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


RSS

1 to 50 of 560 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns Subscriber
NobodysHome wrote:


Odd I only got 34k ish - I wonder what the differences were - does go to show everyone counts things a little differently.

Yep. I suspect it's the whole, "A dress worth 100 g.p."

From other threads I've read, I believe that's supposed to be the selling price, so I added 100 g.p. to the spreadsheet. If you take it to be the buying price and cut it in half, I bet we'd make up almost all the difference. (And I sold the goblin dogslicers and so forth -- lots of "garbage loot" that no reasonable human would ever buy...)

yeah I had a separate tally for art/gems/coins for things that sell full value and counted all the goblin loot - (as stated above even a regular goblin should have a dogslicer, shield, short bow, arrows) I may have missed something or perhaps classified something incorrectly - it was much more of a pain to go through all that than I thought it would be.

My players missed quite a bit of loot so I gave them other things to make up for it (being heroes in sandpoint I gave them 60% for selling instead of 50% and gave them a 10% discount on buying stuff as well).

They are just starting book 3 and are pretty much spot on for wbl except my crafter wizard who is in line considering the crafted items.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns Subscriber
captain yesterday wrote:

I just found mint original skinsaw murders at used bookstore, $10

:-)

I found curse of the crimson throne - books 1-3 and 6 - I had to check the website on my phone and check but I got 4-5 online giving me a full AP set :)

I was very happy - that was only a couple of months ago.

Now if I could only find the horror one...


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns Subscriber
NobodysHome wrote:

BOOK 1 TOTALS:

- Expected WBL, 4 PCs, 4th level: 4 x 6000 = 24,000 g.p.

- Easy-to-find, easy-to-sell treasure and items: 16,438 g.p.
- Hard-to-find but still reasonably sell-able items: 7,285 g.p. (including the 3,000 g.p. head, which some people might object to)

So -without- the goblin or hobgoblin gear, but -with- selling everything at half price you're at 23,723 g.p. which is pretty darned close.

If you add in goblin and hobgoblin gear (and a certain dagger), you get a whopping extra 13,816.

Considering this was all gear and all items without explicitly stated values at half price and I still ended up at 37,539.32, I think James' claim of "double per book" holds water through Book 1.

Anyone want to suggest a good place I can publicly post a read-only version of the spreadsheet so people can chew it up?

Thanks!

Book 2 this weekend, I think. Takes quite a while...

EDIT: And I included Big M's stuff as "easy to find" (1500 g.p. worth of candles and a ring that sells for 4250 g.p.). So there's another 5750 g.p. some people might re-categorize as "hard to find".

Odd I only got 34k ish - I wonder what the differences were - does go to show everyone counts things a little differently.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns Subscriber
NobodysHome wrote:
Bellona wrote:

Folks, here's a small nit-pick from the vocabulary police: there is a difference between the treasure HOARD and the orc HORDE.

Please take note! That goes for game publishers too - I've seen at least one printed reference to a dragon's horde (which isn't likely unless one's playing Dragon Mountain, or maybe The Red Hand of Doom). :)

See, if you're going to be the grammar police, you really need to get them ALL:


  • It is not "rouge", it's "rogue"! "Rouge" is a form of makeup!
  • It is not "Monty Haul", it is "Monty Hall". Monty Hall was the game show host for "Let's Make a Deal" in the 1960's and 1970's. The show was famous for its ridiculously-costumed contestants and its ludicrously over-the-top prizes. Since D&D originally developed in the 1970's, dungeons with excessive loot were referred to as "Monty Hall" dungeons in his honor.
  • A "hoard" is something someone has collected. A "horde" is a group of attackers.
  • Contrary to common sense, "its" is possessive, while "it's" is a contraction for "it is". Always.
  • "There" is a location. "Their" is possessive. "They're" is a contraction.

Honestly, I think the greatest favors ever done for me were by complete jerks:
- If I mis-used "its/it's" or "they're/there/their" in an English paper, I got an automatic 0 on the entire paper.
- If I made a mistake while driving, my driving instructor slammed on the brakes, yelled, "BAM! YOU'RE DEAD!", and my turn was over.

Kind of made me remember proper grammar and proper driving. Go figure.

All of that and I only got dinged on using horde instead of hoard?

I'm disappointed no one pointed out it's 'role-playing' not 'rollplaying' - but that's what I get for being intentionally punny.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns Subscriber
magnuskn wrote:


Still, gotta know how much I need to place for my six players in that first group. I am very much aware that the first modules of RotRL can seem a little scarce on treasure even for four players!

Well it will depend somewhat on what your characters consider loot - what they find - and what you allow to be sold - some tips:


  • goblins are expected to have the gear listed in the bestiary - I pegged each goblin gear value at 52 (prior to selling) - warchanters were 135 and commandos were 673.
  • Aldern (if taken on his offer for a boar hunt) actually *buys* a horse for each player - that's 75 (or more if you are generous and say each mount has tackle and a saddle)
  • Unless your players are very dead set on their own thing they should get free room and board while in sandpoint which helps
  • I suggest checking out the (free) wayfinder mag from this site - there is a side adventure to explore choppers isle that is very cool - I added a masterwork weapon for each PC as a reward when they were done personally.
  • If your players find *everything* and sell *everything* you will need to add about 2k to hit level 4 wbl for a 6 player party. Shouldn't be too hard to do - the problem will be they should level to 5 pretty quick in the 2nd book and will fall behind as most of the exp from that first part is based on rollplaying. They should catch up by the end though due to some very nice treasure hordes.

Anyway those are my thoughts.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns Subscriber

Actually if you and your GM are thinking about allowing this I suggest that your GM read this post:

Strain/Injury variant by Mythic Evil Lincoln


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns Subscriber

I put together a list - if the players find *everything* and sell *everything* (not keeping any loot for themselves) - they end up with:

34,086.48gp at the end of book one.

For four players that averages to 8,521.62

At the end of book 1 - players should be level four and wealth by level = 6,000 gp.

So based on the book - again assuming they never keep a single item (unlikely - making the wbl higher) they will end up halfway to level 5 wbl.

