how best to achieve that - my guess is that some part of this thread will need to deal with CR adjustment and new mythic feats for 'mythic foes' that increase hp and or defense to allow for impressive fights
  • My hope is at the end of this we'd get a set of house rules that make things balanced - to that end if a single feat is in every case better than not just one - but more than one put together (like power attack) or is on it's own a doubling of power (like vital strike) then it should be the outlier - I'd rather have house rules for a smaller number of things than rebuild 90% of the martial feats (and the headaches this would cause to make a fight balanced) to keep up with these two - same goes for caster abilities.

Does that help? As to some of the other comments about 'being good on a single attack' - I do have issue with a martial putting out more damage on a single attack than a full attack - and that same barb could have achieved a full attack simply by changing his action priority - 'swift action to move and make a standard action (swift charge)' - hit the monster - free action single attack (tier 2) - make his full attack and then 5 foot step away to get distance - that's a valid attack chain in mythic - making a single attack shouldn't be the candy for the martials - making a full attack chain with options and mobility should be a more tempting cookie - right now it's not.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns Subscriber
The Archive wrote:
Mythic Power Attack is problematic in its current state if only because Mythic Furious Focus also exists. It really should not have the ability to eliminate the attack roll penalty while Mythic Furious Focus exists. Mythic Furious Focus is inherently worse. While it gives you the benefit of always ignoring the penalty on AoOs, the penalty ignoring via mythic power lasts for a single round. Mythic Power Attack does so much more and lasts for a full minute. It is too good in that regard.

I agree - that's why I suggested one round of reduced penalties - after reading furious focus I think the only fix would be to allow one round of reduced penalties with a swift action - this sets up an interesting difference between the two feats (furious focus requiring one more non-mythic feat to achieve - but giving the reduced penalties as a free action instead of swift).

It seems that they used 'swift action' (and immediate as that either uses swift on the current round or the next round's swift depending on the timing of the usage) as a way to limit mythic power from becoming absurd - the power attack feat as it stands breaks that design however.


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

So given that Mythic seems to have a few broken abilities lets have a conversation about what is broken and how we can fix it.

I start the conversation with two of the biggest ones:

Quote:

Power Attack (Mythic)

Your attacks are truly devastating.

Prerequisite: Power Attack.

Benefit: When you use Power Attack, you gain a +3 bonus on melee damage rolls instead of +2. When your base attack bonus reaches +4 and every 4 points thereafter, the amount of bonus damage increases by +3 instead of +2. In addition, the bonus damage from this feat is doubled on a critical hit, before it's multiplied by the weapon's critical multiplier.

You can expend one use of mythic power when you activate Power Attack to ignore the penalties on melee attack rolls and combat maneuver checks for 1 minute.

Why it's broken - the bonuses on power attack themselves aren't the problem - it's the line "You can expend one use of mythic power when you activate Power Attack to ignore the penalties on melee attack rolls and combat maneuver checks for 1 minute" for a single use of mythic power - using no action you ignore the penalties for 10 rounds. The progression ignores up to negative 6 on attack rolls.

I believe that this feat can be fixed by one of the following:

  • Reduce the duration to one round and require a swift action to use
  • keep the duration and no action but remove the attack penalty reduction
  • keep the duration and require a swift action to use and make the attack penalty reduction only work on the round activated

If you have another idea that would make this a bit more balanced I'd love to see it - we are looking for input into a house rule for our games.

Next up - Mythic Vital Strike:

Quote:

Vital Strike (Mythic)

You can strike your foes with incredible force.

Prerequisite: Vital Strike.

Benefit: Whenever you use Vital Strike, Improved Vital Strike, or Greater Vital Strike, multiply the Strength bonus, magic bonus, and other bonuses that would normally be multiplied on a critical hit by the number of weapon damage dice you roll for that feat.

Extra damage from sources that wouldn't normally be multiplied on a critical hit isn't multiplied by this feat.

Ok breaking the problem down behind a spoiler to make the numbers not clog up the conversation... (it has a minor spoiler from wrath of the righteous in it also so...)

Spoiler:

Barbarian level 7.

Str 16 to start - human +2 str = 18

+2 ability score from Iomedae = 20

+2 from level up = 22

+2 from tier 2 = 24

Rage = +4 = 28 Str

Feats = Power Attack - weapon focus - vital strike - whatever else
Mythic feats = mythic power attack, mythic weapon focus
Mythic power attack = -2, +6 (for 2 handed it would be -2,+9)

Earthbraker - 4d6 + 18 ( 9 * 2 power attack) + 26 (13 * 2 Str)/3

Barb mythic power attack/vital strike = +7 (level) + 9 (str) + 1 (weapon focus) = +17 to hit

That's a minimum of 48 and max of 68 damage. Without Mythic Vital Strike it would be a minimum of 26 and a max of 46.

