Also..the magic 1000/gp a day really messes up everything.
Craft Wonderous Item: a magical Folding Boat 7,200gp = about 7 days for a 15 person SHIP!
Craft a non magical rowboat: 50gp (500sp) = about a week and a half (and that is if I set the skill DC at about 15 and give our ship builder a skill of 12 and let him take 10)....I am sure a 15 person ship will take WAY longer but there is not one I can find in the rules.
I think I will throw the crafting rules out and just make up numbers that sound good when I need them.
So....since the 1000gp per day (8 hours) rule is for Magic Items with accelerated crafting making it still 1 per day (4 hours - allowing you to do it while traveling). How much time does accelerated crafting take for NON-MAGIC items. Is it assumed to be 1/2? because the SRD does not say.
it simply says:
Accelerated Crafting 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.
so half time for +10 to the DC? sound right?
I am doing something wrong. When I look up old threads I see refence to a flat 1000 gp crafting a day? Where is this in the rules, as my craft speeds are WAY slower than that. I think I am missing something.
Take Larz Rovanky with his Leather Armor Crafting skill of +9.
The Studded Leather Costs 25 gp
If I let him take a 10 on his crafting skill check, he gets a 19. The DC to make the armor is 13. The amount of progress he makes in a WEEK is (19 x 13 = 247 sp worth of progress) if I divide the total cost of the item by 1 weeks progress it will take approximately 7.1 weeks to make the armor.
What am I missing? that seems WAY too long.
I would say that if the condition of "horizontal surface" ends then the spell fails and ends. So you cant roll it up, same thing with putting it on a big piece of wood and then tilting it up, cant do it. The spell either prevents you from making the surface non-horizontal or ends. Blocking the top is a bit more complicated, I might rule that the floor rises up until it is stopped by resistance, thus making the extra dimensional space persist until it can finish. I don't think I would let it "stargate iris" things. Other fun things to do with create pit is put in on water, a platform or balcony, a silk sheet stretched over thin frame (you can slide it under double doors) etc...
Hmm, I didn't say that at all. Ask here too.
What I meant was that if any house rules are in play, have you talked to you GM, to see if they have a solution for you (perhaps special training to use your special weapon)? You have not mentioned that you have done that. Maybe add my suggestion to the list of ALL the other suggestions you have gotten from the boards.
If I came off as trying to shut you down, that was not my intent. Happy Gaming!
I have a Fighter Character who is regularly 'Enlarge Personed' who uses a two handed reach weapon for a 20' reach and has Combat Reflexes.
Remember that since you dont have a natural reach attack (other than unarmed when you are enlarged), that your two-handed reach weapon will have a dead zone where it cant make attacks at all if your opponents get inside your reach.
A reach weapon is a melee weapon that allows its wielder to strike at targets that aren't adjacent to him. Most reach weapons double the wielder's natural reach, meaning that a typical Small or Medium wielder of such a weapon can attack a creature 10 feet away, but not a creature in an adjacent square. A typical Large character wielding a reach weapon of the appropriate size can attack a creature 15 or 20 feet away, but not adjacent creatures or creatures up to 10 feet away.
When enlarged your natural reach area is two squares all the way arround you, where you won't be able to make attacks with your weapon with reach.
The only thing that I might add is that if you want to give you players an into to Golarion; Definately go Rise Of The Runelords (plus it is excellent). If they die or Finish it (I will guess it my group about 50 6 hour sessions to finish an AP) We just finished Kingmaker at about level 16 and 48 games) then try Curse Of The Crimson Throne, if they die or finish that go with Second Darkness. There is a wealth of Varisia/Golarion lore in those 3 APs.
Or pick a different one (I love techy stuff and Egypt so both of the 2014 APs look AMAZING!).
I think if you were to ask my party (just finished Kingmaker), they would tell you that dispel magic was the difference between victory and TPK on several fights. No spoilers, but in high level fights there is a lot of magic being tossed around. You never know when a caster will show up. I would want it handy. As others have mentioned it would not be my first 3rd but is on the "as soon as I can pick it up" list.
See. I think I am in more agreement with Seebs. Without getting into complicated emination issues, for me it simply comes down to the fact that it is described as a hemispherical shell that prevents entry. If if was not ment to be a shell and instead be a volume would not the spell be better named as Antilife Field (simlar to Antimagic Field, and include similar languge about the spells Area?) And why make it a hemisphere shell if you are not ment to be able to go under it?
I am back to thinking I ruled correctly. Convice me otherwise again. Maybe we need to FAQ this one?
Interesting. For some reason I thought it was a "shell" not a volume. I don't believe it would have changed the fight as the Anti-Magic Field would have killed it (along with the more troubleing "Fickle winds") on the next round. But the "volume" thing is good to know. Would that ruling stand in PFS?
In discussing a recent game where I allowed a teleport into an anti-life shell, I was told that should not have worked as the PC was "entering" the area of the shell. The spell defines the shell as a "a mobile, hemispherical energy field that prevents the entrance of most types of living creatures." I always interpreted that as "entering" as trying to move across the energy field. As a hemisphere, a critter with burrow could always go under it, for example, so why would a teleport not work?