I would like to point out that the worst book in the series for 'wealth' was book 1 - and it's the source of most complaints if you do a search on ancient threads.

If you have more than 4 players and they don't loot everything - you (as a GM) may have to make some adjustments.... I'm not doing that for book 2 - it was rather a pain in the butt lol.


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

I had the best GM lesson of my life given to me by Alfred Leonardi - I was beta testing a runescape game for him and he frankly body slammed my ideas of what 'my' story was within about 5 minutes.

Essentially you can never count on players to do what you want them to do. It doesn't matter what story you have and how cool it is - the game isn't played just by the GM - if the players don't have agency in the game and can't actually choose to do anything then what fun is it.

Does this mean players should be allowed broken things? Nope - using shadow walk as a 2nd level spell is broken - my 'nerf' would be to take the lumps when it happened and then create an entire adventure in the plane of shadow. If the players are there when they aren't high enough level for it - too bad - they chose to use the plane and so results predictably will be they either escape not wanting to go back or worse. Problem solves itself - the shadow plane is nasty. Just having a pack of 10-15 shadows looking for the player drawn by the 'sweet smell of fresh living beings' is enough to really do nasty things.

I also wouldn't allow a player to have a 'I kill it' button - but that's besides the point. A player has to sit at the table with the understanding that the rules are there not to be broken, but to create a challenge for players to overcome with the opportunity to fail. There should never be a 'god mode' at a tabletop RPG.

At the same time the GM should expect the players to do the unexpected and as long as it's within the rules go with the flow and let the players shape the story. If there is a railroad (say like an adventure path) then it should be stated up front that you are playing 'x' and the expectation would be to stay on the story track within reason.

These days I let my players do what they want - if that means they take a 'lead' and go in the wrong direction then whatever - it's just another adventure :)


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns Subscriber

In the 'community created' thread there someone did a 'generated' writeup for Turtleback Ferry - I went ahead and fleshed that out with character cards and a bit more writeup along with a GM guide if anyone is interested there are links on one of the few most recent pages...


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns Subscriber

Yeah after looking it up - that elixir isn't even in 'Pathfinder' (the RPG) - it is a specific item from a 3.5 pathfinder (when it was the only title) adventure path.

As such it's not actually available or known - did the crafting player have to research the new item?

The GM goofed by allowing it in the game. Don't use that non-paizo website to look stuff up - because it's not official.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns Subscriber
PMSchulz wrote:
I know I've seen it somewhere, but there's a trait or feat that allows you the safe use of poison. I'm not referring to the Alchemist or the Poisoner Rogue, but there was a trait that allows you to safely use poison. At least, I think it was a trait. It might have been a feat. So, have I just missed where it is, or am I wrong?

Harvester

Quote:
Harvester: You were trained to harvest all parts of an animal with care and precision. You gain a +1 trait bonus on Profession (tanner) or Profession (trapper) checks, and you may make these checks as if you were trained in the skill even if you have no ranks. Additionally, you do not risk poisoning yourself whenever you handle or apply poison taken from a venomous creature.

(ultimate campaign)

That's the only one - it is a trait.


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns Subscriber

I see what your problem is here.

That elixir (despite the name) isn't a potion. It's a wondrous item.

Your ability doesn't work with it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns Subscriber
Jorshamo wrote:
The problem people are running into is assuming that everything written in the CRB is as it's intended to be. Compare PF overland flight with 3.5 overland flight, and PF fly with 3.5 fly. You'll notice for overland flight, the mention of "Average maneuverability" is scrubbed, leaving you with only the half CL bonus. It was required since 3.5 didn't have the fly skill, and everything was based on your maneuverability rating. However, from 3.5 to PF for fly, the only change to the text of the addition of the clause saying you get a bonus to your fly skill. I am of the opinion that while average maneuverability was successfully removed from overland flight, the good maneuverability of fly was left in by mistake.

The argument that it was intentional is just as valid. There is not a single thing outside of 'it supports my argument' that one side or the other is more right about this - which makes it a perfect FAQ target - FAQ it and move on.


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

Here is for reference...

NOAA

Odds of being struck by lightning in a given year (reported deaths + injuries)

1/1,190,000

Odds of being struck by lightning in a given year (estimated total deaths + injuries)

1/960,000

Odds of being struck in your lifetime (Est. 80 years)

1/12,000

So if you really want to make it real - roll 100 on a d10 around 100 times in a row - if all 100 rolls hit 100 then a character is struck.

Outside of that it's GM fiat based on the rules in the CRB which say lighting can strike but not that it must strike.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns Subscriber

Name of PC: Biru Shadow Caller
Class/Level: Female gnome thief 3
Adventure: Burnt Offerings
Catalyst: Giant Hermit Crab
Story:

I'm writing this for my player - and although the death happened long ago it shadows the campaign to this day...

Spoiler:

So the party finished Nualia and got beat up pretty badly (lots of ability damage) by the shadows - and they enter the room with the pool of seawater - everyone leaves but Biru who wants to investigate the helmet.

Except she took a bit getting around to it (searching the room) so by the time the crab came out - the party was 2-3 rounds away.

The crab... being a crab managed to get ahold of her - and the party ran back to help finding her barely hanging on (due to crappy rolls by the crab) in the crabs claws. Well - the crab decided to roll well - and constrict is wickedly dangerous.

On a side note a married couple who are friends of mine played 2 characters in my campaign - Biru was one of them and sadly even though I give a hero point per level to 'avoid 1 death' the incident happened at the same time they had decided one of them would have to drop out due to kids school projects and other real life stuff - so this was a catalyst for her player to gracefully depart the campaign.

The party took Biru's corpse and ended up putting a certain neck item on it and interned her in the Sandpoint crypts. She up to that point had been the party leader and named the group - so they continue (to this day - book 3 now) to call themselves 'Biru's champions' and using the Ultimate Campaign rules I've been adding 'kingdom building' materials into some of their rewards (including running the awesome 'choppers isle' side adventure in wayfinder) - they now have bought choppers isle and with the decent haul from the end of book 2 have begun construction of a 'guild hall' - the centerpiece is a statue to the character.


