Grimmy's page

I came to PFRPG straight from AD&D after a looong hiatus so yeah I thought the least I could do was read the book. I think I may have skimmed the spells though.

One of the main expectations of PF is that when monsters are encountered, fights happen. The fact that there is no system to determine distance away an encounter begins sort of shows that they are not expecting groups to, say, see a group of strong enemies in the distance and run away before getting attacked.

It takes a bit of math, but you can use perception rules to do this.

Thanks for the links. Ive seen the dawnforged ones but the Rollplay ones are new to me.

Do you have links to any of those videos you sad you were watching? I would like to see them. Especially the actual play ones. I love stuff like that.

There was a "Vital Srike is Awesome" Fad at one point? I missed that.

thejeff wrote:

Quandary wrote:

The change to Stealth rules was cancelled, so FAQ is the only thing left, until Pathfinder 2.0 rolls out.

I think that's kind of where they started. And it just kept growing until it was to big for a FAQ or errata.

There isn't a simple answer.

If anybody is using Stealth at all in their games, they must be ruling on these questions SOMEHOW.

These questions are not more complicated to answer than many other FAQ entries.
The Blog Playtest approach was clearly the more elegant way to improve the system,
but it's not like every FAQ is deriving from RAW, if they give some rulings based on RAI, that's OK.
Overhauling the RAW to a more clear and elegant set-up may have been too involved, but that was largely because of updating many areas of the rules to use the new 'Hidden' Condition, without that, FAQs can be directly answered as they would be ruled on per RAW/RAI by Paizo's Rules Team.

Are Concealment effects besides Dim Lighting/Darkness useless as enablers of Stealth because of the Lighting rules?
For regular Concealment? For total Concealment/Blindness on part of observer?
How often do you need to make a stealth check, e.g. in the course of movement thru multiple squares, or multiple actions taken?
How are changing modifiers during the course of an action/turn/round handled (e.g. distance modifiers to Perception)?
If you have valid conditions to make initial Stealth check, how long can you benefit from Stealth increase to Perception DC, i.e. when conditions no longer allow usage of Stealth/a Stealth check?

The FAQ answer doesn't have to be the ideal function as they would have implemented in a re-write,
it just needs to be their ruling on RAW/RAI of the current rule-set, with RAI meaning they aren't constrained to literal RAW.

I think what ninja in the rye said was even more elegant then the blog/re-write thingie

There are so many of us reading it that way and if you ask any of us you ll hear that it's working just fine.

Why not just give an official stamp of approval via faq and end the table variance at PFS games that way?

wraithstrike wrote:

No. I have GM'd more than one group of players who wanted to walk across a wide open area and stab someone, and hope to not be seen.

Their argument then tried to involve facing rules, which most of us, but not all of us, know do not exist.

There are 'attention' rules, however (vague and incomplete though they may be). I find it odd that if the target is distracted you would allow the stealther to move to an unobserved spot, but not from one.

QFT!

I love your sheets.

The way I do it is like someone already said...

You can take 10 unless something else is distracting you.

Even if the risk of failure is dangerous, you can still take ten.

I just had a look to find the line I was remembering and I couldn't find it. Not in the PRD at least. Maybe I was remembering an older edition myself. I skipped from 2e to PF.

What I found instead was this

Advancing your Charachter

A character advances in level as soon as he earns enough experience points to do so—typically, this occurs at the end of a game session, when your GM hands out that session's experience point awards.

So yeah, what he's doing is a house rule I guess?

I don't have a specific rules citation but what I seem to remember from the core rules is that it had more of a suggestion then a rule. Something about at the next rest?

The way he's doing it might be the way he interpreted a line from the book, or it might just be the the way he thinks it should be.

I also don't make as many checks for players as I should. For some reason I really prefer to let players roll their own dice, I'm not sure why.

I make index cards for each PC at the beginning of sessions and I ask players for their init bonus, will save and perception bonus and I've noticed I hardly ever use them.

I think just about the only thing I ever remember to roll in secret is trap checks for rogues with that talent that gives them an auto check when they come within ten feet of a trap.