I just finished a Kingmaker campaign with a sleepywitch. At low levels it was quite effective (and overpowered compaired to what the others could do). But as they raised in level, fewer opponents could be slept. At the end of the game the witch had a KILLER save DC (30 INT - 20 Start, 4 level ups, and a +6 INT item)...so if it could be slept she took it down. But in the last two books I don't remember her sleeping even a single opponent. It was FAR more useful to Evil Eye or Misfortune, and let her allies thrash them. In some of the mid levels I did give key players Iron will/ Improved Iron Will where appropriate. As a GM, I honestly found the high DC saves more of a problem than specifically the Slumber Hex.
It was epic, and the letdowns were more nitpicks (for me). The campaign will be fondly remembered.
As to Candlemere...
Having just read RoTRLs I wanted to try and introduce very basic and vague references to the Thassilonian Empire. I also wanted Candlemere to be something dark, mysterious and otherworldly. Also my group had put off candlemere for a while so I actually had the opportunity to put some truly terrifying critters in the place. My basic idea was that there is a planar rift on the island that connects to someplace very evil (probably the abyss somewhere) it is not a full tear, but evil, fear, and general nastyness bleeds through. This is what attacts the wisps (they are basically feeding off it) as well some other nasties. Some nameless wizard (possibly a Runelord?) had found this far flung location and built a laboratory here to study the rift. This allowed me to introduce the idea of ancient Thassilon to my players. But with the Runelords long gone, and Thassilon now in ruins the rift was still active and attracting things. One the surface there were a few variant wisps (even some witchfires), as well as 2 Hounds of Tindalos. The self proclaimed ruler of the island was a Moon-Thing attracted to the rift.
The whole thing had a Cthulhu, very creepy, ancient ruin, powerful magic best left alone feel. Eventually the PCs found a way to close the rift, and the wisps dispersed (its own problem) and the party cleric built his own outpost on the island to keep an eye on things.
The DM from CommandoDude's campaign here. Thanks for the kind words! I had a blast running this for you guys. Just shy of 2 years (48 game sessions!) This was my first Pathfinder experience and while we all made some missteps/mistakes I think it turned out pretty good for our first Paizo outing. Looking forward to "Rise Of The Runelords" next.
Two things I would like to address about our campaign.
First, the Pathfinder rules. Most of the problems I had with the rules stem from the game differences in 3.5/4th design philosophy, or house rules based on misunderstandings of how things worked. So the problems are not with the rules per se but with my approach to them. In keeping with the Kingmaker theme, I allowed fairly open Leadership, crafting, magic item purchases, etc... This was absolutely not a problem from the player's perspective, as it allowed for great flexibly when shaping their characters. But from the DMs side of the table, tiny problem, as it was quite an arms race to keep up with you guys and provide a challenge for the party, still quite fun however and that is what is most important. But I don't think I will allow that level of freedom again, I plan to pay more attention to WBL and use the settlement rules to help guide what is available, also minimal crafting, and no leadership (unless it reeeeealy fits with the game, so no for RotRL). I think Pathfinder benefits from some heavier DM management and restrictions (that is what I mean by differences in 3.5/4th design philosophy – with 4th edition it seemed like DMs were encouraged to provide the widest breadth of options available to players (very player focused) as the system had a higher focus on balance to keep things in check. This balance is ultimately one of the things that led to my boredom with the system and eventual switch to Pathfinder. I don't want to get into edition discussions, but I mention it as it frames my state of mind when I began to run Pathfinder. Also these "problems" are not really problems if everyone is having fun. But now that we have "been there and done that", I look forward to seeing how round 2 (Runelords!!) turns out with a bit more DM input. Also misunderstanding how "command word" magic items work (speaking is a free action right?!?) ... .yea ... .standard actions from now on!! I found the pathfinder rules to be a blast, I look forward to running Pathfinder for many years to come.
Now Kingmaker (and I know I am starting to ramble, I will try and make it short). The revised kingdom building rules in ultimate campaign came too late for us, but I am not sure it would have made that much of a difference. I think from the start our expectations of the kingdom building rules were out of line. Part of this is our inexperience with Pathfinder in general (and knowing what I know now, I might have picked a different AP for "our first one"). But really I think it stems from our expectation of the Kingdom rules as a "game within a game". They don't really work that well for that. What they do quite well is act a story aid to further role-play situations. That was missed expectation one. Missed expectation number two is the story as presented in the framework for the AP. I agree with what my player stated above. But would also add that the player guide for Kingmaker being so focused around the civil war in Brevoy sets up, either a disconnect with what the AP is actually about or a TON of work from the DMs part to manufacture the civil war. Kingmaker is perfect for shoehorning in whatever the DM feels like, and as a sandbox it works very well. I did sandbox it around and add my own stuff (I especially like what I did with Candlemere), but one of the reason's I choose an AP over doing my own adventure is - time. We ran the story written in the AP with added sandbox stuff added by the DM. We didn't take the game completely off the rails, but part of that also was my appraisal of the group (how often were you guys proactive on your own ... or was there LOTS of DM coaxing?) Was Kingmaker the "Game of Thrones" story I hoped it would be? No. But the awesome thing is that the AP is written for the DM to make it what ever he/she wants. I chose to make it what was written. And while not "Game of Thrones" there were plenty of awesome moments. Ditto what you said about hexploration/side quests/NPCs. But I also think (except for side quests) that we did pretty good job modifying those things to our group and I tried to bring back all the relevant NPCs in the last book ... .but then again, being "relevant to the over-plot" is not the same as Svetlana worried about ettins attacking Fort Oleg. I hear you and will do better next time.