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

This is one of those places where you need to relax and ask yourself if this adds to the adventure or just makes it a pain for your characters.

Essentially if you follow the 1 bolt per minute and hit pc's with bolts the entire time no single player I know will think that's fun or cool - even if there was a wizard or cleric controlling the storm I'd expect forewarning.

Have the storm build up - hit a tree - if they don't try to find shelter have their hair start to stand on end... etc. if you really want to push it.

As to advice:

1) Modules aren't a bible - modify things that don't make sense or you don't like.

2) Rules aren't a bible - modify things that don't make sense or you don't like.

3) Generally if you play the storm like above it'd be the same as having a super volcano open under them - it's just silly and not really fair to the players. Heck the rules let them swim in lava for less damage.

Ask yourself if you would enjoy playing a game where the party died to a random storm, and what is heroic about that, and why you'd take the time to buy books, make a character, find motivation, and gather with other people so that time you've put into the character is snuffed out because 'the rules say 1 bolt per minute'.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns Subscriber
Bob Bob Bob wrote:

Neothelid is -2 Dex, -6 Size, +10 spell... and now we're positive and it doesn't work. So I think I'll go with "devs are human and make mistakes sometimes", as this one has a major error in the calculation.

And I'll confess, continuous SLAs may have been intended to be considered as "natural". I didn't notice until actually looking it up that the universal monster ability Flight includes Sp as one of the valid types.

No they are -2 Dex, -6 Size (this is -8) spell (good) +4 for a total of -4

which is exactly what they are listed at in the PRD.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns Subscriber

Ok then...

The Neothelid also has fly as a constant SLA - and uses the modifier - I realize it's final skill is -4 but...

-2 Dex -6 (size) +4 (maneuver bonus from fly spell) = -4

It's other skills take all 140 of it's skill points so the result is a 0 in the fly skill - just like printed.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns Subscriber
Snorter wrote:


The ghost's flight is a natural fly speed, since it's a permanent movement mode that one gains from becoming a ghost. It's not gained from casting a spell or using a spell-in-a-can item.

Rob didn't explicitly answer the question that was being asked; an explicit answer would have been "Yes, a ghost's flight is a natural fly speed.".

Instead he implies this is the case, by explaining the math behind the final bonus, and confirming that they gave the sample ghost the +8 bonus she would be expected to get from having a natural fly speed.
And from that, we would deduce that ghost flight gives a natural fly speed.

That ignores my second example.

A Qlippoth Cythnigot has a constant 'fly' spell-like ability and gets the bonus.

Spell-like abilities can be dispelled. They aren't (Ex) or (Su) - and yet it gets the maneuver bonus from an outside force.

There are many more - I'll keep trotting them out because from my (admittedly non-exhaustive) research the Paizo dev's have been consistent with how it's used. Which is opposite of what you are saying.

You'll note this is in 'general' so RAI is exactly what we are talking about here.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns Subscriber
Bob Bob Bob wrote:

Alright, please tell me how you unmake a ghost. I'll wait. Because if you can't separate "ghost" from the creature then it's now a part of the creature and counts as natural (well, as natural as anything in Pathfinder). Is there a way to undo templates? Can you unzombify someone without killing them and raising them from the dead? If not, that seems to argue that "zombie" is the new natural state for them. Just like "ghost" is the natural state of anyone with the ghost template applied.

If you insist on that definition of natural abilities, I have a problem for you to solve.

Universal Monster Abilities wrote:
Flight (Ex, Sp, or Su) A creature with this ability can cease or resume flight as a free action. If the creature has wings, flight is an extraordinary ability. Otherwise, it is spell-like or supernatural, and it is ineffective in an antimagic field; the creature loses its ability to fly for as long as the antimagic effect persists. Format: fly 30 ft. (average); Location: Speed.
You'll notice this defines flight as Ex, Sp, or Su. All winged flight is extraordinary. This means that Flight is never a natural ability. And yet we have an explicit restriction to "natural fly speed". The only possible conclusion is that we're expected to read "natural" in the plain english definition instead of the game definition. Which, as I said last time, is innate abilities not created by outside forces (magic, jetpacks, flying carpets).

A Qlippoth Cythnigot has a constant 'fly' spell-like ability and gets the bonus.

Spell-like abilities can be dispelled. They aren't (Ex) or (Su) - and yet it gets the maneuver bonus from an outside force.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns Subscriber
Diego Rossi wrote:


A creature that get the supernatural ability to fly for 10 minutes 3 times in a day or that can cast the fly sped don't get a natural fly speed, it get the effect of a supernatural ability.

Bob Bob Bob wrote:
"Natural" has nothing to do with natural things in the real world. A natural fly speed is a fly speed that is an innate part of a creature and cannot be removed, dispelled, or otherwise taken away (without an anti-magic field, because some flight is SU). A ghost totally has a natural fly speed. A creature that casts overland flight/fly does not. A creature with an item that casts
...

Actually you are wrong. Pathfinder *edit* has the definition of what's 'natural'.

PRD says wrote:

Supernatural Abilities: These can't be disrupted in combat and generally don't provoke attacks of opportunity. They aren't subject to spell resistance, counterspells, or dispel magic, and don't function in antimagic areas.

Extraordinary Abilities: These abilities cannot be disrupted in combat, as spells can, and they generally do not provoke attacks of opportunity. Effects or areas that negate or disrupt magic have no effect on extraordinary abilities. They are not subject to dispelling, and they function normally in an antimagic field. Indeed, extraordinary abilities do not qualify as magical, though they may break the laws of physics.

Natural Abilities: This category includes abilities a creature has because of its physical nature. Natural abilities are those not otherwise designated as extraordinary, supernatural, or spell-like.

So the for a creature like the Yeth Hound - which is supernatural flight - and still has the maneuver bonus.

Again the Devs uses the listed flight rating when giving bonuses - 'natural' or not - as they are consistent about it - I'd say the mistake is in the 'flight' writeup - not the many other places the bonus (or penalty) is used.

