mdt, i like the way you think, and your interpretation makes sense. However, having studied the target for three rounds also provides the information from having studied for two round and one round. The information gained for first round reads: "Presence or absence of evil". No mention of auras, just presence or absence of evil.
I take that to mean that besides the power of any potentially present aura, The Paladin can also detect if evil is present.
I agree that the lvl 1 commoner is not quite the threat, but that was not my question. And I need an answer for Organized Play, so even though the views on the way of the world will help me in my home game, it won't stand up for a GM rulig in PFSOP.
The ability says the paladin can "concentrate on a single item or individual within 60 feet and determine if it is evil". Not "determine if it is evil and quite the threat". That indicates that there is no HD minimum on evil, only on evil auras.
This question came up in last night's game. It's been asked here before, but a fulfilling concensus or ruling has never been provided.
Let's say a Paladin uses his Detect Evil spell-like ability (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/paladin#TOC-Detect-Evil-Sp-), focusing on a target Commoner. The Commoner has 1 HD, and is Neutral Evil.
The Paladin's Detect Evil Spell-Like ability states "At will, a paladin can use detect evil, as the spell. A paladin can, as a move action, concentrate on a single item or individual within 60 feet and determine if it is evil, learning the strength of its aura as if having studied it for 3 rounds. While focusing on one individual or object, the paladin does not detect evil in any other object or individual within range."
However, according to the actual spell (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/d/detect-evil), creatures with 5 or less HD and are not Outsiders, Undead, [Anti]Paladins, or Clerics will not have an Aura of Evil. However, the spell itself does allow the caster to detect the "Presence or absence of evil" with no reference to auras.
So basically, here's what I want to know. If a Paladin targets a Neutral Evil Level 1 Commoner with 1 HD, does the Paladin see the Commoner is evil or not?
Two of my friends would like to try out roleplaying, so I figured I would run a lvl 1 module for them, with them playing pregens, before running an AP for them.
The have no experience with RPGs, but they have heard a lot about it, and they are both avid boardgamers.
I haven't tried any of the lvl 1 modules except Crypt of the Everflame, so I need your advice: Which one should I run for them?
On page 444 in the Core Rulebook, it says that:
Core Rules wrote:
Lava or magma deals 2d6 points of fire damage per round of exposure, except in the case of total immersion (such as when a character falls into the crater of an active volcano), which deals 20d6 points of fire damage per round.
Would you take this to mean that a character that falls into a 3 feet deep river of floating lava would take 2d6 points of damage, but if she falls prone and becomes immersed [for instance, from taking damage from the fall into the lava) she would take 20d6 per round until she can get back on her feet?
It seems odd, btw, that you only take 2d6 point of damage from walking though waist deep lava, but that's another discussion.
The second action the Half-fiend Water Elemental in the final scene takes is to use Blasphemy on the players. The spell description says:
The question is: Is the Half-fiend Water Elemental on it's home plane? You could argue that it was created on thye Prime Material Plane, and that it is native here. You could also argue that both water elementals and fiends are native to other planes, and that the creator, Nicoroux, is extraplanar, and created the thing as an extension of itself. What do you people think?
Also, am I right to assume that, if the Half-fiend Water Elemental is native to the Prime Material Plane, that the Blasphemy spell would banish an eidolon?
What if the players destroy the loot. What if they burn down the entire house the Bad Guy was residing in, along with all his magic items, his scroll collection, his valuable paintings, his collection of rare erotic dwarven literature and the deed to his banana plantation. Is that any different than the Bad Guy destroying his equipment by using it?
When a bad guy in a scenario has, say, a potion of Fly, the scenario assumes that the players loot it after disposing of the bad guy. The potion appears on the cronicle sheet, and it's value is part of the GP reward for the encounter, and thus calculated in in the final GP reward on the chronicle sheet.
But what happens if the Bad Guy drinks the potion before his inevitable encounter with the Lady of Graves? Do I cross it off the chronicle sheet and subtract (1/12) it's value from the GP reward?
And what happens if the players drink it during the scenario?
Reading all this really made my day. I've been skimming the boards for month, hoping to some day find this exact thread, with the good news that things are finally turning for you, Nic. And to have it spiced up with the outstanding actions of Lou just helps me recover a bit of my faith in humanity.
I always had a feeling that it was a bad trip to some personal hell that got the better of you, Nic, and not disregard for the fans and the community. Here's to hoping that those long gazes into the abyss will some day be turned in to yet another soul shaking Logue-adventure, that will once again shatter my faith in humanity.
