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

CommandoDude's page

896 posts (2,328 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 6 aliases.

My party started RotRl in November of 2013, now we finally finished. Good god did this campaign drag, not just because the combats were slow as balls, but we had to cancel a good deal of game nights. Our previous campaign was 2x faster.

That said, did I enjoy RotRl? Yes...although I suffered significant arc fatigue at the end and barely remembered any of the campaign lore at the end due to frequent game night delays. I don't think that's the AP's fault I failed to really get into the world, as the first few books were certainly engaging.

It was less satisfying than my last campaign, but decently adequate. I would rate the first 4 books very highly and the last 2 poorly. As first of all the last 2 get into level 14+ where high level gameplay bogs things down, and everything was very mega-dungeoncrawly and our party does not do well with that.

Additionally, I felt that the general lack of...basically ANY NPC presence aside from highly forgettable enemy minions and the BBEG very disheartening. It would have been nice to see some reoccuring NPCs or at least interesting new ones. Paizo never seems to reuse NPCs for some reason. Why? In fact, if this shows me anything is that 2/2 paizo has delivered sloppy campaign finishers that felt empty. The tiny town of sandpoint felt far more alive and engaging than the spires of Xin Xhalast. Plus, Paizo seems to have a bad knack for making very passive BBEGs who don't ever try to thwart parties. I think that's a problem. If my character and allies have been consistently destroying your minions, you'd think we'd be labeled a threat and some kind of attempt to stop us be made.

I'll also say that RotRl's treasure rewards are stupid and need to be paced out way more. And again, don't freaking give players EVIL artifacts! "Oh look, we got a cool artifact we can use!...oh it's evil and mind controls you, just lake the last 3." Stop jerking players around with that crap.

Stop it.


Bad Paizo.

But, it was still pretty fun nonetheless, there were many memorable moments. Good god, the inbred hill giants. Or the time our party nearly got wiped by an optional boss, ran from him, locked him away, then spent the rest of the campaign taunting him after he became too easy to be bothered fighting again. The verity of enemies was cool, and I certainly loved having my constant dwarf bonus vs giants.

So, Karzoug. His defeat was rather hilarious and quite poetic. For reasons that become slightly more obvious when you see our party comp.

Rook: Dwarf Cleric of Sarenrae (battle focused)
Bishop: Aasimar Inquisitor/Cleric of Ragathiel
Pawn: Goblin Monk/Rogue
Dorian: Human Fighter/Ranger
Ephya: Elf Witch/Rogue

So, the fight. I'll preface this by saying we had no clue how to get to Karzoug, so we ended up arriving in staggered initiative (and thank god buffs from the fight right before were still all up thanks to us going in half cocked). I got in first, followed by Pawn, Bishop, Ephya, then Dorian.

Round 1: Rook enters the fight. I have Elemental Body IV, Holy Aura, Heroism Greater, Blessing of Fervor, Aura of Doom, Archon's Aura, Resist Energy Fire Communal, Ironskin, Weapon of Awe, Bless Weapon, Shield of Faith, and Divine Favor cast on myself.

Immediately Karzoug tells me I'm going to die, oh look no party nearby. Luckily I win initiative and cast Gate to call too Ghaele Azata's to aid me. They cast shield of faith on themselves. Karzoug and cohort immediately begin peppering us with spells and ranged attacks. Meteor storm almost drops the Azatas but does no damage to me.

Round 2: Azatas go incorporeal and cast Heal on themselves. I teleport directly at Kazoug with Dimensional Hop (travel domain). I fail to save vs his repulsion spell, and elect to cast Firestorm on all the enemies. Pawn arrives, he uses abundant step to sneak behind Karzoug with a teleport.

Karzoug attempts to Greater Dispel Rook. This autofails as Rook's Compassionate weapon negates one dispel per day. Minions attempt to attack Rook and Azatas, either do no or minimal damage. (I should add Rook is a reach Cleric with a reach of 30ft thanks to being huge with a reach weapon and has been AoOing lots of stuff).

Round 3: Now that all the baddies are focused on Rook, Bishop arrives and begins setting up his archer buffs. Rook attempts to dispel Karzoug and his stupid mirror images, it fails after being reflected by Spell Turning. (Luckily I rolled bad and only stripped Holy Aura and Heroism greater off myself). Deciding Karzoug needs to be isolated, I cast Dimension Anchor (quickened) on Karzoug and instruct the Azatas to construct 2 walls of force pinning Karzoug in his alcove.

Karzoug elects to use 1 disintegrate spell to destroy the first wall. Right after, Pawn surprises Karzoug with a flurry of blows, and ALMOST manages to insta him with a quivering palm (Karzoug saves with a nat. 1) but is still stunned by stunning fist. Karzoug's flunkies by now are rather ineffectually trying to wail on Rook who's AC is 58 or the azatas who take half damage.

Round 4: Ephya arrives. (I don't actually remember what spell she casts) but whatever she does, giants start trying to attack her. Azatas use light rays to strip the dragon of his images so Rook and Bishop can go to town killing the dragon. Pawn continues kicking Karzoug's ass. Karzoug still stunned.

