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

Globetrotter's page

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber. Pathfinder Society Member. 298 posts. No reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist.


1 to 50 of 298 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Rylar wrote:

I'm not using XP nor trails. I am just telling them when they level up or gain a tier.

When looking at the trials and how they were described in the mythic handbook vs this path, I was a little off put. But, the path is trying to cover 30 level ups in 6 books, so I feel we can let this slide.

Yes, this

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Seannoss, you've captured my original reason for this thread perfectly. I feel the trials in the books do not always live up to the trials we should be giving to the players. Killing a worm that walks is hard, but not sure if it's a trial. Even closing a dimensional rift is impressive, but a mythic trial?

It seems they are trials only because this adventure is mythic and we need to have X amount of trials to continue. Having so many trials for trivial tasks makes less of the trials that do matter. Killing a demon lord is a mythic trial, killing a house if fiendish barbarians is apparently a trial too, but seems to be of similar stature.

Dragonchess, I'm not trying to say Paizo doesn't know their own material, although maybe I did say that. It was not my true meaning. They are trying to work within the confines of they system they made, which makes very impressive task - killing a demon lord- and trivial tasks - killing a fiendish barbarian - on par, which it's not.

It would be easier to just throw out the trial system as written and ad hoc the game as we mostly do with experience. One trial is one tier. All we have to do is choose which tiers to focus on, and I think the adventure already does that well.

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Sorry to necro this thread... but I am wondering what the answer is now that we have this FAQ:


Temporary Ability Score Increases vs. Permanent Ability Score Increases: Why do temporary bonuses only apply to some things?

Temporary ability bonuses should apply to anything relating to that ability score, just as permanent ability score bonuses do. The section in the glossary was very tight on space and it was not possible to list every single ability score-related game effect that an ability score bones would affect.

The purpose of the temporary ability score ruling is to make it so you don't have to rebuild your character every time you get a bull's strength or similar spell; it just summarizes the most common game effects relative to that ability score.

For example, most of the time when you get bull's strength, you're using it for combat, so the glossary mentions Strength-based skill checks, melee attack rolls, Strength-based weapon damage rolls, CMB, and CMD. It doesn't call out melee attack rolls that use Dex instead of Str (such as when using Weapon Finesse) or situations where your applied Str bonus should be halved or multiplied (such as whith off-hand or two-handed weapons). You're usually not using the spell for a 1 min./level increase in your carrying capacity, so that isn't mentioned there, but the bonus should still apply to that, as well as to Strength checks to break down doors.

Think of it in the same way that a simple template has "quick rules" and "rebuild rules;" they're supposed to create monsters which are roughly equivalent in terms of stats, but the quick rules are a short cut that misses some details compared to using the rebuild rules. Likewise, the temporary ability score rule is intended as a short cut to speed up gameplay, not as the most precise way of applying the bonus.

A temporary ability score bonus should affect all of the same stats and rolls that a permanent ability score bonus does.

If I am understanding, now fighters wearing heavy armor can be squashed by the weight of their own gear in battle if they take enough penalties to STR? OR does this change nothing since the FAQ is only talking about bonuses and not penalties?

Although... aren't penalties just negative bonuses?

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

So, do you pick the spell on selecting of the feat or each time you perform your obedience?

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Since outsiders do not sleep...would slumber still effect them?

I know they are not immune... Maybe a poor mans house rule.

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

I hear yah... I am just letting people know what they told me.

Since Hero Lab speaks directly with Paizo, I would think they have a reasoning for coding it the way they do.

RAW vs RAI I suppose. Would be nice to know if this was what Paizo intended.

This is an incredibly powerful way to create a character, and potentially give a GM a struggle. Caution would tell us to at least consider it.

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

I'm not sure if this matters, but I've been emailing the developers of hero lab and they are under the belief that the rogue favored terrain bonus does not increase the rangers favored terrains by the +2. The +2 only applies to the terrains previously selected with rogue talents.

This would surely balance things. Since hero lab is a second party publisher, maybe they have received info that is not written for coding clarification. This is the email I received from them regarding this:

The upgrade only applies to favored terrains gained through the selection of that rogue talent, and not any which you might get by virtue of ranger levels (which have a different advancement scheme).