I'll second the notion that the Viking Lodge Game Days, planned for July 28–29, are the best for foreigners to visit, as they are the easiest to to combine with a night out in Copenhagen. The tradition was actually started because Joshua J. Frost wanted to visit us, so it's been foreign friendly from the start, and it would be awesome to have foreign guests become a regular part of the Viking Lodge Game Days.
As a side note, it was at the Game Days i 2010 that I managed to become the only GM ever to kill off Joshua J. Frost's character in a PFSOP game. The first thing he did when he got back to Seattle was to retire the scenario (The Third Riddle) :)
You think you could do better in Copenhagen, Michael Brock? (nudge, nudge, dare, dare)
I have to say I'm inclined to disagree with you here. I'm well aware of the PFSOP rules when it comes to change the rules or the scenarios, but that doesn't mean that PFSOP GMs are not expected to interpret the rules. That's one of the GM duties. That's how the game is meant to be played.
In this specific case, if the GM is not to interpret the rules as to what spells function differently under water, then I guess spells like Obscuring Mist, Gust of Wind, Sleet Storm, Gaseous Form and Acid Fog would produce perfectly normal effects to. That would just be plain silly.
But that discussion wasn't the intend of this thread. I just wanted to know if there are any clarifications on this subject that I have missed, and it seems that there isn't. So, thank you for helping me out.
In the Core Rulebook, it is stated on page 432 Fire spells are subject to specific rules when cast under water, but how about the other elemental spells? All it says is that "Some spells might function differently under water, subject to GM discretion". But are any guidelines presented anywhere? How does electricity function in water? Does acid dilute in water? Does frost freeze it up in solid blocks? I know it says GM discretion, but I'm playing PFSOP, so I have to know how it works in RAW.
My PFS home game starts in 3-4 hours. I expect six players at an average level of 6.5, and I'm gonna run #2-03 - The Rebel's Ransom. I'm pretty sure if I run it at sub-tier 5-6, my players will be bored and unchallenged. If I run it at sub-tier 8-9, I'm afraid it might end up with a TPK. I don't have a tier 3-7 scenario ready, and I can't run a tier 7-11, as some characters are lvl 6. What should I do?
I might now risk sounding like I want to beat a dead horse, or risk sounding like I just want to argue untill I get my will. It's not the case, I just want to understand the system and help improve it.
That said: Can someone please point out to me what the design thoughts are behind a system where a lvl 6-7 party can't play tier 7-8 but CAN play tier 8-9? Is there a reason behind this that I can't see? What would happen if it was legal to play into the next tier that doesn't already happen when people play up to the next sub-tier? How would anyone take advantage of this unfairly?
Michael Brock wrote:
Mark and I are looking at various options to make play experiences better in Season 4. Until now, the rules are what they are. Please have patience while we work toward those changes. They will come but it isn't a quick fix. It takes some time to institute properly.
I apreciate this. That's why this is a perfect time to point out problems and spur a healthy debate, as was my intention. Hopefully, we can get a fix in season four. In the meantime, I'll play tier 8-9 scenarios for the lvl 6 characters.
And Howie; Great plans. I might also imply that the wives might be having the mailman stop by while the man are playing.
Tomorrow I'm GMing a pfs home game for our regular monday night group. Presently, some in the group are lvl 6, and some are lvl 7. If everybody turns up, and noboy chickens out in the last minute because of sick children/angry wives/broken backs/having to do the groceries, there's gonna be six or seven players at the table.
Now, I could prepare a tier 5-9 scenario, and we would either run it at tier 5-6 if only a few turn up, or we could run it at tier 8-9 if a lot can make it. Both options are less than optimal. Tier 5-6 is gonna be a boring walkover even with only four or five players at lvl 6-7. Tier 8-9 might be okay for a large group of lvl 6-7 PCs, but it might also be overwhelming, and the rewards are too large for their lvls.
What I would prefer to do, and what I had planned to do, was to run a tier 7-11 scenario, #2-12, at tier 7-8. Knowing my group, this is the perfect chalenge level, and they would have a blast. Sadly, as I was preparing for tomorrow night, it was put to my attention that it isn't legal for a lvl 6 character to participate in a tier 7-11 scenario, and the players would have to use pregens. It IS legal, however, for lvl 6 characters to participate in a tier 8-9 running of a tier 5-9 scenario, and that just doesn't make sense to me.