I gave a lot of thought when I picked our next campaign. Given the type of game you guys seem to like (50% combat, 25% roleplay, 25% CSI) I think that Runelords will be a good fit. Lots of room to move so as to not appear too "railroady" but linear enough that you guys wont get lost with "what should we do next?"
Criticisms aside, Paizo, thanks for two great years of gaming. My quibbles with Kingmaker's structure do not discount that it is a well written and fun adventure to play. And I would say, the best "campaign" I have ran to date. Thank you.
Two years ago I found my self in the position you seem to be in now. I was very disillusioned with the direction that “essentials” was taking the game, Pathfinder was new and shiny (and frankly had tons of energy and momentum) so we decided to check it out. I played quite a bit of 3.5 (mainly casters) and I find that your position on the system is pretty spot on. But I played FAR more 4th edition. I loved 4th for what it was. it provided our gaming group with a balanced tactical adventure RPG. It was perfect for us….for YEARS. But something was missing. A bit of freedom, a bit of roleplay, and bit of unbalanced chaos. I don’t buy the argument that 4th edition inhibits roleplay. A group skilled at roleplay will do just fine with 4th. But for groups (like mine) that struggle with roleplay, 4th edition suffers a bit from the “here is your hammer, now wait for the nail” structure. My players felt confined by the “encounter” structure of the system (people rarely used their “powers” outside of combat…some groups do fine here, but mine had issues). And as the DM, I both LOVED and HATED that I pretty much had to plan out encounters. There were WAY more “set piece” encounters under my 4th game. But the world seemed bland (A LOT of this has to do on my own reliance on Wizards provided world books…lets face it…the world books under 4th were horrible). I told stories, but the “campaign” felt lacking. And it never filled that “we are playing D&D hole” that hole that I remember how D&D felt and played when we were in high school.
We switched two years ago to Pathfinder. It has been a blast. It has that “old” D&D feel. And cleans up “some” of the issues with 3.5. The system is far from perfect but our games feel more organic and include quite a bit more role-play ( I don’t know why). Not to say that we have not encountered issues. Our party archer (and archers in general are brokenly powerful), our cavalier has found the mounted combat to be a confusing mess (and he too tops the power curve in most situations). Both of these issues (and any issues in PF) require something to fix. And that thing is an aware DM. Notice that both my problem PCs are not caster classes which is encouraging, however if class balance is a priority for you, you will not find it here. I will say that no player has felt useless though. They have each shined at different times in different situations.
I have thought quite a bit about how my table has approached both PF and 4th and I have distilled it down to a Top Down (DM managed) vs. Bottom Up (Player focused) game approach. I fully realize that any table can run their game however they want. I am speaking in broad generalizations. In 4th the game was fairly balanced (Player focused) and my job as DM was mainly story teller and to describe how the PC’s interacted with the world. In Pathfinder, I find that in order to have a good game, I also have to manage the rules as well. I don’t blanket allow most things at my table (like I did under 4th). I disallow certain classes / races / certain feats / traits / certain combat rules / equipment ... etc. It requires a heavier hand. And here is your balance. If the rules don’t fit with your table, it is up to you to adjust it. Keep it loose, don’t play it like a board game.
And in my opinion the game is better for it. Our world feels lived in. It is messier and more chaotic. It is also more dangerous. When we play Pathfinder it feels less like we are playing a game or playing through a set story and more like we are crafting a world.
To sum up. We found 4th to be a better “game”, but we find Pathfinder to be a better “experience” by a wide margin. Both rule sets are good for different things. I think it ultimately comes down to what you want to play and how you play it. That is my experience.
PS: Either way, even if you keep with the 4th rules (and they would require a fair amount of conversion). Check out the Paizo Adventure Paths. They are amazing!
I would NOT recommend Kingmaker for what you are looking for. I am running it now, and while it is very good (excellent even), it is a sandbox framework made for a GM in insert and fill in their own stuff and give the players some freedom they don't normally have. It sounds like you have your own world/campaign to provide that framework and are looking for the fill it in bits to "make it come alive". Kingmaker is the opposite of this. It is all framework/playground, with very little in the way of "fill in bits".
Unfortunately I don't have much to recommend. But here are some suggestions.
1) Look at the community created stuff for part one of the Rise Of the Runelords campaign. There is a wealth on information on making the small town of Sandpoint come alive. And even if you don't use the whole path, Burnt Offerings (part one) has some social town stuff and mystery before it gets all dungeon crawley (not a bad thing).
2) look for some PFS adventures that focus on social. Maybe you can use the setups as a seed for a larger campaign plot.
3) I know you are using your own world, but perhaps the source books for Golarion (Magnimar? Varisia?) or Even the Inner Sea World Guide might give you some inspiration.
4) Maybe others can reccomend paizo modules that lend them selves to social and CSI (mystery).
More Tsuto questions!
