|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Don't know if this is the right place for this, so I apologize if it isn't.
Has Paizo ever thought about producing posters with PF artwork? I have been thinking I should decorate my cubicle at work, but while you have poster maps and a few promotional posters, you don't have much in the way of artistic posters.
I'm running a PF game for some family this Sunday, and I have already been hit with two curve balls, that I could use some help on.
First, my uncle may want to play a dragon. The party is starting at level 2, but it does look like a white or crystal dragon wyrmling might fit the power level, if not the party. (Both are CR 2, which fits the Monsters as PCs rule.) If I do decide to let him play such, and the game goes beyond one session, how do I level him up? He would gain racial hit dice as he ages, which might be an issue in a long running game, as well as class levels as he gains experience.
Second, and probably easier, my aunt has expressed a desire to play a bard, which is simple enough, but wants a lute that is secretly a crossbow. I don't think the rules cover such a thing, but I can see such an item being feasible. How much do you think it should cost? I am estimating about 100gp over the cost of a masterwork light crossbow. Too high? Too low?
Seems like the stories you hear about are of how the GM abuses his power and makes his own PC far superior to the rest of the party. But I also hear disclaimers that not all GMPCs are like this. Thought it might be nice to have a thread to share those stories of GMPCs done right!
I know it can be done, and I *think* I have had a good GMPC or two. If anything, mine tend to be underpowered.
For example, I once was in a 3.5 Eberron game where the GM position was rotated between five players. We all had characters. I (foolishly) tried to play a psion/wizard multiclass (I was going for the prestige class that combines them, forgot what it was called, but my spell/power selection sucked) and consequently my character wasn't holding up their end of things in combat. I used one of my GM sessions to kill my own character off and played something better the next game.
In another game, I ran a GMPC cleric who was focused entirely on support - summoning low-level monsters to help allies flank, buffing other party members, and healing when needed. Not only did she never steal the glory, she was deliberately built to give the glory to other players. (Too well, in fact - one of the players had the audacity to complain that she never did anything useful because she never dealt damage herself. The other players ignored that one.)
It seems to be a barren waste here, devoid of Pathfinder or even decent gaming shops. There seems to be plenty of options if I want to spend an hour each way driving... but I'm hoping to avoid that, since gas money is scarce right now.
Any players in the Western Houston/Katy area? I can host sometimes (I live near I-10 at Barker-Cypress) but not always. Looking for a weekend game every two or three weeks. I can GM Pathfinder, or play in a wide variety of other games. (My favorites, other than PF, are Hunter: the Vigil, and Scion.)
Looking for a home game, not PFS.
I was recently reading the Big List of RPG Plots - which seems to cover nearly ever adventure plot - and was thinking it might be nice to have a similar list for campaign ideas. (Some of the adventure ideas from above could serve well as campaign ideas. Some, not so much.)
Please feel free to add to this with your ideas! It should be fairly generic, as with the Big List linked to above. For example, the Big Bad doesn't have to be a dark wizard, they could be a 1920s mob godfather, a modern politician, or an admiral in command of a fleet of starships.
Look What I Made
In the Army
Who Am I?
After some discussion about how they used to play D&D as teens, I decided to run a Pathfinder game for two of my uncles (and one cousin who has agreed to try it.) My uncles haven't played since the late 70s or early 80s (81 at the latest) and my cousin has never played. But they want to create their own characters on game day.
I am very familiar with the rules, and have run games before. But I'd like some help coming up with a plot and general theme that evokes some of that early classic era (probably involving a dungeon crawl), might allow - but not require - us to expand from a one-shot game to a campaign, and can be run for three players, which will have unknown characters. (For example, I don't want to run something too trap heavy in case nobody plays a character that can deal with them, or have too many magic scrolls as treasure if nobody can use them, or use swarms if nobody can deal area affect damage.) They'll probably be level 2, so they have the option of multiclassing (one uncle remembered a half elf fighter/mage so he might want to remake it) but aren't required to learn a lot of advanced rules; this would mean encounters should be between CR 1 (or less) and CR 4.
It should definitely not be horror-themed - my cousin doesn't like scary stuff. (She won't even watch the Walking Dead.) No, she's not a kid, she's almost 25 now. She liked LotR, so I want to make it more adventure than horror or gore.
I'd really like it to feel somewhat familiar to my uncles, but also highlight how far RPGs have come since their day.
Trying to make a decision, and since I'm pretty ticked and don't want to make decisions while angry, thought I'd ask some advice before I did something, which also gives me time to cool down.
Since I moved to my current area, I have been running a RotRL game for some friends back where I came from using Roll20. They are all in the same physical location (but using different computers). This is the only game I'm involved in right now, while they had other games going as well.
Although the Game Master is the final arbiter of the rules, the Pathfinder RPG is a shared experience, and all of the players should contribute their thoughts when the rules are in doubt.
We are all experienced roleplayers, so of course we hit our fair share of corner cases and rule ambiguities. In general, of course, they always take the interpretation that is most favorable to them. We'd have to keep stopping the game to lawyer out a given interpretation. Now, I'll admit I can be a bit stubborn. However, I also don't hold to the "rule of cool" and I'm disinclined to allow them to easily bypass every single challenge. After they started complaining about how long things were taking, and how things were getting bogged down in rules arguments, I basically instituted the following policies: One, if you don't like the way I run the game, quit, because I'd rather not sacrifice a friendship over a game (it really was getting that bad with arguments); and two, if it comes to it in the game, I'm going to make a judgement call, I have final say as the GM, and we can discuss it between games.