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Yes, the giant subtype is removed (although they still retain their size)

Giant Subtype: A giant is a humanoid creature of great strength, usually of at least Large size. Giants have a number of racial Hit Dice and never substitute such Hit Dice for class levels like some humanoids. Giants have low-light vision, and treat Intimidate and Perception as class skills.

Undead are no longer humanoid, which is what the giant subtype requires.

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Korthis wrote:

"This resistance equals double her current DR/— from her barbarian damage reduction class feature; this DR increases by 2 for each dragon totem rage power she possesses, including this one"

I would say that "this DR" is referring to the previous statement, absolutely, more specifically it's referring to the last thing mentioned in the previous statement.
Or to rearrange it for clarity's sake:
This DR, from her barbarian damage reduction class feature

Interesting point.

So, take a 10th level barbarian with this rage power
His DR is 2/-.

If he takes this power, his DR is now 4/- with an energy resistance of 8 for one energy type?

That doesn't seem over powered. The other interpretation (wrong or otherwise), would be:

DR 2/- and energy resist of 6 to one type - this is kind of lame.

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Yes, this is now across two threads, lol.

The only point that I can see that goes with what Hendelbolaf and others are saying is that it does reference DR as a +2 and not resistance increase. Energy resistance is not measured in DR, so there is that.

So either they wanted your DR to go up or they wanted your resistance to go up.

I am on the side that they meant resistance, since that is what this rage power is focused on, but as Ryric says, by RAW, I can see both interpretations.

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Umbranus wrote:
Nefreet wrote:
Plus, there's already a Rage Power that increases your DR by +1. It's highly unlikely Dragon Totem Resilience gives you +2, and another +2 for each of the other Dragon-related powers.
It is a totem power so taking this prevents you from getting pounce.

But feats are not designed with the basis of opportunity cost.

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Wait.. this entire thread spawned from Paizo either not clarifying something or not creating an errata, so it's possible Paizo just has not clarified anything.

I did some forum searches and there seems to be a divide on what the real answer is.

I am just saying it only references gaining additional DR for energy. the semicolon does necessary change the focus, although it is a clause closely tied to the original, which is only referencing the energy resistance.

It would be great if this is a bonus to DR, but just like anything, it does not say the barbarian's DR is increased by +2, it says "this DR", which leads us to make our best guess. When I read it, "this" refers to the previous subject, which is the energy resistance and not the barbarians damage reduction.

I wonder if Paizo just put the wrong word, writing "this Dr" instead of "this resistance".

It's a debate either way.

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Not to argue, but why?

It only talks about energy resistance in this ability.

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Isn't the +4 extra DR from Dragon Resilience only for the energy resistance? From the power below, it doesn't say anything about increasing his personal DR.

Benefit: While raging, the barbarian gains resistance to the energy type that is associated with her dragon totem—acid (black, copper, green), cold (silver, white), electricity (blue, bronze), or fire (brass, gold, red). This resistance equals double her current DR/— from her barbarian damage reduction class feature; this DR increases by 2 for each dragon totem rage power she possesses, including this one.

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Serpent wrote:

The +4, +4, +2, +2, +0, -2 is based on the arrays they use. Most monsters use 11, 11, 11, 10, 10, 10 + racial adjustments while NPCs whith class levels use 15 (11+4), 14 (10+4), 13 (11+2), 12 (10+2), 10 (10+0) and 8 (10-2), so it's almost the same array after the adjustments.

Why NPCs with NPC class levels don't get adjustments when they take character class levels is probably for simplicity's sake.

Hmm.. I'll be damned. That's good to know.


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

I always thought this part seemed extreme:

Step 2: Add Class Levels
Once you have determined the creature's role, it's time to add class levels. The first step of this process is to modify the creature's ability scores. Creatures with class levels receive +4, +4, +2, +2, +0, and –2 adjustments to their ability scores, assigned in a manner that enhances their class abilities. Creatures with NPC class levels do not receive adjustments to their ability scores.