I don't know how my players feel about this, I probably put them in situations where it's hard not to metagame. Every one I play with is good about that, but I wonder if it spoils the fun at all. I should ask them.

I guess I've been doing it wrong. I didn't know it worked like that.

For ambushes I think I usually just call for it and let the results determine who acts in a surprise round.

For secret doors I think I just describe the room and if someone says "I look behind the bookcase" or whatever then I have them roll whether or not there's anything to find.

I can see this being better then a PDF. If I like the software, and I'm guessing I will because I love Hero Lab. My favorite thing about a good PDF these days is navigation via bookmarks. Imagine how much further this could take that idea.

I think a Paul Jaquays style dungeon will still be cool no matter how big it gets.

The way we interpret it, the translucent outline left by a disbelieved illusion is just a placeholder. It doesn't impede vision or fool the senses of the character who made his save in any way. It's more for his benefit that he knows where the already disbelieved illusion is located, so he can communicate things about it to others that are still fooled by it and stuff like that.

If the DM wants to try something but the players don't think it sounds fun the game isn't off to a very good start. A couple of the players anyway. Still, that's enough that some kind of compromise is in order. Free open minded feat was a nifty idea.

I've tried low magic and slow progression. Half WBL and no magic-marts. Never tried E6.

Scout!

Camp 4 reeks of entitlement. Loss of ice cream should be something you really feel.

I think if you just give everyone ice cream it wil cheapen the game.

You do realize that the gp cost becomes irrelevant after a while?

Not because characters can afford it, but because the WBL system means that if you spend X gp and drop below your WBL, the GM is supposed to award extra treasure in later encounters so that when you hit the next character level, your WBL is about where it should be?

So even if everyone coughs up a share of the 5,000 gp to raise the dead paladin, the GM will award them extra treasure to compensate for being under WBL. Which means the 5,000 gp cost is just a temporary obstacle—basically an interest-free loan that you're borrowing from your future self.

I have heard of some GM's using WBL as a guideline for what they've handed out, rather then where the PC's end up. So use of a lot of consumables or selling everything to buy exactly what you want could net you a different wealth at any given level then someone in the same party who made different choices. Kind of appeals to me in theory but also sounds like a lot of book-keeping.

This thread deserves a sticky.

Hey all!

Just popping in to see if Sean posted yet.
I'm hoping there's some merit in what I'd listed in my previous post.
I'll stop back soon! I'm most curious to see if I'd hit on any of the elements Sean had in mind, and if not, curious about the answer to Sean's seemingly simple, yet sublime question.

-Pax

I'm also popping back in hoping the Pax Veritas post has grabbed the attention of SKR. I thought at first it was an unanswerable question, but Pax Veritas surprised me and quantified the seemingly unquantifiable. Is this the game mechanics reason SKR has asked for?

That's one thing that I would like to see fixed in a future edition of Pathfinder... all the places where relevant rules are split up into different sections of the book like that.

Aaaarghhhh!!!!

We lost our DM!!???

Grimmy wrote:

Interesting find Kthulhu. So is this bad design when Paizo does it, or is there a double standard?

No double standard, at least here. It's bad design to ignore established rules for arbitrary reasons regardless of who does it.

Ok well I respect the opinion and I'm glad to see your consistent about applying it. I was afraid there was some bias against 3pp stuff coming into play.

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

Okay, let's back up a little bit because people still aren't able to explain, in game mechanics terms, why the +5,000gp cost for raise dead is appropriate.

So let's slightly alter the question:

Why is the cost for raise dead 5,000 gp? Why isn't it 100 gp, 1,000 gp, 7,350 gp, 10,000 gp, or 20,000 gp? Why is 5,000 gp the appropriate additional M cost for this spell?

Anyone?