Now, this seemed to work well. We still had rules ambiguity. Sometimes I'd call it in their favor, sometimes not. Sometimes I'd find out I was wrong later and apologize; sometimes I'd find out they were wrong and tell them so as not to establish a rule precedent they kept using. TBH, I might be biased in my memory, but I remember many more times I was right than they were.
The problem is, apparently they were still complaining, just behind my back. Remember where I said they were all in the same location? They were complaining about it during the game, and I didn't know it. Apparently one person (we'll call him Bob) was running interference and convincing the others not to bring up this stuff. Except that, since it never got brought up, it just caused hurt feelings behind the scenes. I think Bob meant well, but now I just had a bunch of players who felt I was playing "Dictator GM". One of them has made comments that we aren't playing Pathfinder, we are playing "Derek's Game". This came to a head last night, when I made a ruling that adversely impacted Bob. He decided he was fed up, and ragequit. We played a little longer, finishing up the current fight, and then ended early.
I'm kind of feeling like their attitude is, "Don't argue during the game, and don't make judgement calls against us without research afterwards," which, really, means they are doing the rules arbitration during the game.
Add to this I found out after we started that Bob actually had a copy of the adventure path I was running (he claims he isn't metagaming) and at least at one point they were double checking monster stats on d20pfsrd.com during the game.
Now, because of my job situation, I was already going to put the game on hiatus - I was spending hours prepping for the game that could have gone to job hunting. But now I'm not even sure I want to pick it back up. Should I just drop it completely?
For the record, here are a few of the judgement calls I have made that prompted argument (or made to avoid argument):
Paralysis is listed as either SU or EX in the universal monster rules. But the way the entry is formatted in monster text blocks doesn't give an indication of which it is.
Tonight I had a party of 5th level characters fighting a bunch of ghouls, and a ghast. Now, the ghoul's disease is clearly marked SU, but the ghast stench is EX. So there's reasonable interpretation for either, in my opinion. But one of my players, who gets a Fort save bonus against SU effects, rolled right on the cusp where it was a fail against EX but a success against SU. I ruled it as EX, reasoning that the elf immunity was because of the elven nature, rather than the ghoul nature (and thus why the more powerful attack of the ghast could bypass it).
Was I wrong?
I have been looking for a Pathfinder game - most of the Meetup groups I have found tend to run other games, or PFS (which I'm not really interested in). The one game I almost got into fell apart before it began due to inability to coordinate a play time among the already few players.
I'm experienced with the game, and run an online RotRL game every second and fourth Saturday (so I couldn't meet then). But it's getting a little tiring to always run and never play. I'm good with pretty much any day from Friday evening to Sunday afternoons, except as noted the 2nd and 4th Saturdays. Looking for a twice/month regular meetup, maybe weekly depending on the location and day.
I'm 31, I work in insurance, and I'm a grad student at GMU living in Fairfax. I cannot host, for the time being, sadly.
Had this idea for a sandbox campaign, but my players didn't think much of it when I brought it up to them. Wanted to see if it was just my group, or did a wider audience think it sucked. ;) Note that this will completely suck unless the party has lots of downtime, so I'd recommend combining it with some way of limiting magic items. Also, the party will be a bit weaker than their ECL indicates.
I have been wondering why adventures adventure in a sandbox game after a certain point. If there is no overall plot, and the players (for the most part) get to choose the pacing, and what adventures they take on, what's the motivation? Around, say, 10th level, your character will already have significant wealth and power. Even in terms of causes, it is probably more efficient for them to retire to a command position and train others to fight the good fight. Unless some major threat pops up that only they can beat (which makes it no longer a sandbox game), they really have no reason to go on adventures.
The idea is basically this - rather than having characters gain a bunch of new abilities all at once when they gain a level, instead their *potential* increases but they have to find someone to train them to reach that potential. The trainer must already have that ability themselves. (In some cases, like HP, BAB, or saves, the trainer need not be of the same class.) Most of this could be handled by the retraining rules (or for some classes, spell research rules) - you are just training the first time, rather than retraining. The only things that don't seem to have training times are BAB and saving throws, but those probably shouldn't be that high anyhow - maybe 3 days.
This is easier at first, but looking for someone who can train you on 20th level abilities would be the subject of quests all on their own - this could mean, for example, that your 16th level character might hit 17th level or even 18th level before finding someone who can teach him 16th level abilities. (For this reason, the GM should probably include trainers in the campaign several levels higher than the characters, so they can be used for multiple level gains.
I feel this addresses the problem I mentioned because the character abilities will always be a bit below their actual level, and the effort of just reaching that potential will further boost their potential. It's like trying to catch up to a runaway horse - you can only do it when it finally chooses to stop. (20th level.)
So what do you think? Good idea, or too much work? Does it adequately address the problem I mentioned?
Does a 1HD (evil) tiefling register to a paladin's detect evil? Detect evil normally doesn't work on low-HD people, unless clerics, antipaladins, undead, and outsiders. Tieflings are outsiders, but they are native outsiders. Does this affect DE?
EDIT: Should be noted, a non-evil tiefling wouldn't ever detect. It comes from their actual alignment, not their heritage. So it seems to me it should work as it does with anybody else.
How does interrupted rest affect a Mystic Theurge's ability to cast spells in cross class spell slots?