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

I don't think the spell DC changes at all. An area dispel would probably take it out the invisibility pretty quick.

The vanishing move ability has your caster level as double your tier, so at 3rd tier the caster level is only 6.

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

My mythic players have about 9 points to burn. Most fights do not last longer than 10 rounds, unless you are only doing 1-2 per session or you are going really long sessions.

On average, our battles last around 6 rounds. 1 point is nothing to spend to get a huge boost to hit by negating power attack.

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

ok... I am glad someone pointed out the AoO... I did miss that.

To be honest, what Chaos is saying I agree with (were you yelling at me, lol?, I didn't even notice until you apologized for yelling).

It would make a lot more sense to have power attack spend a mythic point for one round and mythic furious focus for 10 rounds.

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

I am not saying that. Furious focus is a great feat.

I am comparing the two mythic feats.

Once feat should not completely eclipse another to the point that you should retrain the original.

A lot of builds have power attack and furious focus. If you ascend to mythic power and take mythic power attack, you might as well retrain furious focus for something else.

And there is no reason... not one that I can think of, that you would want to take mythic furious focus.

Yes, some things are more mechanically better, but do we really need more feats that cancel out others?

I am hoping someone can show me a benefit in mythic furious focus. If not, this is just another feat trap. Why do that?

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

There are more..

I just made a post regarding the differences between mythic power attack and mythic furious focus. These two feats are pointless since mythic power attack does what mythic furious focus does but much better.

Too many cooks in the kitchen with this book :)

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

1) Yes... I think they used immediate since that would cover your swift action on your following round and then you can use it on saving throws and whatnot. Saving words...

4)I thought the same thing. Maybe they needed X number of tier one abilities for balance against the others? Kind of silly all in all.

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Yes... great suggestion!

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Ok, so with more clarification:

Chemlak is right... This is an insanely powerful tool.

See invisibility does not work.
Glitterdust will work
Perception checks, tremor sense, blind sense, etc will not work
Fairy Fire will work... if you can somehow find the people (5ft burst)

Yeah.. pretty much screwed.

Invisibly purge and area dispels work, but looks like purge is the only sure fire way to stop it.

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Hold on... I am an idiot.

So, with Vanishing move... if you spend your mythic point, you are greater invisible and can move all over the bloody place without issue. Duration: double your tier.

That's one powerful ability. So my players are honest :) That makes me happy.

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Can someone explain this one to me? Why in the world would you ever take mythic furious focus when mythic power attack is far and away better?

With mythic furious focus, you can spend a point to negate power attacks penalties for all attacks for one round. Pretty decent.

With power attack, not only does your bonus damage get doubled on a crit before the multiplier, but you get the furious focus power for an entire minute instead of one round.

Really? Am I reading this wrong?

I am prepared for the developers to chime in and say, "well, it's mythic", but come on. This is just poor design or planning.

Furious Focus (Mythic)

Your attacks create a rhythmic barrage that doesn't sacrifice precision for force.

Prerequisite(s): Furious Focus.

Benefit: When you are using Furious Focus, you don't take Power Attack's penalty on attack rolls that are made as attacks of opportunity. As a free action, you can expend one use of mythic power to negate Power Attack's penalty on all melee attacks you make for 1 round while using this feat.

Power Attack (Mythic)

Your attacks are truly devastating.

Prerequisite(s): Power Attack.

Benefit: When you use Power Attack, you gain a +3 bonus on melee damage rolls instead of +2. When your base attack bonus reaches +4 and every 4 points thereafter, the amount of bonus damage increases by +3 instead of +2.

In addition, the bonus damage from this feat is doubled on a critical hit, before it's multiplied by the weapon's critical multiplier.

You can expend one use of mythic power when you activate Power Attack to ignore the penalties on melee attack rolls and combat maneuver checks for 1 minute.

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Man, they have so many mythic points. At this level they have 9 mythic points to spend. We average 3-4 battles a day, that means he can do this every battle without fail and then still use points for other things.

Mythic power attack lasts a minute, that is kind of silly, since that is really the realm of furious focus, which only lets you do it for a round. I really do not think they developers spent enough time on this... but again, I could be reading it wrong. I will make a new thread to ask this very question.