Round 5: Dorian arrives. Bishop kills the dragon with his bow. Rook and azatas kill one giant after a whopping huge crit from Rook. Other giants are now trying to kill the party mage who is healing herself. Pawn continues wailing on Karzoug. Karzoug himself, trapped, attempts to Finger of Death Pawn...and fails his SR check.

At this point, Karzoug is stunned that this lowly GOBLIN is kicking his ass. And this by the way, after Pawn had previously trapped his apprentice in an alcove and done the exact same thing to that guy, blinding him and beating him up till he teleported away in terror. Karzoug attempts to sway Pawn with promises of riches.

Round 6: Nothing else matters as Pawn delivers the death knell to Karzoug, totally goring him as blood splashes across the wall of force. The last giants surrender.

Currently we are winding our way down on RoTRL, I think the response for this AP as been overall positive - there's been an interesting mix of enemies and encounters so far. Our previous campaign was Kingmaker - which was an overwhelming positive experience, although we rolled that AP pretty easily even with our GM stacking stuff for the villains, so I'm hoping for an AP more difficult than that.

Now that we're almost finished with this campaign, people are considering what AP we should do next (by people, mostly myself and the GM).

What AP's would people recommend based on something close to KM or RotRL?

I'm considering building a tripping focused character (monk or brawler) for next AP, so are there any which would be bad for that?

There has also been considerations for trying to play an "all goblin" campaign as well.

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.

This has been something that's been confusing for me for awhile, basically if you want to interact with an NPC and use a spell on them, how does that work if they save? Assuming that the spell isn't something offensive like Firebolt or which does damage.

1. If you cast something like Charm Person on somebody and they save, assuming they didn't see the spellcaster, do they think they're under attack? Do they even know a spell was cast on them? What if the spell is cast on them a second time? What if the ability is spell-like or supernatural, such as Bard's Fascinate or Witch's Slumber Hex?

2. If they do see the spellcaster but they do not properly identify the spell using spellcraft do they know you cast a spell on them? If they don't know what spell is on them but they do know the spellcaster cast at them do they know/interpret it as an attack? Can the spellcaster use Bluff to convince them a spell was not cast/directed at someone else?

3. What if they fail a save against something which is neither harmful, nor does it remove their mental faculties, but imparts some obvious disability, such as Slow, do they interpret it as an attack as well if there is no obvious spell caster?

4. At what point in any of the above would initiative be called and combat assumed to be started?


I'm just wondering if any of the new Unchained rules for Rogue apply to its Alternate version the Ninja. I've read sometimes that the Ninja is essentially a more complex archetype for

How do?

The GM for my home game has ruled that we can't purchase magic items above the purchase limit of cities. We are 12th level, and I am a cleric who can teleport across the world and plane shift to other dimensions, but the largest city we can get to has a purchase limit of 30k.

Basically, the casters in our group (including me) want to get +6 headbands which are 36k priced. How do we do this? I do not believe that a 12th level caster who can literally reach anywhere in the universe via planar travel (my common tactic of getting anywhere on the same plane is to plane shift to a different plane and then plane shift back around whereabouts I want to go) can't get a dang +6 headband.

I ask this because I recently started playing Baldur's Gate again (I had to start over because my old save game was lost). One thing I noted was that no race received ability modifiers (aside from dwarf/elf max con/dex weirdness). I mean, putting aside all the dumb class limitations for races, ability modifiers did not dictate what classes your race was pigeonholed into.

And I mean really, what class guide doesn't give human an automatic blue rating and half elf/orc at least a green? Lets not mention the damned Aasimar/tiefling variants either that let you basically custom pick your ability scores.

It just seems like to me if we could do racial variants for all races (or hell, could at least alternate attributes like 4E did) we could come up with more original characters. I mean, there ARE people who do it (like a friend of mine who rolled up a gnome paladin) but it would be nice to not be mechanically punished for trying to do so.

My party has been having disagreements over the preceding question. It's important because I'm a cleric who relies on combat buffs to keep me in the fight and when I throw a lot of spells on me, its because I'm expecting multiple successive fights in a row.

Generally speaking I'm talking about spells lasting several minutes, but not a minute or less.

My take is that for a combat encounter, it should take as much time to search a room as the combat took, maybe twice as long (assuming it isn't against a solo monster or end of campaign treasure hoard to sort through). So essentially, anywhere between half a minute to a minute depending on the number of enemies.

Some people in my party seem to think searching a room takes anywhere from 5 to 10 minutes! I feel that's ridiculous, since it's only a standard action to retrieve any one item, a few standard actions and you've picked up everything you can find with 1 perception check (which is not a take 20 situation).

Recently I've discovered the joy that is summoning creatures. I used to regard it as a waste of time compared to other spells and the lack of any immediately awesome selections coupled with incredibly short duration.

Then I discovered the Lantern Archon, and now I love using Summon Monster V with my Cleric to summon 1d4+1 of these guys and then cast Blessing of Fervor on them.

That gives me 3 ranged touch attacks per Lantern Archon. And I've roped the party Witch into memorizing the spell as well so we can cast it together to give me even more archons.

Problem is they kind of bog down combat. So I need ways on keeping their actions absolutely as quick as possible. Suggestions?