For example, a Wizard 3/Cleric 3/Mystic Theurge 1 can prepare Magic Missile in a 2nd level cleric spell slot, or Bless in a 2nd level wizard spell slot.
Now, suppose the character only manages to get an hour's rest the night before. This affects wizards, but not clerics, in prepping spells the next day. Which does the character lose - the use of wizard spells, or the use of wizard spell slots, or both? In the above example, can the character no longer prepare the Bless, or no longer prepare the Magic Missile, or neither?
Also, if you prepare an orison in a 1st level wizard slot, or a cantrip in a 1st level cleric slot, do you still get unlimited uses per day?
The downtime rules in Ultimate Campaign allow you to make earnings checks yourself, your buildings, and your organizations. They also allow you to add modifiers together, or break them apart, for different kinds of capital. My question is, why would you want to add them together? The fact that there is a dice roll involved for each would make it seem that it is ALWAYS better to divide checks as much as possible.
Let's assume you take 10 for your checks, for simplicity. Let's also assume you are getting +6 on your profession checks, total. Again, for simplicity. Now, let's say you have a Tavern. The sample one is listed as: 1 Bar (+10, gp or Influence), 1 Common Room (+7, gp or Influence), 1 Lavatory (no bonuses), 1 Office (no bonuses), and 1 Storage (+2 gp). If you spend a day running the Tavern, you'd make a Profession check as appropriate, and the building rooms would add a total of 19 to earn gp. You also get +10 for running it yourself. That's a 45, so you can earn 4.5gp per day.
Now, suppose you decide to separate them, so the Tavern earns separately from you? Your check is then only 16, while the tavern's is 29. That's 1.6gp for you and 2.9gp for the tavern, so your net income is 4.5gp. No problem yet.
BUT! Let's say you are opening up a chain, and now have two taverns. You run one, the other runs itself. Now, as before, you could just add up all the modifiers (take 10, +6 total profession, +10 self running, +19 for tavern 1, +19 for tavern 2) = 64 = 6.4gp. Or, you could make all the checks individually (16 for yourself, 29 for tavern 1, 29 for tavern 2) = 74 = 7.4gp. A whole extra gp, because you are essentially getting another 10 from rolling another dice. Still, 1gp isn't much of a game breaker.
Let's take it further, and assume we want to generate Influence as well as gp. We are again working ourselves and adding all modifiers together, but this time each tavern is adding +10 to Influence and +9 to gp, and the profession check is still gp. Now, adding all the modifiers, we wind up earning 3 Influence (10+10+10) and 3.4gp (16+9+9). If, on the other hand, we roll the taverns separately, we wind up with 4 Influence (10+10, 10+10), and 5.4gp (16+19+19).
This would only increase with the number of buildings created or number of types of capital earned. This isn't about whether the wealth is game breaking, this is a question of why you should get different results based on method chosen to determine earnings.
Ultimate Campaign got me thinking of wealth-by-level balancing, which got me thinking of the sale value of treasure. Just why is it sold for half price, anyhow?
Let's start by simplifying and making some core assumptions, just to avoid derailing the thread *too* much on questions of playstyle difference. That's not an indictment of playstyle differences - it's just not relevant to the question.
1. We are assuming core rules. So magic items sell for one half, and (given sufficient settlement gp limits) you can buy and sell magic items with little problem. The GM is giving enemy NPCs the standard wealth for an NPC of their level, not more or less.
Now, if the GM gives an enemy a longsword +1, the treasure total has gone up by 2315gp. The fighter is happy, and is getting normal WBL for his encounters.
But suppose, instead, the GM is cruel - or at least indifferent and using randomized tables. Instead, he gives the opponent a scimitar +1. Again, the treasure total has gone up by 2315gp. But now the fighter is NOT happy. When he gets back to town, he sells the scimitar +1 and buys a longsword +1. BUT... since he only gets 1157.5gp for the scimitar, the rest has to come from his own gp. That means the fighter is now 1157.5gp below his ordinary wealth by level. He'd have done better to get an amount of extra gp equivalent to the price of a scimitar +1 - a treasure of the same value, but with greater liquidity.
Now consider the higher level fighter, who can craft magic weapons. Now he can sell the scimitar +1, and use the funds to make his own longsword +1. Hooray! He's back at WBL! Except... he's really not. He's still short by 1157.5gp, because he *should* be getting that much discount. If the player had been creating a new character at the higher level, he'd have been able to get a longsword +1 at half price from the get-go. Part of the advantage of the crafting feats is to exceed WBL. Again, if the scimitar was replaced by gold pieces instead, he'd be better off.
If the trend of "useless magic items" continues, the fighter will drop farther and farther behind WBL, and the GM will have to (or at least should) compensate anyhow.
On the other hand, if the fighter could sell the scimitar for full price, he could go ahead and buy the longsword and be at his normal WBL. If he could craft his own, he'd be 1157.5gp ahead of WBL, exactly as he's suppose to be. And the GM wouldn't have to worry about whether treasure was useful or vendor trash when determining WBL. There's less need to compensate. So at least for game-balance, it would seem to be better to have items sold at full value rather than half.