(edited because I'm only on my first cup of coffee - sorry)


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns Subscriber
Bob Bob Bob wrote:
"Natural" has nothing to do with natural things in the real world. A natural fly speed is a fly speed that is an innate part of a creature and cannot be removed, dispelled, or otherwise taken away (without an anti-magic field, because some flight is SU). A ghost totally has a natural fly speed. A creature that casts overland flight/fly does not. A creature with an item that casts fly/overland flight does not. A creature with continuous fly does not.

Actually ghost flight isn't 'natural' it's acquired.

Quote:

“Ghost” is an acquired template that can be added to any

living creature that has a Charisma score of at least 6. A
ghost retains all the base creature’s statistics and special
abilities except as noted here.

You can't use your own rationalization (even if it's good) when discussing rules after all that would lead you to asking what use listing maneuverability is when the only use it has in game is a bonus or penalty on fly checks.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns Subscriber
Diego Rossi wrote:

No, not there, the citation there is the one I made, with natural fly speed in it. the bonus isn't applied if you fly with a supernatural ability or a spell.
Check what you linked and you will see it.

Rob McCreary wrote:
Ckorik wrote:

Rob - regarding the ghost on page 43 - should they have an additional +8 on the flight skill for having (perfect) flight?

I'm unsure if the ghosts flight ability would be considered natural - based on the stat block it's not - but I was wondering if you would comment on that.

Her Fly skill does include the +8 bonus for her maneuverability, but it also includes the -5 armor check penalty for her armor.

I quote a Dev here for one reason - the ghost template doesn't give a 'natural' fly speed - it just gives fly (perfect).

Yet the devs add the bonus into the creatures stat blocks.

Apparently when a maneuverability rating is listed it is for a 'natural' fly speed.

At least that's how the Dev's do it.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns Subscriber
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:

If you see it as simply an extra attack, with penalties to both, and then have the primary attack deal x1.0 strength to damage, and off-hand deal x0.5, there should be no problem for anyone.

Looking at it this way, and running it as x1.0/x0.5, then any combination should not trouble anyone.

Also, it is just arrogant, and rude, to insult the intelligence of those didn't see the hidden unwritten rules, and believed it functioned as the identically worded 3.5 rules.

Don't be a dick.

Although I agree with the sentiments, and although it may be simpler for some, the Str bonus to damage for the primary hand is not limited by TWF any more than it's limited outside of TWF. If the primary attack is with a 2HW or a 1HW in two hands, then the Str bonus to damage is x 1.5.

The only way TWF affects the Str bonus to damage is with the off-hand attack (which only exists in TWF), and limits the Str bonus to damage for the off-hand attack to x 0.5. The primary attack's Str bonus to damage is not limited in any way by TWF.

Ermmm - no there is no ambiguity about this Malachi...

Damage is made adding strength (1x) to the weapon or sling. Currently the special rules call out 1.5 str for two handed and .5 str for offhands.

That makes TWF .5 and 1 (as the current rules disallow using a two handed attack with two weapon fighting).

The entire reason for the FAQ really is to keep people from doing what you are doing there - that is getting more than 1.5 STR from a single attack iterative.

The idea from blackblood troll I think is a more elegant solution to the entire thing - just have a maximum of 1.5 STR per iterative - use it how you want.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns Subscriber
Rasmus Koch wrote:

Hi, i dont play with a digital platform for the maps. My group, play strictly live and oldschool :)

how to i implement these beautiful maps and other stuff to my campaign.

How do i convert them into prinable formats with squares on it ?

tutorial to make battlemaps

That's using photoshop - however there are instructions for 'gimp' (which is freeware) in the comments below the article.

I will note that some of these really nice maps end up not working in Posterazor - the file gets too big due to all the pretty graphics and it won't open the '1 inch scale' :(

I don't know how to fix that.

I did get the 'interactive' maps from paizo - which wasn't outrageous to use for battlemaps.

If you want to see what it looks like printed - here is a link - that's using my printers 'economy' setting to save on ink - which in general makes each page cost me around 5-6 cents or less. Maps range anywhere from 6-30 pages depending on size (the shadow clock has been the biggest one I've done) so rough costs are $.30 to $1.80 in ink + paper and tape or glue.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns Subscriber
Avh wrote:
Ckorik wrote:
Undone wrote:

Can I just point out something.

Quote:
Maneuverability: Creatures with a fly speed receive a bonus (or penalty) on all Fly checks depending on their maneuverability:
Which is +4 for "Fly" the spell so at 5th level it is impossible to fall without a -2 or -3 dexterity modifier when added to the half caster level bonus. With a good dex you can eventually reach auto success rates.

For an alchemist +7 - if he puts a point int the fly skill that's +4.

We will assume his dex is horrible and his net (for 1 skill point) is a +8 (-3 dex)

That still puts him at needing to only roll a 2 or better to move less than 1/2 speed (5 foot step anyone?) and only needing a 7 or better to hover.

That's from a single skill point.

If he put 4-5 skill points in it he'd be in the 'only fail on a 1' for hover and 5 or better for a straight up.

At some point he could realistically say 'why am I rolling' with a few more skill points - you can't fail a skill check on a 1 - so once he has a high enough skill that a 1 will bring him over the check needed he can stop making those rolls.

The point being that it shouldn't be really that difficult.

First, you don't fail on a 1.

Then, even if you fail by 5 or more, you don't fall when flying with Magic.

Let's take a 7th basic alchemist with 8 dex (it is way lower than it should, but whatever). The alchemist has +6 in Fly. It allows her to move less than half speed 85% of the time (100% out of combat), Hover or turn greater than 45° 60% of the time (100% out of combat), and turn 180° or fly upward 35% of the time.

With a single rank, she attains +10 in Fly. It would allow her to move less than half speed 100% of the time, Hover or turn greater than 45° 80% of the time (100% out of combat), and Turn 180° or fly upward 55% of the time (100% out of combat).

With max ranks, she attains +16 in Fly, which would allow her to turn 180+ or fly upward 85% of the time in combat, and to do whatever else she...

I'm not arguing with you - I am thinking you may have misread my post (I bolded the part where I noted you can't fail on a one).

