Thanks for the replies guys.
Matthew - I did not even consider level dipping mainly because I don't allow it at my table and rarely allow multi classing. I could see how this would be a problem.
SlimGauge - The only other martials that see play at our table are barbarians, rogues and rangers (I run a core only game at the moment as I don't have the time to keep on top of the other rules). All seem to rock, but I'm guessing that probably has much to do with our MGF play style! The last monk we saw in play was about 10 years ago, paladin around 20 years ago and the only bard we ever had was over 30 years ago when they were practically impossible to get (1st edition)!
darkwarrior - As a DM I dream of an all fighter party. Just think, the BBEG could actually monologue without being closed down before he has time to even open his mouth! Do you really think this that imbalanced? The Fighter can hit harder, less accurately, be harder to hit but less accurate, or have a slightly better chance at pulling off a combat manoeuver without exposing himself to a ripost. It does not seem too good even for 1st level, but you may see something I am missing.
RedDog - I like your thinking, however we are happy with the ban on AOO chaining, it's just never worth the hassle.
KainPen - I really wanted to grant the bunce at first level, but maybe it could be something you lose should you ever multiclass? Explanation - Faffing around with spells and wotnot does not leave you enough time to keep up your battle training?
Barbarian Player: "WTF? What am I doing when fighty boy is training?"
Ummm, the rational behing my idea needs more polishing I think.
Helaman & Calybos - I just want to give the 'tickle' to fighters at the moment.
Azothath - I never liked kits in 2nd edition (outside of Al-Qadim setting) so I cannot see myself doing this. It would also be a bugger to implement in herolab!
Perhaps giving the bunce at higher fighter levels would be good. Something like at nth level (probably 4th) fighters never provoke AOO when using combat manoeuvers and give them power attack and combat expertise for free at 1st, which you lose should you ever multiclass (unless you actually take the feat). Or maybe swap that around.
What do you think?
Ok, I'm considering giving fighters these feats for free at 1st level;
Combat Expertise, Power Attack, all the improved combat manoeuver feats.
For a bit of background, I don't allow actions as an attack of opportunity if they themselves provoke an attack of opportunity.
So, what could go wrong with this idea?
Over 35 sessions, spread over 2 years, we have just started book 4 of Legacy of Fire.
The party (there are 7 PCs) is now 8th level and we play with hero points, thought rarely does anyone have enough to 'avoid' death.
We have had 7 deaths and one fluke TPK that was ignored. The half-orc fighter has been saved by his orc ferocity too many times to remember.
The party have just lost the cleric for the second time, so tough times ahead.
It actually worked really well as I could 'take the gloves off' and be really nasty to the party whilst they were under the influence of this spell, pulling some unpleasant moves, without having any guilt.
It was under divination as the fluff surrounding the power stated that the 'replay' element was due to caster having a premonition of future events.
We found that the second time through a fight was always much quicker as the PCs knew exactly what to do.
I like the idea of a saving throw for the big bad allowing the GM to totally re jig things.
How about this idea. You cast the spell at time X. For the next N hours (or minutes), at any point, the caster can say "That did not happen and we shall be returning to X" and you reset the adventure with the understanding that the GM is allowed to make minor tweaks only.
This was a magic power that was often used to avoid (redact) TPK situations in a Bushido campaign I ran many moons ago.
I've not really thought about what to do yet.
I think I'm going to see how The End of Eternity goes. If the party are in a mood to explore everything (and I think they will be) then I might use MuseAmused's idea and drop Jhavul's palace from The Impossible Eye into Kakishon.
I'm a little undecided.
I still want to get the PCs to witness Pashvann's death at the hands of Davushuum. Or better still, be responsible for his death and feel really bad about (whilst picking up another Templar weapon). The problem is I'm not sure how to drop this in. Other than a shopping trip in the Nighstalls there is not much for the party to do before Rayhan acidentally opens the portal to Kakishon.
Did you get round to swapping books 5 and 6?
If so, how did that work out for you?
My party are about to head into Kakishon next session (it's only taken us 36 sessions to get there) and I am wondering whether to use your idea about flipping the books around, or MuseAmused's idea of putting Jhavul's palace inside Kakishon.
Is there a link explaining how I can import a por file from Hero Lab into the combat manager as I seem to be struggling with this.
Although my por files exist (I can see them when I open up explorer), I cannot see them when I try to import them via the Combat Manager.