Also: Totally not relevant question, but is it possible to get a Lantern Archon into my service permanently? As far as I can tell the only way would be to be a level 20 Conjuration specialist wizard (not a feasible option).

In the description of the Wyroot Special Material, it states that the blade can be made with a Wyroot hilt in order to be able to get Life Points. I assumed that this meant you can slap a Wyroot hilt on any blade to do this (such as an Adamantine blade, etc)

However, under the Special Materials rules from the CRB, it states

If you make a suit of armor or weapon out of more than one special material, you get the benefit of only the most prevalent material.

So my question is, if you want Wyroot on your weapon, you can't have any sort of special blade underneath? Or is the Wyroot hilt not considered part of the weapon? Or is this a specific rules>general rules sort of thing?

Is there anything in the rules that says you can or can't buy altered specific magic items?

In this case, I am trying to get my GM to accept that I can buy Celestial Armor at a +1 enhancement bonus instead of the normal +3 the armor is described as having.

(This would reduce the price of the armor by 8000gp, as that is the difference between normal +1 armor and +3)

He won't let me.

So, this came up in my RoTRL campaign.

We are fighting a Colossal creature (space of 30ft) which is apparently "swimming" in 10ft of water. (swimming speed being 3x faster than its land speed).

So...yeah, is that really legal?

Here is the text for crafting ammunition with the Gunsmithing feat (which Gunslingers receive for free).

Crafting Ammunition: You can craft bullets, pellets, and black powder for a cost in raw materials equal to 10% of the price. If you have at least 1 rank in Craft (alchemy), you can craft alchemical cartridges for a cost in raw materials equal to half the price of the cartridge. At your GM’s discretion, you can craft metal cartridges for a cost in raw materials equal to half the cost of the cartridge. Crafting bullets, black powder, or cartridges takes 1 day of work for every 1,000 gp of ammunition (minimum 1 day).

I've highlighted the important parts.

What this feat is saying, is that a character can craft 1000gp worth of black powder in one day, at a cost of 100gp - and this black powder can be sold at half its value for 500gp.

Unless there is some FAQ or obscure rule I am unfamiliar with, than 1 days worth of work can net a character 400gp per day.

Note that with normal crafting, you need to make a craft check (which is weekly work measured in SP not GP) which generally means that you're doing less than 5gp worth of work in a day by the rules under the Craft Skill.

Currently playing a gestalt solo campaign game with Mythic. I am playing a Ninja/Sorcerer with plans to grab levels in Shadow Dancer with my 3rd class, as well as level dips before I qualify.

I was thinking of 1-2 levels of fighter, and then 2 levels of Paladin. But Inquisitor is also interesting.

Smite Evil 1/day (+5 attack +2 damage)
Detect Evil at Will
+1 BAB
+5 on saves (but my saves are already very high - so diminishing returns here)
6 Lay on Hands for 1d6 each

1 Domain
5 Orisons/3 1st level Divine spells (known/cast)
No alignment restrictions/No aura to detect as (I'm currently Neutral and will stay Neutral if I don't go Paladin)
+1 Intimidate/Sense Motive/Survival : +3 Knowledge Checks
Extra Knowledge Skills trained (also means I can use a trait I got for a knowledge skill on something else - so essentially +1 trait)
+3 Initiative
Detect ANY alignment at will
1/day Judgement (better versatility than smite but far less powerful)

Some things to consider - I already have a lot of abilities competing for Swift actions. I can make up my own Paladin Code according to the GM. I have a way better Cha than I do Wis, and the difference will only grow. I might take more levels of said class once my Character Level is above 10. Retraining rules are in effect, so I can always train one class into the other later.

So, Paladin synergizes with my class better, and what it gives me is more powerful than Inquisitor. But Inquisitor gives me a lot more stuff, and all of it will be imo very useful.

So whatcha think?

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I've already played the Kingmaker campaign path - I made extensive use of the official Hex folios provided by Paizo to photoshop up a map of our Kingdom, but I was always dissatisfied by the limited nature of the official Hex map.

So I recently discovered Hexographer, and figured "Hey, this should be easy to copy down my old map in this and then expand from there!" So, I started gathering up source maps of the area, official maps, maps pasted onto each other, Hex maps OTHER people had done...(while this began as somewhat of a small experiment, I actually do want to run my own Kingmaker campaign someday, and I want it to heavily feature Brevoy and the River Kingdoms instead of Narissa).

I have come to one conclusion - The official Hex map is 1) Inaccurate and 2) Incompatible with the geographical maps not only made BEFORE Kingmaker but incompatible with the geographical map included in the module itself.

I have tried to measure the official hex map to the official geographicals, and there is always huge mile discrepancies (using the rulers provided by the maps) plus, the Stolen Lands are pointed north east. Trying to orient the Hex map so that it faces North (and thus aligns with Brevoy) causes huge distortions in locations. This also serves the dual benefit of actually warping the Hexes in photoshop and making it impossible to lay them on a Hex grid in Hexographer.

So, /rant complete. I really want to make this Hex map work (other Hex maps are inaccurate due to the reasons I listed above) but I'm at my wit's end trying to puzzle out how to mesh the Stolen Lands with Brevoy.