Sandpoint is a complicated and awesome little place, so I apologize if this has been answered before or is obvious and I am just missing it.
Tsuto seems pretty important to the plots going on in Sandpoint, so getting his story right seems pretty critical. I can’t find where it says where/when/how he “returns” to sandpoint. I see that he had a falling out with his “father” at mom’s funeral (4702 AR), at which point Lonjiku almost breaks his jaw. Tsuto goes to Magnimar and hooks up with Nualia. That is where I lose his story. It says he comes back to Blackmail his father (but how long ago? And do the townsfolk know he is around?) The AP states that the glassworks is now a front for him. So did dad give him the glassworks as part of the blackmail? Does Ameiko know that he is back (she would have to if he is running the glassworks….) Kind of confused. Can someone clear this up?
A couple of quick questions:
After 4 blooms, my party gathered their totems and checked out the gate (at the castle of knives). They went through to 1000 Breaths. They defeated the Ents, and traveled up to the orchard and deafeated the Mandragora. At this point they roll very lucky and uproot 1000 breaths. Sooooo....
1) There were more blooms to come. I can't find where it says what happens to the blooms if 1000 breaths is Uprooted. I am guessing they stop (for years) as Nyrissa hides in the Fable gathering power to restore 1000 breaths to the first world. Do the encouter's count as defeated for structure (ie add worms if defeated)? I would assume they do not count as defeated for XP. What did you do?
2) It is a little moot, as 1000 Breaths is no longer in the first world. But how does the plane's eternal twilight effect a cleric's ability to pray for spells (if they get them at dawn for example). I don't think this will come into play as I expect Nyrissa might be defeated/ or the party will die before she restores 1000 Breaths. I ruled that since actual time runs in parity with the prime material, he could pray when it would be the appropriate time. What did others do?
PS: Best moment of the book so far was when the party rested in 1000 Beaths and the Rook triggered nightmares where a couple of PCs saved, but enough PCs failed where a secure shelter was filled with black tenacles, a T-rex, a whirlwind, and a succubus. Most disappointing/humorous orgy ever.
Thanks...I did not see that particular thread. And a lot of that is what I do for my home game. What are the strict rules for application for PFS, where an objective is to keep table variation to a minimum?
See a lot of "I do this...", "Well I do this...", "Ok, I do this other thing...". For something (imo) as key as Monster Lore (it really can effect every combat), I would like to see some tighter rules for PFS (or at least some official guidence as to how we are expected to run it), instead of everyone making it up (kind of how it is now).
I saw a question in the general section about Monster Lore, and it got me thinking about application to PFS and experiences I had over the summer.
Is there somewhere in the rules where it says exactly how knowledge checks work, and what information is available about each monster? I have read the core rules under “Monster Lore” and the “Check” section which gives us the rules for getting “a bit” or “piece” of useful information. But, what does that mean, or is purposefully vague so each GM can interpret it differently? Are there PFS rules somewhere that standardize it?
If I am missing something and there are rules for it, please point me at them (because I do occasionally run PFS games), and if there are not (and I know we are loath to add rules) we should really codify this as it is something that happens EVERY combat encounter.
If I ask for “resistances”, I have had a GM list all of them, and I have also had GMs tell the table “It has DR/magic” and upon asking if it is resistant to fire (they were a fire based caster), been told to “roll again next turn.” UGH! Not only does this slow down combat but is frustrating to PCs who one of their combat contributions is monster lore.
Monster lore treads very tenderly into metagame territory anyways so I am not entirely sure that numerical values are off limits. When I GM, I tend to steer players away from numerics and answer in general terms. As a player, when asking about saves, I have had GMs tell me it has a will save of +12, I have had GMs tell me “will is its highest”, and I have had GMs order the saves “Will, then Dex, then Fort”.
I see that there are old threads about this subject, but no FAQ or guidance from the powers-that-be. Is this one of those “expect variation” issues? That would be surprising, considering how often they occur. Honestly, when I GM, I tend to give players more information (if they ask for resistances I give em all). What do when the monster has class levels would be another good subject for guidance.
I suspect that these rules do not exist and “a bit” is all we have to go on. If one of the campaign goals is to have a mostly “standardized experience” then this is a part of the rules that could use some definition.
What are your experiences / opinions?
From having run 5 books of Kingmaker, I would say that the encounters are a bit swingy (that is, too easy or pretty hard). If your group is caster heavy the one encounter a day format will heavily favor them and the result will be easy encounters.
I know it is a lot of work on the DMs part (and frankly that may be why you are running an AP...thats why I do), but take the AP off the rails a bit (Kingmaker is built for this anyways) and add lots of your own stuff. Give the PCs more than one encounter a day. Change all the solos (and there are a LOT of them in Kingmaker) to have a few helpers.
My PCs blew through book 1 with a few exceptions:
Have your PCs found the Mite/Kobold lairs? Killed a PC in the Mite lair. Also the Undead on the slope of the Fort was a nasty surprise and almost resulted in a TPK. Actually most early surprise encounters were pretty nasty for them, if the PCs got time to prep they blew it away....the one encounter a day thing does not help this.
Quick check on how people would rule this.