Now, you might argue for realism - merchants make money on markup. (Alliteration unintended.) Also, adventures don't take the time to find a buyer, which could take months for some items. Possibly never, if it's some reeking bit of magic hide they pulled off a goblin shaman's corpse. "Well sure, it's made of human skin, scrawled with the symbols of Lamashtu, and smells like the original owner's body cavity, but it's magic hide armor!" These two combine nicely, actually - 100% markup isn't really that much if it takes *years* to find a new buyer. On the other hand, the very mundane equipment is also sold for half price, and there should be no shortage of buyers for that. "Ah, I see you have recovered an animal harness, Mr. Adventurer. But we don't have much call for those in this farming community, so I'll take it off your hands for half price." But wait... remember, we have established that, at least by the rules, there are magic item shops? (Remember, a small city has a base value of 4000gp, which means there is a 75% chance of finding *any* magic item less than that value.) Base values go up with city size. That means trade hubs. A merchant isn't typically going to leave a magic sword on a shelf for 20 years waiting for another rich adventurer to want it. No, they'll sell it to traveling merchants, who will bring it to major trade hubs, and it'll get sold within the year to a nobleman with the cash to spare. Thus, the 100% markup is *still* too high, and it *still* makes sense for magic items to be sold near full value.
The spell states you can turn inert stone into flesh, but it isn't alive. No problem. But... what kind of flesh?
If I make a statue of a cow, then cast StF on it, does it become beef? If I do the same to a pig statue, does it become pork? Can I make beef from a pig statue? If I made it out of a statue of a human, would it be cannibalism to eat it? Does the meat spoil?
A character can lift as much as double his maximum load off the ground, but he or she can only stagger around with it. While overloaded in this way, the character loses any Dexterity bonus to AC and can move only 5 feet per round (as a full-round action).
Dwarves have a base speed of 20 feet, but their speed is never modified by armor or encumbrance.
Is the speed effect from being overloaded considered a special rule, or simply an encumbrance effect? That is, can a dwarf still move 20 feet despite carrying double his "maximum load"?
None of the composite bows are mentioned as having high strength rating in any opponent entries, yet everyone who has them seems to be adding strength to ranged damage.
Should these be listed as have a strength rating of whatever is needed to deal the listed damage, which would increase the treasure (especially during the first few levels when a few hundred gp is significant) or should the damage entries be nerfed?
A coruscating ray springs from your hand. You must succeed on a ranged touch attack to strike a target. The subject takes a penalty to Strength equal to 1d6+1 per two caster levels (maximum 1d6+5). The subject's Strength score cannot drop below 1. A successful Fortitude save reduces this penalty by half. This penalty does not stack with itself. Apply the highest penalty instead.
No problem so far. The effect is straightforward, the spell imposes a penalty to Strength. But...
Some spells and abilities cause you to take an ability penalty for a limited amount of time. While in effect, these penalties function just like ability damage, but they cannot cause you to fall unconscious or die. In essence, penalties cannot decrease your ability score to less than 1.
If penalties function like damage (rather than drain), then it wouldn't reduce the score. Rather, for every two points of penalty, you take a -1 to derived checks.
Since the penalty doesn't change your actual strength, then, your carrying capacity also shouldn't change. Am I correct?
I generally like the downtime rules in Ultimate Campaign, but one usage caught me off guard and I wanted to make sure I'm understanding it correctly.
You can use units of Capital on paying for goods at the purchase price, and pay that for the crafting costs?
So, for example, if we are supposing that a wizard is making a magic item that costs 2000gp. This will cost them 1000gp in raw materials. But they can use units of Magic to assist in paying that cost - in this case, 10 units. But earning units of Magic only costs them 50gp.
Similar rules exist for other goods, including nonmagical ones.
Would this mean you can now effectively buy any item for half price, craft magic items for 1/4th price, and nonmagic items for 1/6th the price, given enough downtime?
Even for unskilled laborers and basic Goods capital, you'd spend a day's work and 10gp and get 20gp of purchasing power - why would anyone use normal profession checks ever again?
After a fairly long thread about the subject, the original question was marked as answered in the FAQ... except it wasn't. When I commented, someone suggested they had marked it to clear it from the queue, but couldn't determine the actual question. So I thought I'd simply ask again and clarify.
Please mark this for the FAQ so we can get a response.
I have a player who wants to fill a Bag of Holding with ale, essentially using it as a giant waterskin (well, aleskin). But I'm starting to wonder less and less if this works, or would be desirable for what he wants.
First, can you put liquid sans container into a bag of holding? It's an extradimensional space, so I would suppose so.
Second, ordinarily a BoH requires a move action to get something specific from it, or a full round if it contains more than a normal backpack. But if you are drinking straight from the bag, is this still the case? That is, is the move/full-round action a function of the magic of the bag and reaching across dimensional barriers, or is it just a matter of finding the item you want? If my player has to take a full round to get the liquid and then a move action to drink, it's definitely not what he wants, but if it is just going to be a move action to drink, he's fine with it.
Might I suggest adding things like Paizo Blogs that create new rules (such as this one that alters how stealth works, as well as clarifications made in FAQs, to the PRD? Or at the very least, have a page that links to all of them so we aren't having to look in a dozen different locations if we need to look up some kind of rules issue (or missed something entirely)?
3.0 had the Zenythri and Chaonds, but those are IP.
We know if angels/archons/agathions/azatas get frisky with a mortal, you get half-celestials, which can later have aasimars as descendants - and those have a full book about them.
We know if demons/daemons/devils get frisky with a mortal, you get half-fiends, which can later have tieflings as descendants - and those, too, have a full book about them.
So what happens if Inevitables or Axiomites knock boots with a mortal? What happens when Proteans make the beast with two (or more) backs with a mortal? What about Aeons? Or the Psychopomps coming in Bestiary 4?