Or, what are other people's experiences with the Witch class? From the perspective of - the player; the teammate; and the GM?

The primary offensive power of the Witch is obviously its Hexes. The class is built around it, and while it does get full-spellcasting like the Wizard, it's spell list is much more limited.

The problem I have with the Witch is that its Hexes are basically scaling, non-vancian limited, auto spell resistance penetrating, save or suck "spells." Oh, yes it does receive a variety of Hexes, but the most powerful are obviously the combat oriented ones - of which Slumber is the king.

I'm coming from the perspective of this from "the teammate" I've had a friend who's played the Witch for 3 campaigns now. And I honestly think Hexes are becoming a crutch for him at this point. His character either wipes the floor with the enemy if they don't have good will saves or sleep immunity, leaving the rest of us feeling mostly useful; OR he can't do anything because the enemy have high will saves, leaving him feeling useless. (He tends to pack mostly out of combat heal spells instead of anything else)

I recently just started a PbP solo campaign here on the Paizo forums, with a triple gestalt mythic character (Fighter or Paladin/Sorcerer/Ninja). Aside from class abilities I'm getting max hitpoints per level, a divine bonus to my AC, saves, and extra skill points per level (also, any time I outright die I get raised per the Resurrection spell with a non-removable permanent negative level).

Generally I think I have my build figured out. Full levels sorcerer, at least 10 levels of Ninja, 3 levels of Fighter, at least 6 levels of Shadow Dancer, as many levels of Paladin as I can fit in after that. My character is focusing on TWF and getting sneak attack (using stealth, darkness, invisibility, flanking - at Shadow Dancer 3 you get an incorporeal Shadow for a summon) Getting a familiar from the Arcana Bloodline as well.

This is the first time I've ever done a solo game before, so does anyone have advice for how to change my play style from the typical party teamwork dynamic?

How about feats/magic items/spells that work better solo? Or work crappy solo?

*Full lvl 1 char sheet The final version is spoilered under "Alt Build"

Text for Bless Weapon as follows

This transmutation makes a weapon strike true against evil foes. The weapon is treated as having a +1 enhancement bonus for the purpose of bypassing the DR of evil creatures or striking evil incorporeal creatures (though the spell doesn't grant an actual enhancement bonus). The weapon also becomes good-aligned, which means it can bypass the DR of certain creatures. (This effect overrides and suppresses any other alignment the weapon might have.)

So my question is, does Bless Weapon allow a weapon to overcome any DR type of a creature as long as it is evil? And if not, what DR does it allow a weapon to overcome?

Secondly, if Bless Weapon can't overcome any DR of an evil creature, how is it any better than a lower level spell Weapons Against Evil?

These weapons also ignore the DR of evil creatures that have DR 5 or lower, as long as the damage reduction is not DR/epic.

Which apparently DOES go through any DR, except Epic.

Or - A case for why some Pathfinder skills are just rank taxes that really need to go.

Who honestly puts more than a few ranks in skills like climb or swim? Especially in a game system where both are irrelevant after level 5 (or earlier)!

What Rogue doesn't resent that their 8 skills ranks (which is suppose to be their class defining feature!) must be split amongst incredibly similar yet separate skills like Sleight of Hand and Disable Device?

Or how about all those crafting skills which are so similar?

Frankly, if there was one thing 4e did VERY well, it was cutting down on skill bloat and making ALL class skills feel useful in some way.

Climbing and Swiming aught to be merged into a single skill, with the Jumping mechanics removed from Acrobatics and stuck into this. After all, Dexterity does NOT help with jumping, that's pure muscle strength which governs how much distance you can propel yourself (not to mention, helps make this new skill worthwhile in investing)

Disable Device and Sleight of Hand are also perfectly mergable. Though each is at least attractive enough that nothing more needs to be done here.

Craft Weapons, Craft Armor, Craft Bows? MERGE. Crafting really aught to just be distilled into 3 or 4 categories. (and all those 2 dozen "craft X useless items? They can get filed under 'Misc')

Disguise and Bluff are another pair that can be put together. Disguise is honestly just not appealing enough on its own (although Bluff more than holds its own). And frankly, why shouldn't a good disguise help your bluff and vice versa?

There are also a few relevant knowledge skills. Local and Nobility would be better off as one skill, as would Geography and History. Engineering and Dungeoneering is a bit of a stretch but both are obscure enough (even for Knowledge checks) to benefit being one skill.

So our party is running RotRL, we just retreated from an encounter with a ludicrous amount of swarms due to not possessing any anti-swarm capabilities.

I came up with the idea of having our party witch use Summon Swarm to remove the infestation, but also found an interesting caveat with Blood Blaze.

What would happen if I cast Blood Blaze on myself, or the swarm (Swarms are technically immune to single target spells, but the spell itself is a single-target spell which has an AoE effect, at the very least I know my DM would rule it could be done) then had another swarm attack it?

Blood blaze states that all creatures within its effect produce 1D6 fire damage when it takes certain amount of damage. Now, a player could only injure one or maybe a few parts of a swarm, but a whole swarm would injure a huge amount of a swarm.

So my question is-

Does a swarm under the effect of Blood Blaze produce multiple instances of 1D6 blood spray fire damage if many of the individual creatures which make up a swarm are injured?