Furious Focus (Mythic)

Your attacks create a rhythmic barrage that doesn't sacrifice precision for force.

Prerequisite(s): Furious Focus.

Benefit: When you are using Furious Focus, you don't take Power Attack's penalty on attack rolls that are made as attacks of opportunity. As a free action, you can expend one use of mythic power to negate Power Attack's penalty on all melee attacks you make for 1 round while using this feat.

Power Attack (Mythic)

Your attacks are truly devastating.

Prerequisite(s): Power Attack.

Benefit: When you use Power Attack, you gain a +3 bonus on melee damage rolls instead of +2. When your base attack bonus reaches +4 and every 4 points thereafter, the amount of bonus damage increases by +3 instead of +2.

In addition, the bonus damage from this feat is doubled on a critical hit, before it's multiplied by the weapon's critical multiplier.

You can expend one use of mythic power when you activate Power Attack to ignore the penalties on melee attack rolls and combat maneuver checks for 1 minute.

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Matrix Dragon, I agree 100%. We are choosing to use option 2 because option 1 just makes it too much to deal with effectively.

Chemlak, I watch the durations closely. We have an app that tracks initiative with the added benefit of tracking spells with round durations. It's handy. The problem is the players with vanishing move can just kick up another 6 rounds of improved as a swift action...

Vanishing Move (Su)

When you wish to not be seen, you aren't. As a swift action, you can make yourself invisible until the end of your turn. This effect ends if you do anything other than move. If you expend one use of mythic power when using this ability, it instead acts as greater invisibility using double your tier as your caster level.

Now wait a minute... hold the bus. I never read the highlighted line. That changes this a bit. He has been moving all over the damn place.


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

lol, no, I got that.

I have to weight the "dick GM move" vs countering the PC's. I mean, the easiest thing to do is take away the legendary item. I mean through a disarm or a frightened effect, but that really tends to put players in a bad mood.

I took away the weapon of the PC last session to foreshadow that this could happen in the future and it went over ok, but panic was in the eyes. Now they are looking for way to counter it. He already has the ability to recall the weapon anywhere on this plane, and he will augment that once powerful enough.

I don't want to be the guy that just destroyed the weapon or poisoned the PC's, but NPC's will do all the dastardly things PC's can do. However, no one cries foul on PC's actions.

Poison is a create idea at low levels, but my players are on the verge of hitting 10th level. Poisons, disease, all of these things are easily bypassed.

I think I just have to play smarter. Unfortunately, I have little time and the time I have is spent making sure the world is functional and the story is cohesive. I rarely have time to study the monsters to the level I should. My problem, I know.

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Ok, now we are making forward progress.

Yes, environmental effects can help offset this ability.

AoE work as well, but not for one player (evasion), but I am not going to touch that. I like him having that.

Swarms... never really played with swarms. I am going to review them and see how they can be effective for me.

Lots of weak creatures... yes, this is a great suggestion, but I am not going to use it :)

Invisibility purge. Ok, this is a pretty great option that others have also suggested. It is cleric/oracle or inquisitor, but a lot of decent amount of baddies have levels in this or can gain access to it. It will not be a common spell for enemies to have, but again, why not? Invisibility is such a commonly used tactic that I can see divine casters memorizing it while wizard use see invisibility, which in this case does not work.

Poisoned food... ok, this is odd and I am not sure how to use it, but I will think more on it. This does makes me think more about AoE spells, that use poison or acid.

Mundane sources... ok, flour, paint, soot, net traps are great.

Chemlak, you are right on. It is not impossibly to counter, but really hard. I think I am going to have to get deeper into the minds of my NPC's. I mean, if players faced this scenario, they would retreat, or do something to eliminate the threat. Then always have this way to counter the ability available. Not every NPC is going to do this, but the ones watching the PC's will.

I think I am just going to have to up my game and find a way to combat this. Your suggestion have helped. I am on the fence whether or not to keep our house rule that "cannot be detected by any means" part is magical in nature and doesn't trump things like tremor sense or blind sight. There are entire mythic path abilities that you have to take to just eliminate one of those, whereas this one ability allows you to negate them all. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

I still believe this ability, mythic or not, is either poorly worded or poorly realized.