If you have a ring of freedom of movement do you auto make swim checks? or do you simply have a swim speed (which per the skill gives you a +8 to make a swim check if there is an underwater hazard? For example: If a character wearing the ring gets caught in a whirlpool, can they simply move out on their turn? or do they need to make a swim check to get back to get out of the hazard and move normally with the ring underwater. Since the ring prevents hinderences to movement but not the character being forceably moved (ie bull rushed) I am thinking that they would need to make a swim check to get out of the constant current (with a +8 from the swim speed granted by the ring)?
Zahir ibn Mahmoud ibn Jothan wrote:
Because the GM was feeling generous that day and let him.
Honestly when the player asked if he could take the Prestige Class, I asked if he met prerequisites...he said yes (we both missed the required class feature). Honest mistake and we are not PFS so…no biggie. I didn't feel like making the player rebuild when we discovered the error a month or two later. Now a year or so past, it hasn't proved to be a huge unbalance so it stands a testament to GMs who should read pre-requisites more closely. We are nearly done with Kingmaker (book 6!) and there is enough there to kill good King Basque and his able companions. Perhaps those 7 levels of battle herald will make the difference.
Oh and also:
Race: Amos the Gnome Rogue
Honestly, part of the problem with Kingmaker is the, "one encounter a day" set up to most locations. It allows the PCs to blow resources, and particularly favors casters. Do what you can to surprise them with a few extra encounters. My 5 player Kingmaker group is pretty powerful, so I tend to run max HP, advanced template, and often use the 6 player additions. There are also A LOT of solo fights in Kingmaker. I would change these up to add a few "helpers" for the bad guy. Also read ahead (I hope you have) and get a handle on the Kingdom Building rules that kick in at the start of book 2. They are NOT an awesome minigame. They (imo) are a great asset to the DM to assist in the narrative of the story. If you treat the Kingdom rules as a "game to be won", they will break easily and then be less useful to you. Also make sure you know "the whole story" of the AP so that you can start foreshadowing the big bad, as much as possible. My group just started book 6 and they pretty much know the whole deal as of last game. I made sure to weave in as much as possible and it worked pretty good. There was lots of talk of "oh, man! remember that thing we found in book 1!". Good luck. With lots of work on the DM's part this is a fun AP to run.
Wow. Is that how people are interpreting that FAQ entry? Because that last line should not have the words "In the rare instance of a wizard charging a fee for the privilege of copying spells from their spellbooks" seeing as other than the two free spells I get each level, that will be the MAIN way that a wizard aquires spells. Seems fishy. But if that is the new rule, that is awesome!
Umm I was told that unless I found the scroll during the adventure, I had to purchase the scroll, and then pay to scribe it. No one has ever mentioned "Pathfinder Libraries" that contain EVERY spell known to man and that all I need do is Pay 1.5 times the cost to scribe spells. I am fairly sure that the rule means that if you encounter an NPC mage during an adventure that you can possibly copy his spells and the "fee" is 0.5 times the scribe cost. This should RARELY come up...hence the reason the paragraph starts with "In the rare instance....". Just because there are other wizards in the Pathfinder Society, do not assume that you have constant access to their "libraries". I can find no mention of this fairly significant resource in the campaign guide.
I am going to guess that around level 7-8 your DM will sing a different tune when it comes to Archery. It was about that time that the Archer in the game that I am DM for took off and never stopped being at the top (BY A LONG MARGIN) of the DPS charts in my group. We are playing Kingmaker so the PCs are fairly well known, so it doesn't break the immersion too much that the Baddies know what is comming for them and take precautions to "fickle winds", "windwall" or other Archer nerfs or else they will be a pin-cushion in one round. Even back then it was common for him to eclipse the 100+ hp mark in one round if the target was one of his favored enemies (he is a ranger). Now at level 14 he will occasionally top 200 HP in a round. Bad guys practically explode. Lets just say that MAX HP and lots of Buffs (if I can apply them logically) are used liberally (along with "advanced template". If your DM thinks Pathfinder archers are underpowered he is in for a rude awakening in a few levels.
Its an abstraction. What you are thinking of is "surprise" which is not the same as flat-footed. Initiative is not just to track where you take your turn, it is also an expression of how quick you are to act, even when you know you are in danger. What your players are describing is the basis for determining if there is a surprise round. Different thing entirely. One is based on awareness (surprise) the other is based on how quick you are to act once negotiations fall apart (initiative).
We are closing in on the finish of our Kingmaker campaign and I have selected RotRL as our next game. Players are excited and asking questions about Sandpoint and proposing possible characters. So far I have:
Half-elf Inquisitor (archer)
Take a WILD GUESS which character I have reservations over. The player does not have any idea what pathfinder goblins are like (and his character backstory is such that I can still introduce the scary little bastards properly). Nor does the player have any idea that the fist book is going to revolve around them. As a DM, I am salivating over the roleplay possibilities that having a goblin the party will bring. BUT I have not run this AP before and the character has the strong possibility of taking the game WAY off the rails. Anyone daring/stupid enough to have DMed this with a goblin PC? How did it go?
Honestly part of the appeal of the AP is how it takes “generic” D&D story setups and turns them up to 11 (goblins, haunted houses, ogres, giants, etc…). My group is new to Pathfinder (Kingmaker is it) but we are all D&D and RPG veterans. I welcome the possibilities that this PC brings but am worried about losing one of the things that make this AP so strong.