I'm trying to convince my DM to let me play a shapeshifter race for a character idea of mine (Shapeshifter Rogue). This character was lifted out of 4e which DOES have a Changeling race, but Pathfinder doesn't (I find it weird PF Changelings are called such when they can't even shapeshift tbh). I'm not planning on exceeding 15RP ever (same amount for Aasimars), but I also realize that mechanically the ARG is broken and should only 'really' be used as a guideline (still though, 15 RP hard cap is good).

Right now, the 'Rulebook Entry' looks as such.

- Half-Doppelgangers (10~RP) //Really need a better name ala Fetchlings->Kayals

Standard Racial Traits:

*Ability Scores: Standard (0RP) -2 Str, +2 Dex, +2 Cha
*Size: Medium (0RP)
*Base Speed: Standard (0RP) 30ft.
*Languages: Standard (0RP) Common, and the Racial language of their adoptive parent race (If Human, they get a regional human language). 7 Languages they can learn are Draconic, Elven, Gnome, Goblin, Halfling, Orc, or Sylvan. //Maybe change to Linguist (1RP)?

Defense Racial Traits:

* Dual Minded (1RP) +2 on Will saves

Feat/Skill Racial Traits:

* Integrated (1RP) +1 Bluff, Disguise, Knowledge Local

Magical Racial Traits:

* Change Shape, Greater (6RP) Can use Alter Self (as per spell) at will (standard/free action?)

Senses Racial Traits:

* Darkvision 60ft (2RP)

Other race traits which might be appropriate:

* Beguiling Liar (2RP) +4 Bluff //Alt to Integrated
* Quick Reactions (2RP) Improved Initiative Bonus Feat
* Fleet Footed (3RP) Run Bonus Feat and +2 Initiative //Alt to Quick Reactions
* Defensive Training, Lesser (Humans) (1RP) +4 Dodge bonus vs Humans //Pretty cheesy but it does fit the lore aspect I'm going for
* Silver Tongued (3RP) +2 Bluff/Diplomacy and can use alter attitude up to 3 steps
* Spell Like Ability Greater/Lesser (Detect Thoughts) (4/2RP) Detect thoughts as per the spell, at will or 1/day //I don't think this fits very well, since they're suppose to be toned down versions of Doppelgangers

As for lore, I figure they are not as in the open as 3.5 or 4e creating their own communities and such, in fact they're mostly unknown. They're not the distant descendants of humans and doppelgangers, but rather are the direct children of a human/doppelgangers (or Half-doppelgangers themselves). In my mind, they're almost always born from human women instead of doppelgangers themselves (either because doppelgangers can't get pregnant from other races, or take steps to prevent pregnancy from them). Half-doppelgangers are thus usually raised by single parents in secrecy or abandoned with childless families (rarely orphanages though given doppelganger stigma) and taught from an early age to adopt persona's as the racial child of their biological or adoptive parent(s). They are ultimately cautious making friends and have trouble making roots in communities (esp small ones) so often go adventuring. Showing people their true form is an ultimate sign of trust (if it's done willingly).

Half-Doppelgangers have the most tumultuous relationships with humans, as they inherit the reputation (and social fear of) their doppelganger parents but lack doppelganger skill/racial aptitude. Humans of course fear or hate what they don't know or understand. Dwarfs much the same but less so. They have great relationship with Fetchlings (who are familiar as being treated as social outcasts) and often adopt Fetchling persona's if they leave home (Fetchlings are probably the one race besides Doppelgangers who know about Half-Doppelgangers the most). Similarly, they have amicable relations with other half-breed (esp half breed) or outcast races like halflings and gnomes. They are often confused with Changelings. If they have a race with worse relations than humans, it's Doppelgangers; Doppelgangers view them as inferior to themselves and attitudes range from disdain to hate (which is why they will never raise a half-breed, unlike full blooded children). Likewise, Half-Doppelgangers hate full breeds for creating their poor reputation and handing it down to them, pushing them into lives of secrecy and hiding.

Half-Doppelgangers I imagine probably worship Desna, Calistra, and Norgorber more than any other gods, as their portfolios represent their interests (Travel, Freedom, Revenge, Secrets, Trickster). Most drift towards Chaotic alignments since they tend not to feel like laws/lawful society are fair/just to them.

Questions I have regarding Doppelgangers that influences the lore

-Are they genderless? If so are they merely hermaphrodites or are they sexless as well? (using other races forms to procreate?)
-How does shape shifting effect their pregnancy?
-How much do they invest in identities they create?
-Can they create unique humanoid identities or are they always copies?
-How long do they generally live?

Knowledge (nature) 18 to identify a Half-Doppelganger (CR3 of Doppelganger +5), failure by -5 or less means mistaking it for a Doppelganger, failure by -6 or more means you get nothing.

Knowledge (local) 23, same as above but the DC is +10 instead.

Suggestions for a one or two syllable word to replace the mouthful that is Half-Doppelganger?

Right now I am planning to make a CG Dwarven Battlecleric of Cayden Cailen Travel/Ferocity(Strength).