We (at our table) only worry about fly checks when there is something major going on (grapple in the air, being shot at while flying perhaps, a dragon breathing at you ... ) we never worry about it for just moving - not for the fly *spell* - now wings on the other hand... that's a different story.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns Subscriber
Undone wrote:

Can I just point out something.

Quote:
Maneuverability: Creatures with a fly speed receive a bonus (or penalty) on all Fly checks depending on their maneuverability:
Which is +4 for "Fly" the spell so at 5th level it is impossible to fall without a -2 or -3 dexterity modifier when added to the half caster level bonus. With a good dex you can eventually reach auto success rates.

For an alchemist +7 - if he puts a point int the fly skill that's +4.

We will assume his dex is horrible and his net (for 1 skill point) is a +8 (-3 dex)

That still puts him at needing to only roll a 2 or better to move less than 1/2 speed (5 foot step anyone?) and only needing a 7 or better to hover.

That's from a single skill point.

If he put 4-5 skill points in it he'd be in the 'only fail on a 1' for hover and 5 or better for a straight up.

At some point he could realistically say 'why am I rolling' with a few more skill points - you can't fail a skill check on a 1 - so once he has a high enough skill that a 1 will bring him over the check needed he can stop making those rolls.

The point being that it shouldn't be really that difficult.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns Subscriber

Ohhhh I like that Latrecis - turn the hellknights against them :)

Although be ready for the mess that could result if the players are fighting with an established order within Magnimar - although given the rest of the cities politics getting rid of them may actually be looked at in a favorable light (assuming they succeeded).

Perhaps Ironbriar fled with his book and managed to take the list of murders with him - enough evidence to implicate him.

The hellknights get the visit from X and want to arrest the players - but the players in the meantime get a lead on where Ironbriar is hiding - with a bunch of cultists (they weren't *all* in the sawmill after all) - and the hellknights try to arrest the players.

So now the only way to clear their names is to find Ironbriar and the information that links him to the crimes.

Or perhaps the players get arrested and when being questioned one notices the items and information showing the hellknights captured Ironbriar - now they are in prison (the small one the Hellknights keep) and need to get out and get the evidence to clear their names.

Another possibility is that the leader of the Hellknights is in secret a member of the skinsaw cult....

There are all kinds of threads that could be plucked here...


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns Subscriber
Peet wrote:

Taking advantage of item crafting feats I find my players seem to be getting ahead of their WBL, actually. We have had a fifth player join the game, but at this stage I am not adjusting the treasure upwards as I feel they have enough loot at the moment. Splitting the loot five ways instead of four may solve the problem.

I think for my next campaign I will get rid of crafting feats. I will say that by having the minimum level required by the feat and making the requisite skill check they can make any item they want... at full price. Let them spend feats on actual character abilities. My party oracle does all the crafting and he's a bit behind everyone else in terms of character power, partly because of this.

Peet

FYI the rules are that a crafter *should* be ahead of WBL as the bonus for getting the feat. That makes it a powerful feat - *if* you let them creep ahead of the WBL curve. Otherwise you shouldn't let them take it if you feel you have to reduce treasure - at that point it doesn't help them.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns Subscriber
Cerberus Seven wrote:
felinoel wrote:

I fly straight up and roll less than amazing and end up in the dirt right in front of the BBEG I was trying to fly away from.

Why was flight nerfed so hard? I just wanted to get away from the mind controller before I murdered my party as commanded by the BBEG...

x.x

First off, just in case you're missing something off your check: if you can use an extract of fly, you should have at least a +7 to the check from that alone (1/2 caster level [minimum 7th because alchemical] plus 4 for good maneuverability). If you've had at least a day or two to practice for a bit, then you should be able to put a minimum of one rank in it too, which also provides you a +3 class skill bonus.

Right - +7 fly skill

You can take 10 on this check - so if you don't put any points into the skill at all you have a +17 unless you are trying something really tricky or there is a hurricane.

You should always be able to hover - you should always be able to move at a 45 degree angle (i.e. half speed up - note the 45 degree angle is a full speed move but you only move 1/2 the distance - it's 1/2 forward and 1/2 up)

If you put a *single* point into the fly skill you get a +4 (3 for class skill) to the check.

So lets assume you really dumped dex and it's a 4. That's a -3 on the check - so a 15 with take 10. That still lets you hover and move 1/2 speed without making a fly check. Is your Dex a 1?


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns Subscriber

Well if you really want them to do their own thing - first get a goal that has urgency (If we don't find the mystical foozle within a week the green dragon is going to crush the town).

Second setup 3 clues that point towards foozle - and make only one of them correct.

When they sit there staring at you blankly remind them of all three clues and if they pick the wrong one - let them do it and possibly fail.

First this is not an MMO and they should be able to fail based on their (in)action. Second if they realize that not all clues are valid they should start to think about paying attention to what they have and try a bit to find the correct one.

Nothing is wrong about reminding the players what info they have, but they should have a bit of initiative on their own. It is very handy to have a 'start this quest' type NPC giving a task - but with just a bit of a jump start they should be able to pickup and run.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns Subscriber
yazo wrote:
the WotC D&D forums are filled with people who are less than useless,

When you can classify an entire group as 'less than useless' I'm unsure the player is the problem.

I'd suggest being open to others ideas and how they might like to play the game - and corroborate rather than shuffle people you disagree with as less than useless.

But by the end of this post I'm sure I fit into that category.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns Subscriber
leo1925 wrote:
captain yesterday wrote:
No, its not
Can you elaborate a little?

Dr. Who isn't a bad comparison - only because Baba Yaga is a ancient witch that travels through time and space and is (almost) invulnerable and (almost) omnipotent.

She gets tricked into a trap at the start of the adventure and your group gets picked to help her out - mostly due to being in the wrong place at the right time (this part of the story is the easiest to modify depending on how much your party would be willing to help an evil witch).

After that happens they get access to her hut which takes them to different worlds, times, and locations to located parts and bits needed to free her from the trap she's in - conversely the adventure has a *huge* amount of variation on locations, creatures, and situations that they find themselves in.

It's not everyone's cup of tea but honestly if you can get into the idea of time/space travel through an artifact the theme and goals of the adventures are pretty well interconnected and there isn't much in terms of 'what do we do now george?'.