I want to give the other PCs some time to shine. I don't want to "malign the ability that they won"...I want them to win after all (the goal is for everyone to have fun). From my experience with Kingmaker I found the witch to dominate most encounters at lower levels (once the Ranger/archer got to about level 8 or so he began to pass the witch up as the dominating force).
I am still wrestling with doing anything. I still think my plan to start with 15 points will help (in part to keep the DC's down). If they want to MAX, their MIN will is really going to hurt. I had forgot that "Sleep" spell was a 1 round cast, instead of the hex's standard action...that just makes the hex even more powerful.
I don't mind adjusting encounters (I have done it throughout Kingmaker after all.)
FYI (my Kingmaker adjustments)
I guess I will do the same for RoTRL.
If I were to try and adjust Slumber hex. Which of these four options do you think is best?
1) Slumber hex is a 1 round action (just like sleep).
Or the ever so likely:
To those suggesting "Ban it":
I don't want to, because I specifically don't want to take away one of the players favorite aspect of the Witch class. But at the same time I was looking for ways of limiting it (because unlike a poster above my PC does not hold it back for other players to shine, he considers it the main thing his witch does...In the Kingmaker game I can count on ONE hand the times he has cast a SPELL (outside of self buffs). His turn is almost always Slumber or Misfortune (if creature is immune to slumber).
I don't have problems with it in Kingmaker at their current level (14), it was mainly an issue from 1-10 and since I was starting a new game (RoTRL) I was looking for different ways to spin it (or deal with it), as the player has said he wants to play a witch again (which I will be trying to talk him out of, if for no other reason than I want the game to feel different...but if he stands firm I guess see no reason to not allow it for the many reasons people have listed above.) I allowed 20 point buys for Kingmaker, I think a 15 point buy will also fix many of my problems also. I think I see the problem was the resources I gave the party (including attribute points) and not the power itself (which when examined actually seems balanced (powerful yes, but not OP). The problem is more the DM (me) than the actual slumber hex. If my NPCs have a chance to save (like 50%ish) than the Hex is actually not that bad.
ok...I'm convinced. I will allow the hex unmodified but plan to adjust my encounters instead. Few (maybe no?) solos. I will trust that RoTRL will be a VERY different game than Kingmaker. And I will go with 15 point buy this time.
So for those that have played RoTRLs would your really add mooks to the "X" encounter in book 2. I heard it is pretty deadly by itself. And its a solo. Are you suggesting that I modify it to add support? It is at least immune to slumber hex. So this this more a general question about "never have a solo".
Thanks for the input (and no offense is taken Ub3r) Those are all things I am aware of and we are close to being on the same page.
I am trying to avoid a DM vs Players mentality while maintaing challenge during combat. I want to challenge my players, not wipe the floor with them.
I let them do 20 points last game...maybe 15 points is the solution.
Also this player is not a munchkin (that would be the cavalier), this player just really likes playing a witch. Although I have toyed with the idea of forbidding anyone to play the same class they did last time (to keep it new and interesting, as you say).
If I do decide to change the Hex...any suggestions?
Maybe 3+INT Mod times a day?
Our group is just wrapping up Kingmaker, and by far the most powerful characters were the archer and the witch (followed by cavalier). I found many ways of dealing with the archer and cavalier (fickle winds / tight quarters) to keep the fights fun for most, but if the group encountered a solo that was not immune to sleep (ie Slumber Hex in this case), it was a one round fight most of the time. There were a few times where the foe had lots of wisdom and a good save, but by and large, Slumber Hex stood out as being not just powerful but over powering. Also granted that by the later parts of Kingmaker there is a lot of stuff immune to sleep, but when I run my next game I don't want to have to deal with 4+ chapters of witch dominating encounters.
We are organizing for our next game, and the group wants to try Rise of The Runelords (no one has played it). Two things. First, a player has expressed interest in playing a slumber witch. Second, I bought the anniversary edition of RoTRL which I know is the first AP written long before the witch class existed (and even with recent updates, I am assuming does not take witches with slumber hex spcifically into account).
I don’t really want to disallow the class (the player is really excited about it). And Slumber Hex should maintain approprate utility, but I am thinking of nerfing it slightly. What have others done? Or am I best leaving it alone?
ahhh I missed that too. So, if you avert your eyes, there is no save (and hence no auto damage). If you need to save, there is a chance you will take CHR damage, and you will take auto physical damage (from this specific attack).
And I think I will house rule that when the conditions for Gaze are met you must make a save (either at the beginning or during your turn as soon as it is applicable). Meaning you can move in choose to avert your eyes, no freebies while looking directly at the Medusa (or ghost) for 6 secs :-).
One of my baddies this week has corrupting gaze. I was reading through the description when I came across some bits I was not familiar with. When I had this ran against me, I swear I could “avert my eyes” and could make a fort save to negate the 2d10 damage (albeit giving the creature concealment against me). However upon reading the effect I see this:
Corrupting Gaze (Su)
Do you see the last line! So when you fort save the gaze you negate ONLY the Charisma damage and take the 2d10 regardless?) Is that right? It seems contradictory to the general gaze attack rules. So I figure I would check. Are there 2 saves (one for the gaze and one for the Chr damage) or is it really 2d10 auto damage within 30’? No smoked goggles, no eye aversion, just 2d10 no matter what?
