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

Gamemonger's page

29 posts. Alias of wrong alias.


RSS


How do people play Insanity, the spell (an ongoing confusion effect) outside of combat?

Rolling dice to determine actions every 6 seconds out of combat makes the game unplayable from both a practical level and a fun level.

Our group faced this a few sessions ago, and the player who's PC was insane decided that, outside of combat, whenever it came time for him to actually act, he had a 50% shot at doing what he wanted, and a 50% chance of doing something he didn't want (including babbling incoherently).

We all enjoyed this a lot, and the PC seemed truly insane.

Anyone else done anything interesting with Insanity outside of combat?


You can also go light on random encounters if need be. Let them rest up a few days to heal non-magically once in a while, with weaker or fewer encounters.


Thanks guys.

This makes since in RAW, there's nothing that contradicts the ability to do this cone-shaped burst around at a corner like that, so it's allowed.

This actually raises another point for me.

Can a line spell be used in the same way? I've previously thought yes, since it seemed like an area effect version of a ray in my mind. But given the templates for lines (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/area-effect-diagrams), it seems like a line spell cannot be shot around a corner by RAW. What do you think?


I'm wondering if a cone spell can be used around a corner.

.
.
.
.
Say you have a setup like this. (X = solid, O = open, W = wizard, T = target).

OXXX
WXXX
OOTO

The wizard wants to shoot a cone spell that hits the target without losing partial cover. We know that the wizard can shoot a ray spell, similarly to how an archer can shoot an arrow. However, I'm not sure about a cone, given that the corner of the square the Wizard shoots the cone out of is the very corner being shot around.


How does a Druid/Ranger/etc direct an Animal Companion to hide and stealth? There is no appropriate trick under Handle Animal.

I'm hoping to see if RAW provides a way to allow PCs to have their Animal Companion stealth.


13 people marked this as a favorite.

More than any one type of item I would be happy with an improved crafting system.


AvalonXQ wrote:
Gamemonger wrote:

A better crafting system.

One major problem with the current RAW crafting system is that it is faster to create items that are more difficult to make. That is, if two items have the same price, and one has a higher DC to make, it is faster to make the one with the higher DC.

A common house rule is to just say you can set the DC to any DC higher than the base DC to speed up crafting, but house rules are house rules and don't fundamentally fix the system.

The rules already allow...

Accelerated Crafting wrote:
You may voluntarily add +10 to the indicated DC to craft an item. This allows you to create the item more quickly (since you'll be multiplying this higher DC by your Craft check result to determine progress). You must decide whether to increase the DC before you make each weekly or daily check.

But more generally, the crafting rules really do need a complete overhaul.

I've explained my suggestion for logarithmic crafting times before. It's a quick-and-easy fix; I'm sure there are even better mechanics available.

The +10 DC rule doesn't generally fix the "harder to craft items are faster to craft" problem. Because you can add the +10 DC to the easy item and the difficult item.

Consider two equal cost items, one with a DC 15 and one with a DC 16. Except for the single situation when you have exactly a +15 to your craft roll, the +10 rule does not fix this issue.

The system makes it faster to craft more difficult items. RAW doesn't let you just add +1 or +2 to balance the DCs, although that is a common houserule.

But yes, I think we do agree, crafting, especially of mundane items is fundamentally broken as it stands.


Your reply is much appreciated, and your product is excellent overall. The consumption reduction per land area is a very interesting point, and the historical accuracy is appreciated. However there is one point I want to clarify in response.

Dale McCoy Jr wrote:


1) It doesn't change any of the actual game mechanics itself. The travel time table is identical to the one in the Adventure. If you want to change that for your home game it makes no difference to the game itself. None. If you want to change it for your own game, rest assured that your game experience will not change. Just like the actual population number, no mechanics are actually dependent upon the size of the hex or the area of the kingdom. Simply the number of hexes your kingdom occupies.

If this didn't affect game mechanics I wouldn't have brought it up.

The size of the hex does affect a core Pathfinder game mechanic: that of overland movement, from chapter 7 of the Core Rulebook. The travel time table is based on overland movement.