Let me take a shot: 1) Expensive components and foci are a good way to adjust the effective power of a spell without changing the level. 2) We compare the relative power of Raise Dead to other similar spells. 3) We decide the diamond is an excellent component of contagion and sympathy. And the purity of a soul deserves the purity of diamond often expressed in game economy as having a value; we also we consider the forces the spell is shaping i.e. the compression of a soul back into it's host body. 4) We look at the spell's power (and description) in relation to other spells (of similar kind) and determine the value of 5,000 gp (rather than 100 gp, 1,000 gp, 7,350 gp, 10,000 gp, nor 20,000 gp) because although pricing is an art that leverages guidelines, we see Restoration with 100gp diamond dust or 1,000gp, we see Reincarnate with 1,000gp in oils, we see Greater Restoration with 5,000gp diamond dust, and Resurrection with 10,000gp diamond. During this review we also see that the -2 Negative Level penalty is exactly 50% of the penalty suffered after full Ressurection (which holds a -1 negative level penalty). We also notice that these are appropriate progressions: the L3 spell enables you to animate the dead, the L5 spell enables you raise the dead, and the L7 spell lets you ressurect the dead. Conclusions: Thus we feel comfortable, given all the above, and from a game mechanic perspective, with placing Raise Dead as having a 5,000gp diamond value for M component since the cost is also 1/2 the value of the M component for the Resurrection spell which requires a L13 Cleric to...

I'm totally satisfied with this.

Interesting find Kthulhu. So is this bad design when Paizo does it, or is there a double standard?

I just stumbled on this post from an older thread. He's talking about what it was like "Way Back When" in 1e games. Of course not everyone played the same way back then just like not everyone plays the same way now, but Matt Finch who wrote the Rappan Athuk level we're talking about in this thread definitely goes for that feel. A certain style of player really enjoys this kind of challenge!

I would like to think it's possible to run a game in this style within Pathfinder ruleset. It might not be the norm, but if it's at least possible that only means Pathfinder is more versatile and can accommodate more styles of play, right? If someone attempts that experiment like they did with these Rappan Athuk levels, writing them in Swords & Wizardry and then converting them to Pathfinder, it's not really helpful to evaluate the success of the design without realizing what the design goal was. It's an easy target if you just want to feel superior to someone who has stuff in print but it's just hot air.

Apparently Greg Vaughn only has a good understanding of the Pathfinder system when he's writing for Paizo.

:P

Man I know, that used to make me shake my head when I saw threads like these with posters playing armchair designers bashing Slumbering Tsar. But this Rappan Athuk Pathfinder conversion is a different case then that and there are some headaches running it. I would love to talk about how to best tackle it but the criticism I'm hearing in this thread just isn't thoughtful or considerate or insightful at all. It's a shame. It's really a drag.

Well, they could do that, except they're stuck in a room with a bottleneck, and a couple of people capable of fighting in melee can pretty much slaughter the entire lot of them. Especially if they've got magical support, or a second rank with reach weapons.

I am kind of worried about how scenes like these are going to play out. At times I wish I was running the campaign in Swords & Wizardry but hopefully if we just stick to that loose feel the system stuff will fade into the background.

I think they are supposed to sweep over the land and become a problem for nearby villages!

If the intent was for it to play out as a tactical combat I'm in trouble because I don't have 666 frog mini's ;)

666 giant toads worst case scenario!

Well hopefully Bill Webb, Matt Finch, Blonde Frog and Skeeter and whoever else worked hard on this and frequents these boards will have a thicker skin then I do when reading criticism like this that doesn't take into account that this adventure was written with different design goals and play style in mind. Maybe I'm being overly sensitive about my play style being denigrated but I'm genuinely getting depressed so I'm just going to try not to check back into this thread which is a shame because when I see a thread about someone running Rappan Athuk in PF I perk up and hope it will contain useful and meaningful discussion by people who are interested in doing that.

@Malachi: I dunno that's kind of a weird question, I guess you're being facetious? If you're serious then it all depends. It seems pretty obvious to me that the effects in this room are a property of the room itself and the rug isn't intended to be a magic item treasure, artifact or otherwise. If your group see's it differently though, it could be worth it assuming it makes sense for you guys to start AP's with non 1st level characters who have already adventured and aquired treasure in 3rd party settings with completely different design goals and expectations then the AP you are starting. The more I think about it though you must just be trying to make fun of Rappan Athuk in a new clever way.