Crits would be a min of 140 and max of 180. Without Mythic Vital Strike they would be minimum of 74 and max of 114.

From one hit. From a barbarian with a starting strength of 16, and *NO CHEESE* (outside of the built in mythic cheese)

If my math is off please let me know - what this means is one feat gives the following : Your min damage is now more than your previous max damage.

This is broken - there is no getting around it - no mythic surge needed - no actions used - and makes situations where you can use a charge attack to get in close - then use a mythic surge (swift strike - swift action) for an extra standard attack - getting off a vital strike for insane damage. At 2nd tier you can then use a free action for yet a third standard action - letting you hit again.

This means that 7th level Barb in the example gets 3 attacks for the cost of 2 mythic points and his swift action. He does a minimum of (charge power attack - 24, mythic vital strike 48, mythic vital strike 48) 120 damage, and a maximum of 170 damage.

This feat scales with the vital strike chain in a straight linear fashion.

Fix - I have no idea - at a minimum I suggest that this feat only works with a swift action surge. I'd lean towards including language that only allows a single vital strike per round regardless of the number of standard actions on your turn. I would also think only applying the 'multiply by the number of dice' language to crits only - which would make this feat very random - but satisfying when it does go off.

Open to suggestions...

Please bring up other examples.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns Subscriber

edit - nevermind this is magus fun I get it now.

Fun trick - not sure how useful it is in the long run.


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

I use a computer to GM - I also use a program called 'dm's familiar' although hero lab and the combat manager app (combat manager is free for the PC) also would work - pick one that works for you or just use google and make liberal use of searching (if you need to look something up in google type 'pathfinder <ability name/skill/spell here>'

So - if the statblock lists a 'before combat' note - this means the monster is *assumed* to have already cast/done/whatever is in the before combat section - before initiative is rolled. This is important because if the monster casts any buff spells or uses a potion/etc. it will already be incorporated into the stat block.

In my opinion this is the most important part of the tactics section - the monster is placed and built assuming the stats as written, if your party surprises the monster or you allow them to get the jump somehow then you should expect the fight to be easier for them, and you may need to remove the buffs by hand. During Combat and Morale are suggestions based on how the monster was added into the story. Sometimes these have a very good reason for being 'fight to the death' - if a monster is charmed or compelled in some way if the party can't figure that out and dispel the compulsion then there is no chance the monster will surrender.

Attacks: If a monster moves more than 5 feet (one square) it only gets one attack (usually the first one listed) regardless of how many are in it's statblock - it only gets the extras if it's standing still - it does get a free 5 foot step each round like a player.

Cheat sheet for special abilities:

Special attacks: Typically one as a standard action unless otherwise noted - like sneak attack where it just is situational. This section can also include class abilities that modify other attacks (like light blades from the warrior class - which should already be included in the statblock)

Special abilities: Typically one standard action unless otherwise noted.

Spells: Typically one standard action unless otherwise noted.

Spells: This can be tricky - as you get higher level monsters they may have feats that increase the spell DC - in the spell section anything that has a higher DC is called out with a DC number next to it - so if you see spells with different DC's in the same level tier that's why.

Feats: This is the most difficult part - if a monster has power attack - it's not in the printed statblock, ditto for vital strike, or awesome blow, or many other feats that modify the attack roll. You should have a cheat sheet with how the combat feats work - and very likely should have a cheat sheet for the most common ones. I try to go through the statblock of monsters the PC's are *likely* to encounter and look for feats I don't know and make a note of them before the session - for the first book be on the lookout for the goblin chief's rideby attack and spirited charge for instance.

FINALLY: Monster special attacks have DCs - these are all tied to a stat and if the monster gets a buff spell (or you used the advanced simple template on them for instance) the DC of the special abilities also should go up. Special note is anything tied to constitution becomes tied to charisma if the monster is made undead. This can be important because many times Paizo will use a line such as 'advanced goblin dog' without the stats and make you do the conversion yourself. When you do so - don't forget to increase the DC of any special they have by 2. This is also important if they get hit by a spell or effect that increases or decreases a stat - if a player hits them with a curse that reduces the stat tied to their abilities it will reduce the DC (1 for every 2 stat points increased or decreased) - this is why when you go through the bestiary you will notice a line in monster descriptions that indicates what stat the ability DCs are based off of.

1 to 50 of 505 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 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.