If you double the distance across a hex while keeping the travel table, you must change at least one core pathfinder rule. Either characters are able to walk for 16 hours a day instead of 8 (without taking forced march penalties), or they are able to hustle for 8 hours without issue. This has ripple effects on a variety of spells and abilities that alter overland travel abilities in various ways.

This does change the game experience, and for Kingmaker where overland travel is so important, it's a big change.


The Book of the River Nations doubles the width of hexes (and quadruples the area of hexes).

The Kingmaker book said 12 miles from corner to corner (or 6 miles a side). James Jacobs once clarified this as 12 miles center-to-center (Approximately 7 miles a side). Both of these are much less than The Book of the River Nations' statement of 12 miles to a side.

This causes conflict with the Pathfinder overland travel rules (basically doubles the speed of travel), whereas the Kingmaker version is a mere simplification of the overland travel rules.

The Book of the River Nations also misrepresents the size of The Stolen Lands as larger than Washington State, whereas its supposed to be about the size of Maine. It also makes city districts seem like they take up much less space in a hex than they really do.

In other words, this small mistake "breaks" a lot of the assumptions that go into the Kingmaker AP.

Any chance of fixing this in the PDF?


A better crafting system.

One major problem with the current RAW crafting system is that it is faster to create items that are more difficult to make. That is, if two items have the same price, and one has a higher DC to make, it is faster to make the one with the higher DC.

A common house rule is to just say you can set the DC to any DC higher than the base DC to speed up crafting, but house rules are house rules and don't fundamentally fix the system.

I'd like to see an overhaul of this system from Paizo.


Just remember, if the product you order from Amazon is damaged when you receive it, return it. They'll give your money back and pay for return shipping.


hunter1828 wrote:


And I've just gotten confirmation that the watermark has been removed, so it should be good to go.

Thanks, much appreciated! I'll reprint them now :)


hunter1828 wrote:
Gamemonger wrote:

The added watermark overlaps the text on many of the cards. Is it possible to ask Paizo to remove the watermark on this product?

We will certainly look into that. Thanks for letting us know.

Any chance of fixing this?


Klebert L. Hall wrote:

Fabricate ?

Minor Creation?
-Kle.

Thanks for your response. Given the limitations of those spells, it seems both of those would imply the need a Linguistics roll to create a forgery, in order to create a "copy" of the note, which could still be detected as a forgery.

I suppose I can instead try to create a spell of my own (especially with the new guide in Ultimate Magic).


Is there an existing spell that can duplicate a cheap nonmagical object, such as a handwritten note?


meabolex wrote:
The point is that using the high point buys makes the entire CR system kind of wacky. You can tweak it to make it work, but it's easy to make fights too boring or too difficult. It's just better to use 15 point buy. . . but no one likes the low stats ):

Yeah, I didn't intend for a high point buy, 4d6/drop-lowest is supposed to average out to a 20 or 21 point buy, but I wanted some randomization. Perhaps next time I'll have them roll 4 stats and "buy" the last two to get as close to 20 as possible.


hogarth wrote:

I'd just add one comment: Are the players bored or happy with the level of difficulty?

I can't speak for everyone, but personally I find it frustrating when intelligent tactics are "rewarded" by making the opponents more and more deadly. I had one DM who was very good except that he wasn't happy unless half of the party was dead or dying after every single fight; that's not my preference, thanks.

It's become apparent that combat is too easy. I want it at a level where their intelligent tactics reward them, but if they really mess up, they're threatened. Right now, everything is easy regardless of tactics, tactics just make it verge on ridiculous. I think more challenge will actually increase the reward of good tactics.


Thanks all for the ideas. A lot of good stuff to think through. I may try using ad-hoc advanced template in the next couple encounters, and adjust from there.


Caius wrote:
How exactly are they cakewalks? The makeup of the party can significantly shift how battle flows even with more modest scores so that would really help to know.

They've been through a good mix of encounters, so it would be tough to describe them all. They've used a variety of tactics, in their best fights they simply destroy the monsters in a round or two. In their worst fights they still win without much worry. So, I think it is more than a just party makeup thing.

Jeraa wrote:
If the monsters you throw at the party aren't strong enough, just use tougher monsters. IF the party is 6th level, don't use CR 6 monsters. Use CR 7 instead, maybe CR 8 if the characters are really strong.