Also side question: in re-reading the Gaze rules I see that there are only 2 times a gaze attack can have an effect. If you are within range at the beginning of your turn (in initiative order). And if the creature actively gazes as an action on its turn. What if you are out of range at the beginning of your turn, but you move within 30 feet? Do you save immediately when you come in range? Or are you safe until the beginning of your next turn?
Here are the relevant Gaze rules:
A gaze special attack takes effect when foes look at the attacking creature’s eyes. The attack can have any sort of effect; petrification, death, and charm are common. The typical range is 30 feet, but check the creature's entry for details. The type of saving throw for a gaze attack varies, but it is usually a Will or Fortitude save (DC 10 + 1/2 gazing creature’s racial HD + gazing creature’s Cha modifier; the exact DC is given in the creature’s text). A successful saving throw negates the effect. A monster’s gaze attack is described in abbreviated form in its description. Each opponent within range of a gaze attack must attempt a saving throw each round at the beginning of his or her turn in the initiative order. Only looking directly at a creature with a gaze attack leaves an opponent vulnerable. Opponents can avoid the need to make the saving throw by not looking at the creature, in one of two ways.
Averting Eyes: The opponent avoids looking at the creature’s face, instead looking at its body, watching its shadow, tracking it in a reflective surface, etc. Each round, the opponent has a 50% chance to avoid having to make a saving throw against the gaze attack. The creature with the gaze attack, however, gains concealment against that opponent.
Wearing a Blindfold: The foe cannot see the creature at all (also possible to achieve by turning one's back on the creature or shutting one's eyes). The creature with the gaze attack gains total concealment against the opponent.
A creature with a gaze attack can actively gaze as an attack action by choosing a target within range. That opponent must attempt a saving throw but can try to avoid this as described above. Thus, it is possible for an opponent to save against a creature’s gaze twice during the same round, once before the opponent’s action and once during the creature’s turn.
Gaze attacks can affect ethereal opponents. A creature is immune to gaze attacks of others of its kind unless otherwise noted. Allies of a creature with a gaze attack might be affected. All the creature's allies are considered to be averting their eyes from the creature with the gaze attack, and have a 50% chance to not need to make a saving throw against the gaze attack each round. The creature can also veil its eyes, thus negating its gaze ability.
You know. When I was flipping through my copy of UCamp I thought the exact same thing. I think including the very recognizable area map as their example was an unfortunate oversight. My Kingmaker group is at book 5 so the hexploration aspect of my game is done. But if I was at Book 1 and my players saw the complete map, I would be upset. If a key part of the AP was not that there is NO MAP of the area and the players are being hired to explore and make on, I don’t think it would be that big a deal. Certain areas of Golarion are well mapped and the players might be assumed to know aspects of the Varisian coast for example. But the Stolen Lands are not mapped, and making said map is key part of this adventure. It is unfortunate that no one at Paizo (I am guessing) thought that GMs might want to provide the kingdom rules to their players and including a giant spoiler in the art might be a problem. Oh well. Maybe black it out, and copy/provide just those pages to your players (now minus the map?).
So, I re-read the WotRK mass combat rules (the ones IN Kingmaker) last night and came away with some new perspectives. I think some of my confusion was from reading the UCamp rules while prepping for the game.
First, I am now convinced that the players should NOT be making their own armies with the mass combat army rules. If I allow that I really will get an ACR 18 mounted hoard that will roll across the Glenebon Uplands and right into Pitax. I found a note that says that the AP assumes that the PCs will have about an ACR 11 army. And that the example armies in the back are the player’s standard choices (of course they can be adjusted to fit the needs of each group using the rules provided … etc …) But my point is that the AP seems to assume that the provided armies are a good starting point. That is what I was missing, some point of reference.
ALSO, and very important and ALSO missing from the UCamp rules are the size prerequisites! You need a Kingdom size of 150 to get a colossal army in WotRK. So here is what I plan to present to my players tonight:
The standard armies available to muster are the ones listed in WotRK. Your Kingdom is not yet 150, so you can only raise a gargantuan army max. If you want to customize your starting armies I am going to base them off of the listed ones available. That means, if they have NPC class levels (max level 3 since that is the highest one in the mod), and if they have PC class levels (max level 2 since that is the highest one in the mod). If you want to raise a “monster” army I will be using “base” monsters (not advanced, no extra HD or class levels), and the GM will tell you how many you get based upon what he thinks you can logically get in the region. Also, you will need to have had contact/treaties with said group of creatures based on the prerequisites listed in WotRK.
How does that sound? Too restrictive, or just right?
Andostre - UCamp = The brand new Ultimate Campaign sourcebook. The rules for kingdoms and mass combat are given another pass with some expanded options.
To The OP:
1) watch for random encounters (or hand pick em) because they can swing crazy hard, if your players are not the type to take the hint (to run away) you can accidently end your campaign with these.