I love to run games, but as a grad student I barely have the time. And of course, it takes more prep time to run a game than play it. Obviously, published adventures help a lot. Most of the work is done for you... hopefully.
What I keep finding is that when I run into a problem, often the simple solution is to adjust the game. Players have too much treasure? Adjust downwards. Players too powerful? Make the encounters harder. Players not powerful enough? Do the opposite. But at some point, when you are reworking every encounter, adjusting every treasure, and coming up with alternative plots because the players did something the module didn't expect... well, you have lost most of your time savings. Add in doing research on rules questions because you have creative players that actually run into corner cases fairly often, and you lose the rest. (No wonder my grades suffered this semester!)
I'm sure others have this problem, as well, be it from a job, school, or a family. So I figured I'd start a discussion on how to balance being a GM with your other responsibilities.
One thing that helps, I have found, is learning to say no. If there's something a player wants to do, that just takes too much of your time to accommodate (either through plot development or looking up special rules cases) tell them no, and explain why. Hopefully, they'll accept that.
Anybody else have ideas?
One of my players wants to take the Gunslinger feat from the 3.5 version of the campaign setting. I told him I'd think about it.
My impulse is to say no - the feat was designed before the newest rules on guns and the gunslinger class were developed. Also, guns are powerful enough weapons that removing the drawback of not using them in melee would seem more powerful than the same thing with a bow or crossbow.
However, I wanted a second/third/fourth/etc. opinion on this before I told my player my decision. Any thoughts?
Okay, I have been trying to get a clear understanding of this, and many threads on the subject seem to assume a magus who misses with a touch spell via spell strike can continue to channel the charge through their weapon. But I'm not seeing where this is that clear.
Spellstrike (Su): At 2nd level, whenever a magus casts a spell with a range of “touch” from the magus spell list, he can deliver the spell through any weapon he is wielding as part of a melee attack. Instead of the free melee touch attack normally allowed to deliver the spell, a magus can make one free melee attack with his weapon (at his highest base attack bonus) as part of casting this spell. If successful, this melee attack deals its normal damage as well as the effects of the spell. If the magus makes this attack in concert with spell combat, this melee attack takes all the penalties accrued by spell combat melee attacks. This attack uses the weapon's critical range (20, 19–20, or 18–20 and modified by the keen weapon property or similar effects), but the spell effect only deals ×2 damage on a successful critical hit, while the weapon damage uses its own critical modifier.
Now, the normal rules on using a charged touch spell allow for later attacks through touches (that are considered armed), unarmed strikes, and natural weapons. There is no provision for manufactured weapons.
If the magus has already missed, they now have a charged touch spell. But both of the first two sentences of the spellstrike ability specifically call out that the melee attack is made as part of the casting. Shouldn't the magus then follow normal rules for discharging a held touch attack?
That is, if a magus misses with spellstrike, shouldn't they now have to discharge it via a touch, UAS, or natural weapon, and NOT via their weapon?
Had a situation come up tonight that I'd like some advice on. I prefer to follow the rules as much as possible as a GM, but we hit a situation where they seemed a bit broken.
To avoid spoilers, I'll keep this very generic. My players are 3rd level, in an adventure path. They have encountered a minor artifact that takes the form of a well set into the floor. The summoner in the group has taken a trait that allows him to cast three spells on his list at a +1 caster level. One of the spells he chose was Summon Monster II.
Now, the first part of this is, am I correct in disallowing him to use it with his Summon Monster spell-like ability? Getting an extra round from a summon spell is one thing, but since the SLA lasts minutes instead of rounds an extra 10 rounds is a bit much. But the SLA in the summoner's case works more like spells than most SLAs so I'm not sure I'm right.
The second issue is that he used said SLA to summon a small Earth Elemental, and burrow around and under the well. He also want to have it Earth Glide up the walls and into the ceiling, to drop a chunk of stone on top of the well. This wouldn't destroy the artifact, but it would bury it, effectively doing the same thing for game purposes.
Now, since the elemental is around 2 minutes (possibly 3 - one minute was used to get the Earth Elemental to understand directions via alchemist extract), and has a burrow speed of 20 feet, that means it can move 800 square feet of earth (1200 in 3 minutes). Now considering that Move Earth can't be used for tunneling, can move 1500 square feet of earth at most, takes 10 minutes, and is a 6th level spell, this seems a bit much. One more level and the summoner would be able to outdo Move Earth with this trick.
I don't want to deny something that is allowed in the rules... but I also don't want my players to be able to shut down an artifact with a 2nd level SLA and no research.
Invisibility grants you total concealment, which means that enemies can target the square you are in, then get a 50% miss chance. But this can actually improve the situation for them if you have a high AC and they have a low attack!
Consider the following:
Now let's say Person B becomes invisible. Now Person A has to hit the square they are in (AC 5, thus A has a 95% chance of hitting) and then gets a 50% miss chance. Since .95 x .5 is .475, there's a 47.5% of making the hit, a full 17.5% greater!
This could get even worse, too - suppose Person B had an AC of 23. Now A can only hit B with a natural 20, thus a mere 5% chance of hitting. If B turns invisible, it actually increases his chances of being hit by 42.5% - as though his AC had dropped from 23 to 15.
This seems counter-intuitive to me. Am I doing something wrong?
Additional: Even in a worse case scenario, where an attacker has an attack of +0, they have an 80% chance to hit an AC 5 square, thus a 40% chance to hit an invisible creature. This is the same probability as if the creature was visible and had an AC of 12.