At first I was planning on taking two levels of Barbarian for the Rage class feature (+4 STR to help on hits and damage during combat) but the DM pointed out I would be unable to cast spells during rage.

Plus the fact that at later levels I'll have a significant dearth of rage rounds and less access to higher level cleric spells.

There was also the possibility of a 1 level dip into Fighter for Bonus feats and Heavy Armor proficiency.

So, is multiclassing worth it? I saw the new combo classes Paizo released for testing and got approval from DM to use them. One of them was a Fighter/Cleric (Warpriest I think it was?) Would that be better? (Didn't really look tempting because I like the Regular Cleric's domains).

1 person marked this as a favorite.

My party started Kingmaker in March of 2012; tonight we finally completed our Kingmaker adventure. The party slew Nyrissa (who went from OP to chump in the span on one Anti-Magic Field spell) and saved the Stolen Lands! The Kingdom of Anatoray is safe and free to flourish.

Did I enjoy this campaign path? Very much so. Although it's my first Pathfinder campaign, so only 4e to compare it to. (I could make a whole thread comparing the two systems, but that is another idea)

Was this the campaign path I wanted? ...Yes...but no.

There were two things that Kingmaker was selling me on in the players handbook. One, you get to BUILD A KINGDOM. Two, there's a civil war which happens, and it's going to be a BIG DEAL. As it turns out? The latter is a Red Herring and the former is a broken mini game that honestly started out cool but rapidly became unfun.

Here are my three major complaints about this campaign which I think Paizo should have done.

1) Nyrissa. I don't like her as a BBEG (Big Bad Evil Guy). She detracts from the 'Kingdomesque' setting, and she's entirely too passive a villain for my taste (though I recognize there was much foreshadowing of her through various 'agents' she cultivated to harass the PCs). I think she should've been removed entirely, and book 6 should've been replaced by the Brevic Civil war, with Surtova being set up as the BBEG. The party could've spent a lot more time going back and forth between Brevoy and their Kingdom, having to deal with the political games of the different houses, the issue of their Kingdom's fealty to Brevoy, and the Rostland independence movement.

I think that this Nyrissa plot would have worked MUCH better imo if the party were stuck exploring in the River Kingdoms, and having to deal with the various River Kingdom governments, the impending coming of Nyrissa, and trying to unite a lot of people who don't like each other to deal with her.

Over all. Kingmaker made me think I was going to get Game of Thrones, I didn't get that.

2) Lack of reoccurring characters. Personally, I dislike how Kingmaker treated its NPCs as throwaways who were only ever around for one book. The fact that characters never seemed to STAY relevant severely stymied my and my party's seeming interest in them. The only exceptions were those engineered specifically by our DM to be brought back. (Grigori for instance, became a great nemesis for the King to deal with) I think this case in particular highlights just how much the fun of this campaign depends on the effort put in by the GM.

3) Kingdom building is broken. As a minigame, it's entirely too easy to game and become ridiculous. Plus, the amount of tracking and dice rolling that goes into it sucks up far too much time except for only the most dedicated of micromanaging parties. Not to mention, the actual "mechanics" of the Kingdom matter very little in the course of the campaign, and I felt that the way we shaped our Kingdom did not dramatically affect how things were played (hence the Yes but no earlier). Overall, until Book 5 it felt like our Kingdom existed in a bubble, and only seemed to serve as a base of operations.

Personally, I think the Kingdom building needs to be made more relevant to the story (ie doing certain things unlocks quests or causes unforeseen issues, potentially with other Kingdoms). And that the whole Kingdom building process needs to be taken off the rails as much as possible, maybe one or two dice rolls once in awhile (I did like the Event generating mechanic). In this instance, I think Free Form roleplaying would have made the Kingdom building much more fun.

Granted, the Path did very well in what I think it set out to do, which was to create a wide open sandbox for the party to explore. The campaign offered a GREAT deal of freedom in terms of development, and I'm glad that our DM took as much advantage of it as possible.

There is also one other point I'd make. Vordaki is a Red Herring that I think needs to be deflated. I would prefer the Varnhold Vanishing to be, well...rewritten, so that the players and thrust into the center of a war between Humans and Centaurs, who have to deal with moral quandaries. Vordaki I feel could have been a good villain who could've perhaps united everyone against a larger threat, or perhaps drew the attention of Brevoy, or something. Overall I feel he's a character that's just nipped in the bud so early that he accomplishes nothing.

PS. Some of these mini quests are just insulting. Why are kings and lords still getting fetch quests after book 2?

PPS. Don't put cool powerful artifacts in the campaign with the implicit intention of trying to make them unusable by the party. I was tempted to make my character NE (he was the LN ruler of the Kingdom) just to use the Oculus. Seriously.

Personally, I think that some day if I can get a party together, I would like to GM this campaign path, but change/rewrite it into what I want it to be.

The language under Handle Animal is unclear as to specifically how long it takes to raise an animal from infancy to domestication.

The wording specifically states that reared animals can be taught tricks as they're reared; so would training a wild animal for a General Purpose be considered the amount of time it takes to rear an animal?

as a refereance:

Handle Animal wrote:

To rear an animal means to raise a wild creature from infancy so that it becomes domesticated. A handler can rear as many as three creatures of the same kind at once.