Is there a really good reason for the way the rules are now on this subject, or could we possibly look at changing them a bit?
Reading through this seemingly awesome scenarios, I have a few questions that others can answer for me (more will probably follow before play on monday). I'd also like to hear other GMs' experiences with running this one.
The Tarnspawn are listed as "Manimal eel", with a reference to a book called "Advanced Bestiary". What is this book?
The town of Stom's Claim has it's own stat block, but I don't know how to interpret the stats (like Crime -2, Law -8, Society +2 etc). I have a suspicion that the rules for town stats are in the Kingmaker AP, but I'm hoping to be a player in that AP, so I don't want to read it. Are the rules for town stats found anywhere else?
What minis did you guys use for the Tarnspawn?
Any good ideas for mood music?
I really like the concept of the moldspeaker, but I think the campaign as written doesn't really utilize the full potential of it. So, I'd really like to hear stories from other GMs who played this campaign. How did you play out the Moldspeaker and Vardishal's lingering spirit? Did you expand upon the written material, let Vardishal meld into the personality of the PC, let NPCs recognize him, let the player see glimses of unknown memories, play Vardishal out as a malignant possessor, relate it to the Demon Prince of Molds, or any other bright ideas?
Can someone please point me to the books that has material on all the Rovagug-lore mentioned here? I've only read Legacy of Fire and Gods an Magic. Where do the Star Towers feature? What scenario features the other children of Rovagug? Where is the story of Akaechec being created to protect Rovagugs prison?
I, for one, love the way the two parts of the Wonders in the Weave scenarios are meant to be played in close succession, and that there is a boon for doing so.
You guys shouldn't think of it as being unfairly cheated out of a reward, just because you weren't able to play them back to back. You should be happy for those get to claim the prize. If every treasure, boon or prestige point were easily available for everyone, they wouldn't be special. They would be kinda like the pointless trophies in videogames that you get for just playing: They are worthless if you can't not get them.
Be glad that someone else gets a gift, not mad that you didn't get it.
It is specifically stated that the limit on the Eidolons attacks per round is specifically for natural attacks, and not for weapons. Can, say, an Eidolon with ten arms (possible around lvl 4-5) and ten weapons and the Multiweapon Fighting feat from the Bestiary then get 10 attacks per round?
Well, I couldn't wait for a bundle and had to buy the Monster Summoning app right away. I have a small beef with it, though.
Is it possible to change the layout of the monster stats to closer match the layout of other monster stat blocks? As it it, the text is centered, but all other places (including the pdf version of the 4wfg summon monster stat cards), the text is aligned to the left. It actually makes a big difference when skimming the text.
I try to change as little as possible in the scenario, but if I get a divine inspiration, or something in a scenario is really stupid, I change it. If that makes an encounter more difficult, I just foil the dices so that no player will ever get killed in an altered encounter. But don't EVER tell my players this ;)
I also make as much room as possible for creative sollutions, both in solving scenario encounters and faction missions. GM'ing, in my book, is about giving the players a great experience, and that's more important than anything else.
I don't think I'm being a hypocrite when I apply these standards to myself, but at the same time don't reccomend that inexperienced GMs do the same, or GMs running games with strangers, for that matter. You should only do it when you're confident that this is what your players want.
I made a summoner in the playtest that was focused on the eidolon interacting with the creatures summoned from the summon monster ability. It can no longer do this. To make the character as close to the old one as possible, I would have to remake him as a Master Summoner archetype. Is that legal?
From the Guidelines for conversions due to changing rules thread:
Mark Moreland wrote wrote:
I take this to mean that if you're affected by significant class changes, you can rebuild your character. Am I wrong?
It was my understanding that if only minor changes affected your character, you should only change those at the end of the playtest, but if major changes rendered your character concept unattainable, you could rebuild your character. I certainly was told at the time that I should rebuild the character. Have the rebuild rules changed?
So. During the APG playtest, I played a Summoner up to lvl 3. When the APG was released, the rules for the Summoner changed, so that my character build was no longer viable. I was supposed to rebuild my character with the APG rules before playing him again, but somehow he ended up on the shelf, as other characters pushed him aside, and he hasn't seen play since the summer of 2010.
Now, I'm about to dust him off again, an so I have to rebuild him. My question is: Can I rebuild him with all current rules, including Ultimate Magic?