I can try that. I was worried it might overcorrect, but it might work out. I suppose it's OK to use CR7 and track XP as thought it were CR6, for pacing reasons?


I'm DMing a campaign where I had my players roll 4d6 and drop the lowest. The scores averaged out to be equivalent to a 28 point buy.

Combat so far has been a cakewalk for them. Simply to add some more challenge to combat, I was thinking of upping monsters attack by 1. I could alternatively increase monster AC by 1, though it might slow combat a little.

Do either of these options seem too drastic? Any alternatives people have used for very powerful characters?


The added watermark overlaps the text on many of the cards. Is it possible to ask Paizo to remove the watermark on this product?


Thank you. This seems to make sense by RAW.


Can a PC and mount both receive the charge modifiers?

More specifically, if a PC directs his mount to Charge and attack at the end of the Charge, and the PC chooses to attack (making the DC 10 Ride check for "Fight with a combat trained mount) at the end of the charge, does the PC get the normal Charge modifiers?

The reason I ask, is that a PC making a mount move means "The mount uses its action", however, in this case the PC is specifically asking the mount to take its own action. It could be interpreted that the PC is just along for the ride, and can take a standard non-Charge action at the end of the charge.


Berinor wrote:
Gamemonger wrote:

Thanks! This makes sense, most things assume PCs are all close to equal in a variety of ways.

Any ideas on calculating the XP (or CR) for such things?

Take this with a grain of salt because I'm hardly an expert in these areas, but I would say look at how far you want them to get and how much XP they're going to get from the planned combat encounters. It gives a lot of flexibility, just like quest rewards.

The other guideline is somewhere in the 25 (for easy things) to 100 (for bigger picture items) per PC, at least at 1st level. You should scale it up from there so it's relevant at their level, but you don't want one knowledge check to give more XP than a combat. This is especially true if this isn't getting them treasure. As much as leveling gives power, loot gives power, too.

Another way you could play it is giving them actual combat information. It's incredible how much easier it is to handle opponents when you know what's going on vs. when you know little about them. For instance, if they intercept a communique telling them where and when the enemy will be meeting so they can set up an ambush, that alone is a great reward, whether they get bonus XP for it or not.

Thanks. This is very helpful, both the XP ranges and the combat information idea.


Berinor wrote:
With the removal of level loss upon resurrection and XP costs for spells and magic item creation, Pathfinder has moved away from having different characters with different numbers of levels. Not having DMed (or GMed if you believe in copyrights) Pathfinder just yet, I'd suggest keeping along those lines and having XP awards the same across all PCs. Others may have more sagely advice, however.

Thanks! This makes sense, most things assume PCs are all close to equal in a variety of ways.

Any ideas on calculating the XP (or CR) for such things?


I'm prepping my first campaign as a DM.

I have several pieces of information or choices that can only be discovered when the player/PC requests something specific. These are mostly basic skill checks (mostly things like Knowledge, Linguistics, Diplomacy, Sense Motive) but I'm trying to design it so the PCs are rewarded for picking up on smaller clues, etc.

What's an appropriate way to reward XP or at least measure the CRs of these types of things? Should the XP go to the whole group? The players who figured it out? The PCs that succeeded in the skill check?

(Note, I don't want to develop all of these into full fledged skill encounters requiring dozens of rolls, but simply reward the players themselves for realizing that *now* is a great time to Sense Motive/etc)


Ævux wrote:
I find this crazy. Why is grit wis? It screams Cha to me...

It really depends on who they're modeling the Gunslinger off of.

It's Butch Cassidy vs. The Sundance Kid here, one is charismatic, the other is wise.

Neither answer is right. You can debate it forever, but the designers have to decide one way or another, or they could take a lot of extra time to develop a mechanism for choosing one, which may or may not be worth it.


Thanks, yeah that does make logical sense.

The reason I was confused is most of the items like that (Alchemists Fire, Smokestick, Sunrod, Tanglefoot Bag) explicitly say they're destroyed or are consumed, whereas Tindertwigs and Thunderstones don't. Probably just an oversight in flavor text.


I'm confused as to whether thunderstones are single use or many use. The descriptions don't explicitly say that it is consumed or destroyed so I'm leaning toward many use for both of them. Is this correct?


©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.