I'm still hearing people on both sides of this. It's just nice when there's a consensus. As long as I know this trick is officially illegal I don't have to ban it as a houserule before I start a campaign.

I think Matt Finch did a good job with these new dungeon levels, keeping the feel of Rappan Athuk. Basically this is a room where you can die, but first you have to make a decision. "Let's camp in this room that is mysteriously making some of our people fall asleep."

It's a shame this thread didn't turn out to be a more meaningful discussion. I'd like to hear how people are running Rappan Athuk in PF. The necromancer boards are pretty quiet and it seems like whenever FGG stuff is discussed here there's a lot of people just denigrating the whole play style.

The feedback I'm getting from my players is that it feels deadly but in a very different way then "rocks fall you die". Specifically they said it was difficult in a completely different way then Tomb of Horrors which they can see the appeal of for a one shot but never for a whole campaign. Rappan Athuk makes it very possible to bite off more then you can chew but if you play without assuming that what's around the next corner is going to be fair and level appropriate then you can improve your odds quite a bit. Every PC death I can think of so far involved a meaningful player choice and left the player contemplating where they may have made a mistake. It's not just "you're dead because you went left instead of right". Not for the most part anyway :)

Sounds like you're just assuming a lot without trying it. PC's in our Rappan Athuk game not only have names they have strongholds, followers, relationships with NPC's, rivalries, intrigue, you name it. That's just how it's turned out for us though.

So at this point where are we at exactly? In a game with no house rules, does this stuff work or not? Say in PFS?

Exactly. All the new areas like the mouth of doom and the demons gullet could have been written with modern design assumptions in place but instead they decided to have Matt Finch write them for 0D&D and then convert from there. This was obviously a conscious design goal. It would have been a very different product otherwise. It might have been equally great in a different way but I doubt my group would be playing it.

That's exactly what we are doing in Rappan Athuk. Keep up to five Hero Points in the bank. New one awarded on level up. Hero Points have definitely saved some PC lives, others could not be saved. We haven't had a TPK yet or even a situation that would have been a TPK without the Hero Points. The thing that has saved more lives has been cautious play style and adjusted expectations.

Grimmy wrote:

Well you have to remember it's an old dungeon that has been converted to Pathfinder. Even the new areas were written for old-school rules and then converted up.

Sounds like it was a poorly converted trap. The candles don't burn through any oxygen and there's nothing indicating the door is air tight, and even if it was, the Mantis opened the door and managed to get out.

I'm in agreement with the people calling for a mulligan on the session.

This room was written for Swords & Wizardry, so OD&D basically. The extent of the conversion was basically to add a stat-block for the trap. It would be pretty easy to just run this room as two checks, perception and disable device if that's the preference of the group.

RA is what Herolab is made for; roll up some toons beforehand and keep them on a zip drive for print-out when your character bites it.

Make sure everyone is on the same page about how deadly it is and hand-wave new characters rolling up to the area.

We started the campaign with 30 characters built ready to go! New toons spawn at Zelkor's Ferry as fast as you can die.

Guys, it's a different play style. That doesnt make it bad design, it's just different then what you see in Paizo AP's. Fast loose and deadly. A lot of people like it. When you go into Rappan Athuk you will get into trouble if you think things will follow all those rules you know by heart. That can be exciting.
When my group hit this room, one guy stepped on the rug and fell asleep, and everyone agreed right away this was a bad place to hang around. They dragged him off the carpet and got out of there. They didn't say "Well we're only 3rd level so there's no way this trap has an infinitely resetting modified sleep effect that we won't wake up from". If they were thinking like that they would die all the time in Rappan Athuk.

Ugh. I hate getting deleted. I was just trying to stick up for the OP when he got an abusive comment. I should have chosen my words better I guess.

I think the idea with this room is that if everyone's asleep and the door is closed, you all die. It's not a standard sleep effect, the non-lethal damage doesn't wake you up, nothing does. Did you say there were guys who made the save and went to sleep of their own accord? Maybe they should have woken up.

Well you have to remember it's an old dungeon that has been converted to Pathfinder. Even the new areas were written for old-school rules and then converted up.