In fact, anything with an AC 13 or more higher than the attacker's bonus would be worse off by becoming invisible.
Last Friday my players made their way through the Catacombs of Wrath. Sadly, *not one of them* thought to research quasits... and so the only ones that could reliably do damage to Erylium were the paladin (via smite) and the summoner (via celestial eagles that could smite). Both of them could also use Detect Magic/Detect Evil to determine her location every three rounds. The party closed the door, and the *hours* of combat dragged on. (Hours out of game, in game it was a lot of rounds but still not hours.)
Erylium was almost out of hostile magic - she had the use of 2 slumber hexes and a ray of enfeeblement, but her returning dagger had been captured so her only method of actual damage was claws and teeth. She couldn't escape because of the closed door. But with her energy resistance, damage reduction, and fast healing, plus the high AC and the invisibility meaning that even the two characters who could "spot" her had a 50% miss chance... the party didn't have a chance at actually killing her. One of them kept saying that she had to sleep sometime, and they could take shifts to get her when that happened... except outsiders don't sleep. And since my players lacked much of this info, they refused to try another tactic. Very frustrating...
Finally, one of them decided to go for help from the militia (figuring that filling the room with guards would put this to rest) - at which point, the invisible quasit near the door with a readied action slipped through, ending the fight.
Well, sort of... because now, Erylium is still alive. Everyone in her "kingdom" is now dead, she's still a coward, and she still has agoraphobia... so what would she probably do now? She's going to want revenge, but she's going to have a hard time finding someone to help her carry it out. I suppose I could have her travel to Thistletop, her fear of the party overriding her fear of open spaces, or just wait until Scribbler's appearance... though she'd be little more than a nuisance at that point.
The rules allow one to use an AoMF to place melee weapon abilities on unarmed attacks. This would include the Throwing ability. How does one use a thrown unarmed attack? Does the fist or foot detach from the body, fly out, then return? Does it automatically reattach itself, or does one need a regeneration spell?
I just finished running this fight for the second time. The first time was for one group, but the campaign ended early - they never even finished Thistletop.
The second time some of the players from the first group wanted to reboot that campaign. It had been months, though (possibly even over a year, I don't recall), and the foreknowledge of three out of five players didn't really assist them. (The other two are new.)
But the reason I'm writing this is because essentially the same thing happened both times, and I want to know how common it is.
The fight is against a small horde of goblins (8) and Tsuto Kaijitsu. Tsuto is downstairs with his sister, while the goblins are in the main glassmaking area. What is supposed to happen is that the fight starts, Tsuto hears it, and comes to assist. He is supposed to work with the goblins.
But it never goes down that way. Due to a combination of sleep spells, burning hands, or alchemist bombs, my players manage to defeat the goblins within two rounds. So the fight is over, or very nearly so, by the time Tsuto even gets upstairs. And since he has no flanking buddies left, I never get to use his sneak attacks. Further, because of the doors in the room between the stairs down and the main factory area, both fights tend to cluster around a doorway where only a few can get through, and the turns mean ranged weapons aren't nearly as effective for characters stuck in back. So there were a few occasions of, "Well, I can't do anything this turn, so I'll wait."
Anybody else run into this? My players are all level 1, and while there are 5 of them instead of 4, I don't think that would impact it so dramatically. (Especially since they are on a 15 point buy instead of 20.)
First, on damage reduction:
Attacks from weapons that are not of the correct type or made of the correct material have their damage reduced, although a high enhancement bonus can overcome some forms of damage reduction.
I can't find the listing for what enhancement bonuses are required to overcome what. I seem to recall it was +1 for slashing, bludgeoning, or piercing, +2 for silver or cold iron, +3 for alignments, and +5 for adamantine, but I don't know if those are right or even where they come from.
Second, on creatures with several limbs. Can a creature with Multi-Weapon Fighting take Improved and Greater Two Weapon Fighting? If so, do they get extra attacks with just one off hand, or with all of them?
Part of making a scroll requires you to provide the expensive material component of the spell in question. So for example, a cleric can make a scroll of Bless for 25 gp, but a scroll of Bless Water would be 50gp to include the 25 gp worth of silver dust.
But what about a scroll of Animate Dead? The base spell would be 3 x 5 x 25 (assuming 5th level caster) or 375gp. But the spell also requires an onyx gem, which depends on the hit dice of the undead in question. How do you know what that HD is going to be? For a human skeleton that's only an extra 25gp. But if I wanted to raise a ankylosaurus skeleton, it would be an extra 250gp. Does the scroll remember the value of the onyx gem I used in the making? If I use a 25gp gem, then use the scroll on an ankylosaurus, would it simply fail, or could I not even attempt the casting (as I wouldn't have the proper material components)? Can I supplement the extra components?
There's an even weirder scenario. If a 17th level wizard wants to create a scroll of a 9th level spell, it costs 3825gp. Now suppose that spell is Teleportation Circle. The extra amber dust bumps the cost up to 4825gp. But there's a flaw in this - the amber dust is essential to the spell, because it defines the circle! The amber dust is used to mark out a circle, which then becomes the teleportation circle. So if casting from a scroll, how do you mark out the circle? You need the dust at the time of casting, which the scroll doesn't allow.
Okay, I have to get this off my chest. One of Sandpoint's citizens sounds very familiar...
Rise of the Runelords Anniversary Edition wrote:
...VORVASHALI VOON...an exotic-looking character with bright blue eyes, long red hair, and almost bronze-colored skin, is gregarious and excited about every customer.