I am running windows 7 and am running the program as an administrator.
What have I missed? Is there something I need to check?
I recommend the use of hero points in the game. They help enormously when things go wrong for the party through no fault of their own (bad rolls etc). Without hero points we would have had TPK a number of times (Carrion King I'm looking at you).
In 29 sessions we have only ever had one occasion (in a group of 6) where two hero points were used to avoid death.
I do have a couple of house rules re hero points.
There is a limited pool of hero points around the table to prevent hoarding (we have 13 for 7 players). If all the points are in player's hands then no more can be dibbed out. I believe this encourages players to use them.
I have introduced the Boss hero point nerf power that nixes the hero point just played and prevents the play of any hero points for a whole round. This causes my players to get really freaked when fighting a boss knowing that they cannot use hero points to bail themselves out.
Just my tuppence anyway.
Let me first say a big THANK YOU for making this wonderful tool.
I have been playing with it and spotted a couple of things that you may already be aware of, but I thought I would point them out them any way.
In the 'Current Monster' stat block (top right) the perception value does not change when you are editing a monster (for example after adding point to the skill when levelling up a party member). The skill section shows the correct value, but the value under the senses section never seems to change. Am I doing something wrong?
When you apply the Enlarge or Reduce effect (via a spell) to a monster, all the monsters weapon sets are merged into one line. For example if you have a monster with three attack sets, after these effects are applied, they are merged into one super set. It looks to me that the 'or' is being deleted between each weapon set.
If there is a better way of reporting findings please let me know.
Once again, thanks for making this, it is very much appreciated.
The demon does not have to be that high rank to do Lamashtu's bidding. As a matter of fact, making it matched to just above the power of 'Lone Death' presents a rather interesting situation.
The rest of the party do not know what 'Lone Death' has done. If the demon is pitched just right it could lead to a situation where 'Lone Death' may enlist their aid to deal with said demon. He will of course then have to explain why he is being pestered in the first place...
So you are thinking that QQ (I am really pants with names so any help would be good) a general of Lamashtu has taken notice of poor old 'Lone Death'. (This is how the PC is known among the gnoll tribes of the Brazen Peaks as he does most of his gnoll hunting away from the party.)
What would QQ want?
Legacy of Fire:
In this campaign arc, seeing as the gnolls have been turned away from the usual worship of Lamashtu to Rovagug, and Rovagug is behind the BBEG, I could see QQ not squashing Aramil. Well not until he stops being useful (and by that point Aramil should stand a chance against him).
Any further ideas (and a name?)
Long story short: I set up a situation for the party gnoll killer that led him to slaughter two gnoll pups. In my opinion (and pretty much that of the whole table) this act was not justifiable and so there shall be consequences. However, because it WAS a set up, these consequences shall not take the form of 'punishment' but a side story where a fiend of somekind takes an interest in the character. I posted here for ideas about which type of fiend it may be.
Let me make something clear - rest assured the player in question is not going to be 'punished'. That would be a dick move on my part as a DM, and I like to think I stopped being that kind of a DM a long time ago (my players may beg to differ). Becoming the centre of attention for a side story would probably be viewed as a 'reward' in some circles.
You make the assertion that Golarion's powers do not recognise mortal sin. Really? I fully admit that I have hardy even brushed the surface of Golarion as far as reading goes (my two kids have killed any free time I used to have), but nothing I have read gave me that impression. IMHO it would be such a shame if what your are saying is true. My interpretation of Calistria would not have her claim credit for the killing of the gnoll pups. Gnolls that can 'bark' back are fair game, new born pups, no. She is CN, not CE.
And yes, of course Jo Average would not draw attention for performing one such action, but hey, the PCs ARE the story, they are embarked on a course of action whose failure will have significant consequences (Legacy of Fire), so I do think it justifiable their actions will draw attention.
Fully agree with your occasional evil action comment (even the good can do it sometimes), however, this was infanticide.
Thomas LeBlanc wrote:
I guess next time he can horribly disfigure the pups so they will be unable to hurt others. Or leave them alone and defenseless to starve slowly or be eaten by wild beasts. Death is more of a mercy. If he killed them quickly, it is alot less evil than abandoning them, disfiguring them, or something else more sinister.
Or perhaps he could have taken them with him? IMHO death would only be a mercy if he had found the pups already maimed in some way. I do not think you can claim as a humane killing, gnoll pups you had already maimed.