That being said it could also be accused of being the most railroad-y AP they have written. Once down the golden brick road you don't really have the ability to step off.

The second most would be Legacy of Fire - after a certain point you are stuck on tracks with no way off for a long time. (I like both FYI - YMMV depending on what your preferences are)


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns Subscriber
Chess Pwn wrote:
graystone wrote:

The idea is that no matter what combination of weapons you have, based on actual hands, you can only gain normal strength damage with your main attack and .5 strength with your off hand attack(s). So is you, for instance, have a greatsword, you'd deal normal x1 damage instead of x1.5 if used in two weapon fighting.

That would have also solved what the DEV's seemed to be balking at (someone getting more than 1.5 strength damage from attacks [1.5 two handed + .5 offhand for x2 damage total])

It was floated as a MUCH easier way to 'solve' the issues that where 'solved' with the armor spikes FAQ.

But with this proposed you can have THW at 1.0, bladed boot .5, boulder helm .5, armor spikes .5, and kick .5. That's 3x str. Take double slice and then you'd have 5x str. All with just two-weapon fighting. all at only a -2 since the off hands are all light.

No I'm pretty sure it's more like this:

You can have any # of weapons wielded at any given time. However you can only ever make 2 attacks per 'BAB iterative' - one at 1.5 Str -or 2 with one being 1.0 str and the other at .5 str.

That would allow you to dual wield a 2h sword and gauntlet or armor spikes by using the lower damage multiplier for the sword and thus the lower power attack scale as well.

I'm unsure where you'd add more attacks in under that rule vs. the 'hands' ruling we have now.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns Subscriber
NobodysHome wrote:

Zhangar makes a great point -- I've seen some GM threads where the GMs don't feel it's "realistic" to give full value (well, half purchase price) for unusually-sized items (a certain tiny +1 cold iron returning dagger, for instance).

If the GM starts saying, "That treasure isn't treasure, you can't sell it," then yes, you'll run into money issues.

My group skipped the catacombs entirely - I mean they saw the entrance and decided that they didn't want to investigate. (There was a big blowup between the players about metagaming with one person *insisting* that exploring it because it's mysterious was out of game knowledge - that player quit the game soon after but the damage was done and I decided to let the entire thing go as the catacombs are cool and can help tie the plot together I wasn't going to railroad them into them).

I did give the PC's a 10% bonus on selling anything in Sandpoint - it helped them be 'big cool heroes'. I also gave them a 10% discount after they did enough in town.

By the end of the book they had to truck a bunch of stuff to Magnimar to sell (due to Sandpoints economy).

As to the masks I had the church of Abadar approach them and offer them 50% of the value straight up - the church put them into a vault.

Anyway yeah if you disallow selling of stuff you run into issues.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns Subscriber
graystone wrote:
Ok wait a moment, I've got to take this boulder helmet/bootblade/armorspike/barbazu beard/Sea-Knife ect off so I can put it in my hand so I can use it in a AoO. That's an even worse 'ruling' IMO than the 'hands of effort' one. I can only hope that Ckorik's link NEVER sees the light of day as a FAQ. If it does, it'll make adopted (tusked) a VERY popular trait to take.

Well that's why I noted they never changed it - the quote is from several years ago.

The point is really that from all appearances the intent was that you could only make attacks with 2 one handed or 1 two handed 'weapon' (quotes because weapon means things like boot spikes etc.) and what you used for attack was what was available for AoO's.

Not that you had to have a hand 'free' to use armor spikes - it could be holding something or using a shield - but that if you used that hand in an attack it would block the 'availability' of using the spikes as a wielded weapon.

*edit* This being using Armor spikes with a reach weapon*
This is (again) something widely used and accepted as a good way to play and I think that once they realized that they backed off that intent and have gradually been changing that - look at the monk flurry FAQ and other oddities over the past several years and they seem to be slowly changing their minds on 'hands of effort'.


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

FAQ says:

Armor Spikes: Can I use two-weapon fighting to make an "off-hand" attack with my armor spikes in the same round I use a two-handed weapon?

No.
Likewise, you couldn't use an armored gauntlet to do so, as you are using both of your hands to wield your two-handed weapon, therefore your off-hand is unavailable to make any attacks.

So no - you are incorrect.

You were asking about threatening AoOs so I answered about AoOs. Do you want to talk about threat and AoO or do you want to talk about TWF?
paizo dev wrote wrote:
Armor spikes are treated as light weapons for the purpose of threatening adjacent squares. Light weapons require the use of limbs, so you would only be able to make attacks with them if you have a free hand. Thus, wielding a two-handed reach weapon would negate your ability to "wield" (and thus threaten with) armor spikes. This isn't necessarily clear in the rules, but I just discussed it with Jason, and we're both on the same page about the intent.

FAQ or not it's how the devs intend the rules to work. You may read the rules differently (and that's OK) but it doesn't make it how it was intended.

Much like everyone else here when talking about using a spiked gauntlet with a 2h weapon. Honestly the fact that armor spikes work and the gauntlet doesn't is why the FAQ is silly. I honestly would be happy with a 'hands of effort' and such but I want the rules to be consistent - and the entire 'hands of effort' to me relies on the exact argument presented above by a dev - that is you either wield a two 1h weapons - or a 2h weapon - but not both for threatened spaces.

Otherwise what is the point of the FAQ other than making a bunch of people upset?


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns Subscriber
Nefreet wrote:
Nicos wrote:

I don't remember the original Dev that said it, but ina PFS thread that dev sad that you can not threaten with a spear and with armor spikes at the same time. The reason was mostly the "off-hand" stuff. He asked Mr Bulhman and he agreed with him.

Fortunately that never became an actual FAQ.

I am skeptical of this. Do you have a link?

Because it need not be in an FAQ to be binding for PFS.

The Stephen Radney-MacFarland clause doesn't carry over there.

link

Quote:
Armor spikes are treated as light weapons for the purpose of threatening adjacent squares. Light weapons require the use of limbs, so you would only be able to make attacks with them if you have a free hand. Thus, wielding a two-handed reach weapon would negate your ability to "wield" (and thus threaten with) armor spikes. This isn't necessarily clear in the rules, but I just discussed it with Jason, and we're both on the same page about the intent.