A successfully domesticated animal can be taught tricks at the same time it’s being raised, or it can be taught as a domesticated animal later.

Also, how would Cavalier's Expert Trainer class ability interact with Rearing a Wild Animal?

Recently, animal companions were changed. In addition to those changes, new feats were made available to Animal companions.

When I put together the above feats, I realized that, potentially, you could have an Animal Companion making Opportunity Attacks up to its Dex mod both to give you +2 AC against multiple attacks on the PC (using Aid Another per the Bodyguard feat) while simultaneously tripping the PC's Paired Opportunists feat and allowing him to make multiple Opp attacks on the person they're fighting (with a +4 on all of them).

Of course, that's only if I'm reading this right.

Now, Paired Opportunists works by granting a person with the teamwork feat an Opp Attack if they are adjacent to someone else with the same teamwork feat and they get an Opp attack.

Paired Opportunists wrote:
Whenever you are adjacent to an ally who also has this feat, you receive a +4 circumstance bonus on attacks of opportunity against creatures that you both threaten. Enemies that provoke attacks of opportunity from your ally also provoke attacks of opportunity from you so long as you threaten them (even if the situation or an ability would normally deny you the attack of opportunity). This does not allow you to take more than one attack of opportunity against a creature for a given action.

The key here is that in the second to last sentence, it says you are allowed this Opp attack in any event, even if you, say, had already taken an Opp attack and did not have Combat Reflexes.

I'm also assuming the last sentence to mean, "You get only 1 opp per action which triggers an opp."

Some confusion on how this works with Bodyguard, which I will get to in a second.

Bodyguard wrote:

Benefit: When an adjacent ally is attacked, you may use an attack of opportunity to attempt the aid another action to improve your ally’s AC. You may not use the aid another action to improve your ally’s attack roll with this attack.

So you take an AoO to aid another.

The key is, how does this apply? I assume it works either two ways.

-One AoO protects against all attacks from one enemy (so say, if they used a full attack action). Thus, trips P.O. only once.

-Multiple AoO protects against each individual attack roll from any enemy, so a full attack action would provoke multiple AoO from both the mount and the rider. (I don't think this is right though).

Also for further reference.

Combat Reflexes wrote:
You may make a number of additional attacks of opportunity per round equal to your Dexterity bonus. With this feat, you may also make attacks of opportunity while flat-footed.

Mount gets the paired opportunist teamwork feat either through gaining +1 Int or through Horsemaster's Saddle.

Horsemaster's Saddle wrote:
This ornate military saddle, tooled with an elaborate equine motif, grants the mount a +5 competence bonus on Acrobatics checks and the mount's rider a +5 competence bonus on Ride checks. In addition, the mount gains the benefits of any teamwork feats possessed by the rider.

So, does this work out?

Does this mean that the trap is ignored?

Here is the effect.

When affixed to a horse, these horseshoes allow the horse to travel without actually touching the ground. The horse must still run above (always around 4 inches above) a roughly horizontal surface. This means that the horse can cross non-solid or unstable surfaces such as water and that it can move without leaving tracks on any sort of ground. The horse moves at its normal base land speed. All four shoes must be worn by the same animal for the magic to be effective.

So my horse can walk across friggen water, does this mean that it can walk over a pit trap? (I assume if you can walk over water, that means you're exerting zero pressure on the ground?)

Basically as the title says. Right now I'm in the Kingmaker campaign, and we've faced a fair amount of large monsters that often try to grab me off my mount and are usually successful due to their redonculous CMBs.

Does anyone have recommendations for items that can increase my CMD or ways I can avoid getting grabbed?

I've got an insight bonus due to an Ioun Stone, plus a decent strength, and my DM gives me a +2 in circumstances where I'm mounted (due to having a Military Saddle) but it still feels woefully inadequate since the DM can get me even on low rolls.

So, my DM just called me up and explained that I've been kicked out of one of my DnD groups, the hosts apparently feel as if my behavior has become unacceptable and right now I guess I just need to get a second opinion.

I feel both a little guilty and a little wronged here, personally I'm more upset on principle than anything else, the campaign was just feeling...tedious? I don't know, but I wasn't really having a lot of fun and just went as something to do, so I don't care as badly about being forced out as I possibly could be. Maybe my apathy contributed to my poor behavior?

So, the reasons cited were:

1. Forgot to pay my share for Pizza.

In total, this happened 3 times this year (we've only met 3 times this year) and it's never happened before. I've been playing with this group for 1 and 1/2 years. The first meet this year I didn't have any money with me so I asked if I could just pay next time, so, next time rolls around (3 months later) and I just forgot to pay at all, hosts never reminded me about my debt or asked to collect pizza money so it slipped my mind. Same happened at my last meeting. I was never called/emailed/or talked to at any game (even by the DM) about this.

2. I was not chipping in for snacks.

This was something that I frequently did during 2011 (I usually brought chocolate donuts). I was never asked to bring snacks, I did it of my own violation. Eventually I just sort of stopped because it seemed like only I was eating them, I was never asked to continue doing this. And plenty of other members never brought snacks (although those people were absent frequently).