I can't read that description without thinking that this guy fits such a description.
This image will from now on be used to represent the proprietor of the Feathered Serpent in my games.
Various kinds of terrain have some interesting features, and yet any time I have ever seen a battle done in a forest, there was always a convenient clearing for that battle to take place in.
In a given 50 foot square of sparse forest, half the battle map should be typical trees and light undergrowth. If the forest is dense, you should have about 20 massive trees, and 80 typical trees, and every square should have some kind of undergrowth. In a 10x10 square.
But even in Paizo's published maps, you get pretty pictures of treetops surrounding an open clearing or path.
Similar rules hold for other types of terrain. In a 10x10 square of swamp, there should be 20 squares of deep bog and 40 squares of light bog. When drawing battle maps in hill country, there should be gradual and steep slopes in 90 to 95 of the squares out of 100. Even on a 10x10 square of grassland there should be 30 squares with undergrowth.
A computer could easily be programmed to randomly generate the appropriate battle scene, but most of us aren't doing that in home games.
So how many people actually use these rules when designing random encounters?
One of my friends and I have completely opposite approaches to building characters.
For my part, I always start with a concept. This usually includes a race and a general profession, and usually some ideology and personality. Then I figure out what broad options fit those choices, and then select options where they fit. I might change a few details here and there, but for the most part I'm using the rule mechanics as best I can to represent a character - an "outside-in" approach.
My friend does the opposite, an "inside-out" approach. He starts by looking up rule mechanics he wants to implement, then comes up with a character concept that can incorporate those rules, even if unrealistic. Sometimes he'll move from this into a "feedback" approach, where he comes up with a background, find an option he likes that would work well with that background, and shifts a large part of his mechanics choices around to better fill that option... which can in turn lead to a shift in concept again.
Sometimes it annoys me as a GM when he creates characters for a game I have planned. (In a mortal WoD game where characters have yet to be exposed to the supernatural stuff: "Yes, I suppose your grandfather could have learned a bit about Nazi occult practices in WW2 and taught you what he knew, but do you really think that justifies a full 4 dots in it?" "I took the German language and his grandfather has a large collection of books as spoils of war.") And I'm sure it bugs him sometimes when he runs a game I'm playing in. ("You put ranks in Craft: Painting? Your barbarian's hobbies should be killing stuff, not doing landscapes!" "Seeking tranquility is his way of managing his rage.") However, we both know that these are both valid approaches and so grin and bear it, and adapt the campaign accordingly.
Pondering on this led me to wonder what other methodologies people follow. How do you build your characters? And do they differ from others in your group?
Is there anything preventing an elven wizard from bonding spells from his opposition schools using this archetype?
RD's question on Enlarge Person reminded me of a situation I had once as a GM. Never did figure out how it should have worked...
I was running a sewer adventure, and put the party up against some ochre jellies. Some of the players only had slashing weapons. Rather than deciding this was a hindrance, they set about splitting the jellies up as much as possible. (That way, area affects that did damage would multiply in effectiveness.)
Now, because it was in a sewer, space was an issue, and the resulting oozes were the same size as the original. Where do those offspring go, in terms of positioning? Are they squeezed into the same square? Are they shunted into the nearest open space - even if that space is behind two other oozes, or behind the party?
While trying to decide how to make a half-orc battle-cleric of Gorum, I realized that I could be very well armed... and also very confused. I want to make sure I have this down right.
A half-orc can take the "Toothy" racial trait (or alternatively, a feat) that gives them a bite attack, a primary natural attack that does 1d4 damage.
So, such a half-orc wielding a greatsword could:
Is this correct?
Now, to add to my confusion, devout Gorumites also typically wear armor spikes, which can be used as a light weapon, and an "off hand" weapon in the case of a multiattack.
So in this case, the half-orc could (assuming NO TWF feat):
Is this all correct?
Finally, would taking Two Weapon Fighting affect the bite attack at all?
Honestly, I'm not sure this is *quite* the forum for this, because while it's about the Pathfinder RPG, it's also about the application of programming to that RPG. Or maybe vice versa. Anyhow, if a mod decides this isn't the right place, I'd appreciate a move. Also, from a legal perspective... my understanding is that you can create a computer game that uses the OGL elements of the Pathfinder RPG, as long as you meet the legal requirements involved - including a copy of the OGL itself, not using Product Identity or Trademarks (including indication of compatibility), and clearly identifying which portions are OGL.
I have been thinking for a long time how I'd implement some of the rules of the game as an object oriented computer program, but I'm not a very experienced programmer, and one of the things that has been bugging me is class levels. This has been made worse by the inclusion of archetypes.
Possibly the best way to do it would be to treat each class level as a kind of template that added features to a character. Each level would be a separate template.
So, for example, a Barbarian 1 template would add a d12 hit dice, toggle a number of skills as "class skills", add 4+Int skill ranks, add 1 to the BAB, 2 to the Fort Save, and grant the "Fast movement" and "Rage" powers. It would require a nonlawful alignment and an Int Score of 3. The Barbarian 2 template would be very similar, adding hit dice and skills, increasing BAB and Fort by 1 each, and adding a rage power and uncanny dodge. It would require the Barbarian 1 template to already be applied.