It also follows along other things the devs have said about hands of effort - I don't think the intent was ever to let you wield a 2h weapon with reach and threaten 5' - but because it's so prevalent they stay silent on the matter.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns Subscriber

How do they get behind by the end of book 2?

The mayor should have given out 6k each and there were literally a dozen very decently valued masks and other stuff they should have found - along with art and other such stuff from the mansion.

I get complaints about this AP for about 1/2 of book one - there is a *loooong* slog in the beginning where you might feel like you don't find anything but pocket lint - but it picks up after that.


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

I see arguments about greatswords and bows and monks and such - but really this boils down to using armor spikes or a spiked gauntlet to threaten close while using a reach weapon.

That is the corner case that the ruling is meant to lock down - although the knight with a greatsword and a boot knife and a spiked helm and a spiked gauntlet and elbow spikes and such I'm sure was another concern.

Honestly there are some things I think are silly but they are what they are - take 'wielding' for example - I hate that in order to get the benefit from a defending weapon you have to make an attack with it. But it does prevent certain cheese from making it's rounds which makes defending weapons less useful for certain builds.

Using Armor Spikes (or other non-hand-associated weapons) works because they don't require a hand to wield. Using a spiked gauntlet or other weapon that, while being hand-associated, still leaves the hand available for grasping purposes, doesn't work for threatening because (and only because) the hand is "occupied" with wielding a weapon. So if you have both hands on your Greatsword, you threaten with the Greatsword, but not with the Spiked Gauntlet because your hand is occupied holding the Greatsword. For that matter, if you simply "hold" the Greatsword in one hand, and that happens to be the hand with the spiked gauntlet, you don't threaten with either weapon. If you hold the Greatsword in one hand and have a Spiked Gauntlet in the other, you threaten with the gauntlet but not the sword. However, if you wield a Greatsword in both hands, you can threaten equally with both sword and armor spikes (or any other non-hand-associated weapon).

FAQ says:

Armor Spikes: Can I use two-weapon fighting to make an "off-hand" attack with my armor spikes in the same round I use a two-handed weapon?

No.
Likewise, you couldn't use an armored gauntlet to do so, as you are using both of your hands to wield your two-handed weapon, therefore your off-hand is unavailable to make any attacks.

So no - you are incorrect.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns Subscriber
Kazaan wrote:
@Mala: You didn't address my example; If you could swing a Greatsword and throw a kick, why can't you swing a pair of daggers and throw a kick? It takes the same number of limbs and the daggers, combined, weigh a quarter what the Greatsword weighs. The purpose of most non-hand weapons such as Boot Blades, Armor Spikes, Boulder Helmets, etc. isn't to be able to TWF with a 2-h weapon; it's to have a free hand for other purposes such as handling a shield, maneuvering a horse by the reins, manipulating an item, etc. Or, alternatively, to allow you to threaten adjacent while wielding a 2-h reach weapon. I hate made-up, spurious, un-thought-out rules changes as well; I called them out on their half-breed FAQ, among others. But this issue doesn't qualify for that. You are the one expressing the emotional, knee-jerk reaction. How, precisely, does this make PF "worse"? You've thrown that around a few times, but I haven't seen a single explanation on it. From where I sit, this reinforces a sense of mechanical consistency where the number of attacks you can make isn't tied to physical limbs but rather a consistent economy of attack. And the only "casualties" are what you've already admitted are sub-par, corner-case builds. How is that "worse"? Quite frankly, if you really must consider this a change, it is nothing other than a change for the better. Or, alternatively, nothing has changed except that now we know we've been wrong all along, simply because we got used to an obsolete precedent. In no case can I see any valid evidence for the claim that it worsens the game.

I see arguments about greatswords and bows and monks and such - but really this boils down to using armor spikes or a spiked gauntlet to threaten close while using a reach weapon.

That is the corner case that the ruling is meant to lock down - although the knight with a greatsword and a boot knife and a spiked helm and a spiked gauntlet and elbow spikes and such I'm sure was another concern.

Honestly there are some things I think are silly but they are what they are - take 'wielding' for example - I hate that in order to get the benefit from a defending weapon you have to make an attack with it. But it does prevent certain cheese from making it's rounds which makes defending weapons less useful for certain builds.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns Subscriber
FractalLaw wrote:
Ckorik wrote:
Max 2 surge die rolls per round - independent of above uses
Surging is an immediate action and is thus already limited to once per round.

That depends - if you have not used your swift an immediate uses your swift - if you have used your swift you can spend an immediate to use your swift for the next round as well - it requires the following setup:

Your turn - use immediate - swift is used - your turn over.
As an immediate action before the round is over - you use your swift for next round.

And that's legal - note the immediate doesn't convert to a swift - it does consume it however - on your turn if you use it then and the swift is available - or outside of your turn using your next swift if not.

That said I agree with your premise - surges are already limited due to action economy - it's the abilities that work outside of the swift action use that become a problem.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns Subscriber

Honestly after giving it much thought changes I'd make:

Max 2 mythic 'abilities' per round unless it's used for a cure/heal/save another type action (not offense - that is you can't 'save another' by trying to kill something - this is pure keep your player from dying type stuff)

Max 2 surge die rolls per round - independent of above uses

Take mythic vital strike out. Possible replacement - allow vital strike on the first hit of a full attack or another attack for a mythic point - would need playtesting.

Take Foe Biter out (legendary item ability)

Make mythic power attack require a point of power and activation each round used.

This stops spontaneous mythic augmented x2 empowered spells (for example) - or pounce + standard + another attack + power attack + foe biter (for example)

Most people agree the insanity doesn't start until tier 3 - it's not because the abilities suddenly become that much better - it's because you have enough abilities and enough power points to start using 'a bunch' together and they all synergise like nothing else seen in the game.

That's a start really - you can experiment with other uses of mythic power - a possible suggestion (to go along with the hero point stuff) is to let the players come up with 'heroic' type actions and if you want to allow it (rule of cool or whatnot) assign a point cost and let them.