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Yes, maybe I had a situation that went haywire. Tomorrow, I will give greater details ( it's late).

I'm not angry at all, although I can see how my posts look that way. I tend to write aggressive. The rant came more from the boards than the rules.

I think I will lay out the situations and explain in detail and you guys can highlight he errors.

In short, to answer a littl above, I mean ANY because we are running through the mythic adventure path and it's implied to use the mythic rules. Anyone can take the legendary weapons ability at first tier. In my case, 3 of 4 did.

There is another mythic ability called vanishing move that gives you greater invisibility for twice as many rounds as you have tiers. You can do this a lot of times per day. My currency player can do this maybe 8 times a day for 6 rounds a pop.

According to the developer (can't remember the name and I'm writing this on a phone, so can't scroll), once you are invisible you cannot be detected by any means. No detection magic (see invisibility , true seeing) or any abilities like tremor sense, blind sight , etc.

With this power, the enemy must feel around the battle field in hopes to find the player. It's nearly possible. The wizard can caste spells and never be found.

If I put this on an enemy with spring attack I could kill nearly anyone without reprieve.

I added the section about true seeing because many demons have this ability that would normally counter the invisibility issue. In this case, no.

What I would like to know is how to play the game with this power intact. I could remove it from the game, but I want to try to explore every opportunity before removing options. I also do not feel having the enemies always prepped to caste glitterdust just so we can have a challenging encounter. There should be a few options to bypass this.

There is some confusion on what that is. I am hoping that others can see what I'm saying, of just get me on course so I can continue to run challenging encounters. There are other threads on this, I've posted in them all, and there has yet to be any way around it that didn't conflict with what someone else says. Some say see invincible will work because it remove the invisibility. I like that, it's clean and easy. Other say that won't work, including the developer.

What is the way you can counteract a person that is impossible to locate so you can survive? On the enemies side, it's a TPK. On the players side , it becomes boring. I know it's mythic and mythic is crazy powerful. Mythic power attack is crazy and even moreso on a crit. But this is reasonable and still fun. The undetectable ability is fun in concept but less in use.

You said I'm clinging or focusing wrong on the "detect" part. Please then explain it to me so I can understand. I'm truly dumb founded.

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Yes, indeed.

This seems like a reverse incentive to use. Players will start getting bored, as mine are, with something like this.

Invisibility + mind blank is a high level combination, creatures of that power level will have added methods to deal... at least you would think.

ANY player can get this non-detection ability at low level making it not only a game changer but a head scratcher.

Paizo is constantly reviewing rules to make the game more balance... anyone remember the crane wing nerf or the limit on free actions? But then they throw out another thing that breaks the game even further.

People will have a lot to say, and when someone says this is silly or stupid, the only answer we get is "that is not helpful".

Well.. it's not helpful to place things like this in the game and then sit on their hands. We have to spend time testing and reworking the system to get it to work properly. I really do not like house ruling or testing a system I am suppose to have faith that it works as it.

It doesn't.

So... I supposed I should start a thread in the advice section or the houserule section to deal with another dropped ball. The people that are saying it is great or that it is fine either are playing a different method than I or they are just talking. If they are not having trouble with it then I would love to hear how they are dealing with it at the table. And if they have play tested this on the other side of the screen and see how their players reacted.

I am truly not trying to rant, but I am. No ill intention is meant with this post, but some constructive ways to deal with it and make my players happy is what I am looking for.

Thanks :)

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Well, that's unfortunate.

So, like I said. It's a auto win.

Not every opponent is going to be mythic and have mythic spell casting.
It's too difficult to overcome. This really needs to be reworked.

Am I the only one that thinks this?

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

It would be nice if see if spells like true seeing would still work, or see invisibility

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Well, I thought that too., but there is an argument.

Clarification would be nice.

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Chemlak wrote:
LazarX wrote:
Stephen Radney-MacFarland wrote:
Chemlak wrote:

There's an FAQ request about this floating around somewhere.