Now, I think this would work just fine, allowing for multiclassing and single classing with ease. The problem comes in with archetypes. You don't want to allow someone access to both Barbarian 1 and Invulnerable Rager 1. You could simply make each of them require the lack of the other, but this approach sets up a LOT of requirements - you'd essentially have to treat each archetype (and combination of archetypes!) as a separate class, with a multitude of checks to make sure none of these classes could be taken concurrently. You'd also be duplicating a lot of material, since some archetypes do not change the base class all that much, with many levels being identical.
Perhaps a better solution would be to only create those levels that were different, but then you'd have to create even more built in checks - making sure that someone who took a level in an archetype would take all further archetype levels that came after.
Then you have problems like Domain or Bloodline selection. A cleric with the Travel domain is almost a different class than a cleric with the War domain, and the fact that they get two domains complicates the issue more. Do you develop a cleric class for every combination of domains? That will get very tedious, very quickly. Perhaps one option would be to treat Domains as templates in a similar manner?
Anyway, just looking for some thoughts on this. Are there some options that might be better that people can think of?
This game tests your ability to think of connections between two concepts. The idea is simple - you add to a chain of articles on Wikipedia.
To start a journey, use the random page link on Wikipedia to find a target page. If the page has no links, or is an orphan page, you should choose a new one, because otherwise either you or the next player will break the chain. Your starting page is the previous person's target page. You click through links on the page until you reach your target page. You can use any link within an article (or even list), but you can't click links common to all Wikipedia pages (for example, the talk page for an article), nor can you edit a page.
You score 1 point for each link you make. However, someone can attempt the same journey and if they do it in fewer links than you, you get 0 points. You may not take two journeys in a row - someone else must make a journey between your two consecutive ones. The first person to reach 150 points wins, and the next person should start a new chain. (But remember they can instead still remove you as winner if they post a shorter journey right after you.)
I'll go first to illustrate. I used a random page for a start page as well.
The next player must either make a journey from Jan Brożek to Riverview, Indiana in fewer than 10 links or randomly get a new target page and make a journey from Riverview, Indiana to that.
I now have 10 points.
Does it seem to anybody else that there is a serious gap in the video game RPG market? It seems that you either get single player games, or MMOs, with no middle ground. There are a few exceptions, usually action RPGs, and the Infinity Engine Games and Neverwinter Nights.
Given that the origins of the computerized RPG are on the tabletop, why is it so hard for game publishers to allow for deep, enriching stories that can include multiple players?
When I noticed in Faiths of Corruption that Mhar grants the Earth and Fire domains (previously only Brigh granted both) I had to make use of it for a concept I wanted to play on for a while.
The idea is that before Mhar himself gets free, his harbinger arrives on Golarion. A powerful leader of a cult from before the time of Thassilon, the Harbinger of Mhar was trapped accidentally during a ritual to free his master.
The Harbinger is a half fiend troll, with 20 levels of cleric, and the Earth and Fire domains, and the Die Hard feat.
He'd come into the campaign after the defeat of Karzoug, when the heros have left the Eye of Avarice. Some event has now freed the Harbinger - should not require the full event that would free Mhar, so he can be used even without that.
The Harbinger is much smarter and more cunning than other trolls, though he still prefers physical combat and eating the flesh of his victims. Now that he's back in the world, his ultimate goal is to again free Mhar... though if need be, he might start by rebuilding his cult again.
Since he is immune to fire and acid, there is no way to stop him from regenerating, and with the Die Hard feat he can't be knocked unconscious. The party will have to find some way to trap him again, or kill him without damage (starvation or suffocation for example).
I haven't finished statting him up, but I'd appreciate it if someone could check over what I have.
Haringer of Mhar (CR 25)
A player of mine wanted to play a heretical cultist of Yog-Sothoth in my RotRL campaign, and I decided to allow it (without confirming whether his character's interpretation is correct). Basically, the character believes that, as "the Key and the Gate," Yog-Sothoth is actually the entity keeping the rest of the Outer Things at bay. When YS weakens, the influence of the others grows, and vice versa. So the character is CN, with CG leanings, a burglar who sees it as a divine blessing when things come unlocked (and thus an act of worship to unlock them) who actually wants to keep the rest of the "pantheon" at bay. (Although he's okay with aberrations, figuring if they are here, it is with YS's blessing.)
Now obviously, this isn't the normal belief structure of a cultist of YS, but it does make me question... because while being listed in Faiths of Corruption (pg. 19-21), about half of the 9 listed Elder Gods are not actually considered evil. Specifically, Azathoth, Bokrug, Mhar, and Yog-Sothoth are Chaotic Neutral.
(Incidentally, Mhar is one of the few beings to offer both the Earth and Fire domains, making it a great choice for a troll cleric with Diehard as an opponent... but that's another matter.)
So my question is, what would a nonevil (and possibly even CG) cultist of one of these four believe?
With the release of the Rise of the Runelords Anniversary Edition, I decided to run this for my group. Disliking the Player's Guides given for either edition, I decided to create my own, containing the info I wanted. (No, sorry, can't share it because it would violate copyright laws. Personal use only I'm afraid.)
Wow, was that hard. And I only did about a third of the work, since I reused art, maps, and edited chunks of text from various sources. Every time I changed something in one area, it screwed up the layout in another part. Pictures were especially problematic - some of them crashed LibreOffice multiple times before I figured out how to get a full page picture that still allowed text wrapping. And those that weren't full page... screwed up the layout even more!
I put hours of work into this, and didn't have to create very much content of my own, nor did I have to make sure it fit into a specified number of pages (it came out to 69, including the cover). I have a new appreciation for what you guys do, and I just want to say, "Thank you!"