3. Drinking the host's milk.

The hosts did not mind this since the formation of the group, I asked at the beginning and just assumed they didn't mind from then on. Never a problem throughout 2011. Then the hosts moved further away in 2012, and they brought up that they didn't want me drinking their milk on session 1 2012 (apparently because the grocery store is further away...can't they buy more when they're there?) Alright, no big deal. I bring my own milk at the next session (amazingly I remembered). Third session I did not remember, and helped myself to some milk. Hosts never said anything.

4. Problem with cursing.

Alright, this one is actually legitimate since I have cursed, DM has asked me since the beginning not to curse. But in my defense, it isn't often. The hosts never voiced this concern to me, never said anything during the game, and only ever asked the DM to talk to me about it. And tbh I'm on pretty good behavior compared to my other DnD game which has heavy cursing.

Above all else, I feel like this whole thing just sideswiped me. I was never given any indication that my behavior was being a problem beforehand (aside from the one time about the milk and the very occasional "can you not curse at the table?").

What do you think? Was I really that bad?

Is it?

5 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite.

So, if you have been paying attention to this thread

"Creating magical item for the party + small fee on the work = players uprorar?" party-small-fee#1982

One of the arguments I brought up, is that the following FAQ,


PC Wealth By Level (page 399): If a PC has an item crafting feat, does a crafted item count as its Price or its Cost?

It counts as the item's Cost, not the Price. This comes into play in two ways.

If you're equipping a higher-level PC, you have to count crafted items at their Cost. Otherwise the character isn't getting any benefit for having the feat. Of course, the GM is free to set limits in equipping the character, such as "no more than 40% of your wealth can be used for armor" (instead of the "balanced approach" described on page 400 where the PC should spend no more than 25% on armor).

If you're looking at the party's overall wealth by level, you have to count crafted items at their Cost. Otherwise, if you counted crafted items at their Price, the crafting character would look like she had more wealth than appropriate for her level, and the GM would have to to bring this closer to the target gear value by reducing future treasure for that character, which means eventually that character has the same gear value as a non-crafting character--in effect neutralizing any advantage of having that feat at all.

—Sean K Reynolds, 01/14/12

is intended that all items created by a crafter are counted at Cost for the purposes of WBL.

I based this on the placement of punctuation.

The question is written, "If a PC has an item crafting feat, does a crafted item count as its Price or its Cost?"

You will note, there is a comma between feat and does. Now, this comma, in my opinion, drastically alters the context of the sentence. Meaning that all crafted items are counted as their cost, rather than price, for WBL.

For instance, if the sentence wrote. "If, a PC has an item crafting feat does a crafted item count as its Price or its Cost?"

The the FAQ would be interpreted to say that, only for item crafters, are crafted items counted at cost rather than price.

The relevance of course being, that if crafters make items for their party members, then (if according to the second interpretation) that the party's WBL is increased due to calculating at Price rather than Cost; while the crafter's falls behind.

As an example, I provided the following link, a story on the fate of a criminal,

How the position of a comma drastically changed this mans fate. Thus, the position of the comma in this FAQ is in my opinion, of great import. Since it is separating "If a PC has an item crafting feat" and "does a crafted item count as its Price or its Cost?"

In particular, I also examined this sentence.

If you're looking at the party's overall wealth by level, you have to count crafted items at their Cost.

Which to me, implies the meaning of the FAQ to be that all party members count their crafted items at Cost.

The follow quote supports my interpretation

if you counted crafted items at their Price, the crafting character would look like she had more wealth than appropriate for her level

If the crafter sells his items at their material cost to the other players, and they count their magic items at Price (not Cost) to determine their WBL. They are directly contradicting the sentiment expressed in the FAQ, that crafted items should not increase WBL disproportionately according to character's wealth.

In addition, the FAQ clearly states that crafters and non-crafters should have equal gear value.

eventually that character has the same gear value as a non-crafting character--in effect neutralizing any advantage of having that feat at all.

If non-crafters count crafted items at Price for WBL they are gaining an advantage over the crafter. Which seems to be contradictory to the former quote.

And NO I am not a troll.

Your opinions?

Planning on making a Dervish Magnus using the Scimitar with the Dervish Dancer feat. In doing so, I'm dumping all my strength to pump up Dex + Int. However, looking at the Elven curve blade (because I am taking an Elf, easy choice tbh), it has a d10 over the Scimitar's d6 with the same crit range, and I save a feat. But doing so, I'd take a -2 on damage rolls (in essence, -5 if you consider my dex bonus for scimitars as well) unless I take points out of elsewhere to put into strength (which I could do by dumping cha/wis).

I am still leaning for that Scimitar, but with reworking, would the curve blade be better even with less damage modifier?

As an aside question, how useful is the Spell Recall ability for Magnus? (I'm looking at taking Spire Defender archetype, which replaces it)

He's got a -2 strength modifier and he wants to take a level in Ranger just to get martial proficiency with a bow. Why? Because he doesn't want to use a crossbow since that would eat up his movement in reloading. Also, he's basically obsessed with being a skill monkey and wants that +4 skill points and other class skills pretty badly.

Am I alone in thinking that taking a level in ranger is going to do absolutely nothing for him? Esp at low level.

©2002–2016 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.