There are three schools of thought:

1) The character is undetectable by any means (including Perception skill checks, blind sight, tremorsense and true seeing).

2) The character is undetectable by magic, but senses work normally.

3) The character is immune to "detect" spells and any effects based on the scry spell.

Pick your preference. I waver between 1 and 2.

Yes, it is 1. Because mythic.
The downside of this is that your friends can't find you either.
Yep. Lots of people don't think about the downsides (which are still outweighed by the upsides, IMO), like being unable to take part in tactical discussions.

Another downside is people don't thing about what if the GM used this against the players.

Everyone would either call foul or the battle would get boring.

You get hit again... Can I find him to fight back?
Nope. He cannot be detected. You're going to get hit again until you die.

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Sean K Reynolds wrote:
Globetrotter wrote:

Really sorry to sound negative... But this is plain stupid.

I'm a little surprised at this.

Well, that was a helpful post...

No, not helpful at all.

There are two other threads with comments about this. I suppose I was venting in an unproductive way.

I'm really trying to wrap my head around the construction of this. I have two players that use this to devastating effect. One is a wizard, the other a multi-classed rogue/alchemist. The latter has vanishing move, giving him greater invisibility for 6 rounds for a mythic point (3rd tier WotR AP). By RAW, he cannot be targeted without considerable effort. The Mage is impossible to locate and therefore invulnerable.

The players are commenting it is too much. If I gave this to a monster, it would be a TPK.

Clarification would help a lot on this. What is impossible to find and the extents of that? One of the designers chimed in (see above ) clarifying it is basically a win button. Why would you put that into the game allowing such a powerful ability without a way to cancel it?

Staying quite on this only brings out the worst in people and I do apologize for the negativity. This power is not balanced unless we or I can get clarification on a proper counter.

Can we get this clarified please?

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Really sorry to sound negative... But this is plain stupid.

I'm a little surprised at this.

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Ok, so my understanding so far is:
* see invisibility will work
* glitterdust will pin point but not remove the concealment
* perception checks and sent will not work
* fairy fire will remove the concealment

What about true seeing?

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Wait... What does that mean?

Glitterdust doesn't remove the benefits of invisibility?

I know the are still invisible, but since the are outlined, you can see them.

Effectively, shouldn't they no longer have the invisible condition?

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

I do think invisibility purge should work. So should glitter dust.


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

But what about the line, cannot be detected.

See invisibility shouldn't work.

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Or better yet, a Mage with imp invisibility.

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

This just seems wrong. If a monster had this ability he would be very difficult to kill. Players would cry foul.

Imagine a high level rogue with this and vanishing move. He is unbeatable.

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Well... To keep the mythic feel up , you're not supposed to always use mythic against the players.

We ruled the mundane effects could be seen... Which helps.

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

I have a player that uses that combo... Vanishing move is very potent and with undetectable...multiple times a round he can become greater invisible for 6 rounds.

He also has evasion, so area effect spells do little to nothing. I hate twisting the game , but it's overpowered.

How to deal with it?

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

I want to bring this back... My players are using this to destructive means.

It's hard to deal with.

How and what are the means of finding an invisible opponent?

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Maybe I used "hardcore" inappropriately in that sentence. I meant I was focused on trying to use it.

I have since thrown out a bunch of encounters and used Scorpions guide to beef up certain ones. I have a budget now of just over 70,000 XP to throw at the party for part 2 and still have the end of part 4 end up where it should.

Now, I get to play with the encounter builder from Hero Lab

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Yeah, I am in the process of making some pretty serious changes.

Currently, I am removing the hex exploration and many of the sites. Eagle Rock is too easy and doesn't move the story forward. Delamare's Tomb is going to be difficult to explain to my characters (I will have NPC's complete this one). Wintersun Hall is flavorful, but should be a PFS mission instead of in this AP.

The other four I am rewriting to gear closer to my party. That gives me an XP budget I can play with to make it harder without fudging.

Since I am so hardcore to use the XP system, lol...

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Well.. that is frustrating. However, I have listen to countless discussions on how this is not made for the power gamer.

At least you guys are here to help with upping the power curve.

1 to 50 of 298 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

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