I like your idea of a demon Lord of Canidae who is miffed with Lamashtu having lost hyenas and their ilk to the goddess.
Some good names and I loved the last.
So far we have a night hag in pole position, closely followed by Rover/Rex/whatever the demon Lord of Canidae.
Anyone got suggestions for diabolic fiend?
The attention of the fiend will not be a 'punishment', in actual fact, the creation of a whole sub-plot involving the fiend and starring this PC is a 'reward' for his play. I certainly will not be using the fiend to smite the PC in any way.
The whole 'mortal' sin thing is my label for actions that will get noticed by the powers that be, and the cold hearted killing of two innocents will do that, although I respect that YMMV. (I probably used that term as I am a lapsed catholic and it was burned into my psyche.)
The player now flashes corruptible/claimable to any fiends out there, he registers evil until he redeems himself. Lots of story potential and something that will enable me as DM to really explore the characters around the table.
You see Lamashtu as caring about the gnoll pups? I always had her figured as a survival of the fittest/luckiest kind of a god. (Not that I would attack the PC as I did set him up in the first place) I like the night hag idea. Have you got a good name?
A character in my campaign has committed a mortal sin and I am wondering which kind of fiend would be taking an interest in his soul?
In my game, unless allied to planar powers, character alignment is more an outlook/perspective rather than an absolute. One of the few things that may change this are mortal sins.
The character in question is an elven ranger rogue whose favoured enemy is gnolls, who has the gnoll killer trait, the all gnolls must die feat, is a worshipped of Calistria (vengeance aspect) and whose back story involves his family being wiped out by gnolls. Did I mention that he does not like gnolls? Although his sheet says CN, when push comes to shove he is fairly solidly CG, or even NG.
Whilst on a solo scouting mission I deliberately had him come across a small group of gnolls that, when the fight started, protected one of their number who was holding a small sack. A swift combat later, he found the sack had two gnoll pups.
YMMV, but I decided that slaughtering innocents is a mortal sin and so he is now evil on the ping-o-meter. (The player is ok with this turn of events and his character plays exactly as before.)
The set up was an off the cuff thing and now I want to explore the situation a bit more.
Obviously a mortal soul tainted by such a sin will attract some form of fiendish attention, which can only lead to some good rp. But I am not too sure if it should be a devil or daemon (I have discounted demon but would change my mind if someone came up with a good reason it should be one).
So good people of the boards, which fiend would you introduce?
I would say our group (6 PCs) manage on average two encounters in a 6 hour session. I am running them through Legacy of Fire, we are about to start session 17 and the players are about to enter the House of the Beast proper (there have been quite a few side tracks). We could play faster, but why rush?
It appears to me that I am starting with the beginners box irrespective of the fact I select the start with Bestiary 3 option.
Of course, I could be reading it wrong, but that's what it looks like to me.
If I go ahead and place the order is there a way to make sure I don't get a beginners box in case I make a mistake.
My search-fu may be lacking, but I cannot find anything on the boards that clarifies this issue that came up in game last night.
From the PRD
"Soft Cover: Creatures, even your enemies, can provide you with cover against ranged attacks, giving you a +4 bonus to AC. However, such soft cover provides no bonus on Reflex saves, nor does soft cover allow you to make a Stealth check."
As this bonus has no name, if the party ranger shoots at a target, through two allies, will that target get a +8 bonus to AC, +4 soft cover from each ally?
I cannot find anything to go against this, but applying this to the game table is going to make the player of said ranger very sad.
We have been using them in our Legacy of Fire game. The players started with 2 and have been given one each level. They also gain points for heroic or classy play, as well as anytime the table has a good laugh.
Using them, the players have saved themselves from their own stupidity many times. I cannot recommend their use highly enough.
HOWEVER none of my players seem to hoard them (they usually have on average one each) and I have house ruled that all my boss monsters get a But-those-ARE-the-droids-we-are-looking-for special power.
The way this works is that when invoked (usually in immediate response to play of a hero point) it negates that hero point (that hero point is lost) and prevents the use of any further Hero points until the end of the next round. It's really satisfying when laying one of these on the table to see the oh-dear-we-are-in-trouble-now look on the player's faces.
We are at 5th level about to start book 2 and I do feel we would have had TPK a couple of times without them.