Those are suggestions after much thought on the matter.

Oh yeah - watch the bosses - they can be deadly if they get to attack - and if you nerf things they should - so make them play by the same rules mythic wise or you will end up with a TPK.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns Subscriber
CraziFuzzy wrote:
Chengar Qordath wrote:
Paladin of Baha-who? wrote:
The barbarian has no opportunity to recognize the magical properties of an item being used by an opponent. Even a wizard wouldn't be able to until a spell or ability was used, and then a spellcraft check would be needed.
So long as he's not raging, why wouldn't a barbarian be able to use spellcraft to identify magical effects? Assuming he has ranks in the skill, of course.
What part of the Spellcraft skill are you thinking would allow him to do so? The only thing close is the "Identify the properties of a magic item using detect magic". This requires casting of Detect Magic to do so.

I don't think I'd make him roll to identify the caster having a wand in his hand - he might not know what kind of wand or what kind of spell but it's pretty simple to think 'robe guy with small stick like object = bad'

Outside of that is it common? I think more people could identify a knight's plate armor than would know what scale male is in our world for example - if we were still in the middle ages and seeing people in chain and plate were common I doubt people would have a problem at least guessing the general type of armor they are wearing.

As to a shield - type (small, large, tower, buckler) should be easy to identify - the rest of the info could be easy to identify on sight or difficult (a lacquered shield could be metal, wood, stone, or who knows - where a piece of raw wood with handles should be pretty easy to identify unless it's enchanted (ironwood))

It's really up to the GM to say what's easy to note - until they make contact - once he hits the shield for example it should be easy to know if it's really really hard or gives under his sunder attempt.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns Subscriber

Just going to note she went 'after' one of my group who turned her down flat and wouldn't even follow her - it *can* be an interesting encounter but don't worry about it too much if it doesn't work out.

The party can have much more fun if you play up the NPC's that they actually show any interest in. :)


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns Subscriber

Well I'm letting one of my PC's take over the fort (the one that took leadership) - it'll give me a place to put his level 1 and such followers...

As to taking them to Sandpoint - the fort was almost destroyed - given the remote location I'd not let the fort even be 1/2 rebuilt by the attack.

That means the rangers (higher level ones) aren't joining - I might let one high level ranger go (one of the ones rescued by the party if they survived) - as a volunteer.

I'd let my leadership player take their low level followers to the town if they wanted but this is how I'd handle it...

(read the 'gm advice and 'what did you change' thread for more info) - essentially one of the suggestions from others was to let the players figure out the defenses - and then keep the other NPC's out of the way - at key points of the battle let them see the other NPC's fighting - dying - etc. as descriptive elements - they catch site of say Sheriff Hemlock leading his deputies taking down a giant that was smashing the town hall - they see Ven Vinder get socked by a giant but the gruff old man is seen getting up and dusting himself off after flying 20 feet through the air... that kind of thing - think of how they prepare the town and where they place NPCs then come up with some nifty story elements to use when the fight is in those areas...

Let the PC's actually be the heroes - if they bring low level (or even mid level) help from the fort add these elements into your descriptions of what is happening - if they bring lots of high level (as you suggest) I'd up the strength of the giant army in description and then make sure that the help they brought is seen as 'swaying the tide' - but each interaction that the players are involved in are the 'dramatic' moments where nothing the town has helps - and the players essentially are needed to avoid a complete disaster. If you really want the interaction to be stepped up you could use some of the weaker NPCs as 'minor fights' where they get into trouble and the party happens to be there to save them - end of the result is the players truly are the heroes of Sandpoint at the end of the battle - and they feel like they made a mark.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns Subscriber

Well hellknight signifier requires 5 ranks in knowledge planes and spellcraft - so the earliest you can take hellknight signifier is level 6.

Regular hellknight requires BAB +5

otherwise I'm digging this idea.


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

I would buy a book of NPC's - not the NPC codex like - not statblocks - but an entire book of just NPC's meant to be non-combat.

requirements would be - writeup, goals, skills, accent (with a line of dialog perhaps), quirks, a picture or artwork to go along with.

Could have chapters on different 'plug and play' npc's for 'sheriff, tavernkeep, beggar, forest hermit, etc.'

Some of these could be classes such as 'wandering paladin' - but I'm thinking an entire tome of just NPC's that I could use to drop into my campaign when I need an interesting side character that is more fleshed out - I do this already but it's time consuming and having a large tome of this would be really helpful.

I dunno...I can think of hundreds of NPCs...it's the stats I am too lazy to do. I am not sure I would buy a bunch of descriptions...I could just pull characters from TV or movies for that stuff

See if I use something from media my group turns off - in fact both groups turn off.

Interesting and unique NPCs are what makes them remember an NPC - if it's something they know it's good for perhaps a laugh then quickly ignored.

Stats on the other hand I could care less about - if I want a combat encounter I can whip one up without much problem - and 99% of the NPCs my players encounter don't need stats - if I need them to die - they die - if I need them to live - they live - if I need them to have a heroic moment - they do - if the PC's want to kill random joe blacksmith then he'll have 10-30 hps and be sucky at combat - I have no idea why I'd ever need stats for a barmaid that I couldn't wing with a +8 profession innkeep and a +3 perception (for example).


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns Subscriber

Honestly I would add - if your entire group doesn't like traps (including the GM) - just take them out.

That's it. There is no rule that you have to run the AP's as written.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns Subscriber

I would buy a book of NPC's - not the NPC codex like - not statblocks - but an entire book of just NPC's meant to be non-combat.

requirements would be - writeup, goals, skills, accent (with a line of dialog perhaps), quirks, a picture or artwork to go along with.

Could have chapters on different 'plug and play' npc's for 'sheriff, tavernkeep, beggar, forest hermit, etc.'

Some of these could be classes such as 'wandering paladin' - but I'm thinking an entire tome of just NPC's that I could use to drop into my campaign when I need an interesting side character that is more fleshed out - I do this already but it's time consuming and having a large tome of this would be really helpful.

1 to 50 of 560 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 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.