2) Watch for opportunities to convert easy combats into roleplay. There are at least a few each book that swing too easy. This is by design to make your players "feel more powerful" and give the illusion that the world is not "leveling with them" and makes the world seem more real. Unfortunately after you do a few of these, your now level 10 players get the idea and tire of combats against level 2 (non?) threats (it won't matter that there are 12 foes when the mobs cant hit and are one hit kills). Keep a few of these for the designed reasons, but look for ways to spin them different if your players are getting bored.
3) Also about book 4 you may want to toss the “hexploration” mode (or at least heavily modify it). My PCs sent out “scouts” to investigate the region, then I would hand them a modified map (with no names except for landmarks), and a few notes from the scouts…like “we saw some hill giants in this hex” or the ominous note from the GM “your expedition to this hex did not return.” This sped up the hexcrawling (which they did enjoy for the first three chapters). They would still check out each hex, but they had some more info as to which hexes were worth their time. You will have to decide how best to present “hidden” locations if you use this idea (I would drop rumors or hints that they would follow up on…this was more fun for them then exploring possibly empty hexes).
4) Since this is THE perfect AP for PCs that want to dabble in Leadership or Crafting, make sure you come up with a few restraints and don’t give your players free reign here. As they will quickly become too powerful and then you will be beefing up each encounter. Just keep an eye on the Wealth By Level (WBL) rules and if they start to get out of whack (like maybe over 25% or so) you may need to adjust things.
5) I would treat the kingdom building rules as a structure to roleplay and not a separate game that the players should try to “win.” I would even let the players know this. If they go at the kingdom building with any amount of serious gamer strategy they will break them. A few of my players were really hoping for a mini-civilization type of game that they could “beat”. The same goes for Mass Combat. Both systems are not meant to be tactical but are “big picture” systems. There are plenty of suggestions on the boards on how to add tactical detail to these if your players want that. Once those few players saw that the Kingdom rules were not really a “game” but a support system, everyone got back to role-playing. And by book 5 we are close to running Kingdom in the background. Every group will of course be different, and the rules are robust enough that you can tweak them to add more detail if they want.
Have a blast! Our group has really enjoyed Kingmaker, just from your first post I see that you are aware of the plot pit falls (Nyrissa really does feel like she comes out of no-where and you do need to make a special effort to plug her in whenever possible…I used dreams too BTW). I would also introduce Maegar Varn and his host in Restov before they set out (at the very least develop ties to Varn so that Book 3 hits with some weight.)
My group begins war of the River Kings this week, and Ultimate Campaign arrived just in time with some new options for Mass Combat (but it looks like the rules are mostly the same as what is in the AP).
So, a question for DM's whos players got this far.
The players kingdom has plenty of BP to raise a few good armies. But it seems that there are NO RULES (or even suggestions) for actually raising the army, just rules to maintain it (via consumption). So what worked for your groups? If they want to hier elite Kobold warriors (lets say warrior 5 or what the heck warrior 8+) did you let them? The highest class level in the sample armys is 4 (is there a reason for that?).
If the PCs have the BP to keep a collosal army of 10th level fighters (2000) with an ACR of 18. Consumption of 9 (or 36 a month) Does this sound out of line?
Trying to wrap my head around the rules...and logic keeps getting in the way. In my mind there are simply not 2000 level ten fighters running around the area. I would guess there are maybe 10-20 or so (and that is a number I literaly just made up). But if I say you can only hire Fighter 4's am I gimping them, unnecessarily? Do the rules assume the PCs will raise what they can afford? Is the fighter 10s that comprise an army, an abstract concept in the way that BP is? Maybe they are not really 10th level fighters, and that is just a representation of the army's strength? Not sure what concepts to hold and which to let go of?
I guess my real big question is: "In order to run a fun and exciting war (not tactical, as rules are not set for that) what restrictions did you other DMs impose upon your players as they were assembling their armies?"
I like the permanancy combined with "X" options. This would let them decide of the level of protection (since they can't cast 8th level spells yet...it would give them something to work toward with Dimensional lock based one). But the poor-mans version based on anchor they could do now, but some astral or etheral creatures, or powerful ones might seep through.
I am thinking:
(5th level) Bind Rift (as per Dimensional Anchor combined with Permanancy) - Costs 12,500 gp in comps - the rift exists but is "shut" in such a way that some powerful creatures might be able to force their way through. Kind of like a band-aid.
(8th level) Seal Rift (as per Dimensional Lock combined with Permanancy) - Costs 20,000 gp in comps - Actually seals the rift and the rift disappears.
Do the costs seem out of line? I based them on permancy spells of (4th and 8th level). But since the spell is so specialized and specific (and not cast on a person for example) might they be cheaper? Maybe 6,000 and 10,000.
No one has any advice?
I don't see an existing spell that does what I need. Does a Level 7 spell seem to early. Should it be 8?
The spell would have no combat effect (like the 8th level spell Rift of Ruin). It will basically "close the rift", although I plan for there to be lingering effects, since the rift has been there for centuries.
Or is there an abjuration spell that does what I need, and I am missing it? Maybe permanancy combined with some protection spell?
No ideas? I am actually suprised there is not a spell for closing a plannar rift/gate etc...already.
Any ideas (or points to rules) on closing a rift to another plane?
Suggestions? Costs? Spells?