Larry Lichman's page

Larry Lichman wrote:

Here's a technique I use that typically works:

If the group keeps attempting the 15 minute adventuring day tactic, have them face a group of monsters that work for another person/creature (someone who can scry on them, or quickly communicate with their minions). This person/creature becomes the party's nemesis - you'll have to create him and develop his motivations, but whatever you decide, his goal is to make life miserable for the PCs.

After a few of these encounters, the party's nemesis catches on to their tactics, and sends waves of enemies at them to attack when they try to rest, hoping to catch them with their guard down.
...
and makes sure they don't go nova after every battle as they anticipate the secondary strike....

This seems like it make the situation worse.

"Good lord, if we are going to be attacked every time we rest that means I need to have about half my resources left at rest time in stead of 1/4 because there will always be at least 1 more 'surprise' fight."

That's why you have to wean them off of it. If you read the rest of my post, I state to give the party a couple rests where nothing happens, and bring them back at your discretion.

Usually it only takes a couple times before the players get your point, and they'll stop the 15 minute adventuring day on their own. You can then strategically place your encounters with the party nemesis as needed based on the campaign, or bring them back if the party reverts to the 15 minute adventuring day. If you handle it well, they blame the NPC for their situation, not the DM.

Like anything else in this game, the DM has to gauge what his/her players can or cannot handle. If your players won't react well to this technique, or you as DM don't think you'll be able to present it effectively, don't use it. Simple as that. This works for me, but YMMV.

Here's a technique I use that typically works:

If the group keeps attempting the 15 minute adventuring day tactic, have them face a group of monsters that work for another person/creature (someone who can scry on them, or quickly communicate with their minions). This person/creature becomes the party's nemesis - you'll have to create him and develop his motivations, but whatever you decide, his goal is to make life miserable for the PCs.

After a few of these encounters, the party's nemesis catches on to their tactics, and sends waves of enemies at them to attack when they try to rest, hoping to catch them with their guard down.

Vary the encounters, too. Some direct attacks, some attempts at theft while the party is sleeping, some indirect distractions (nothing overt, but enough noises and other unsettling disturbances around the camp to prevent effective rest from occurring or (and this is my favorite) lure the PCs into a trap with a cry for help just outside their campfire light.

After the party starts preparing for these interruptions, give them a couple rests where nothing happens. Then, bring them back at your discretion.

This technique does a few things (all positive, in my view):

- The party becomes more alert to threats and actually plans watches during downtime, and makes sure they don't go nova after every battle as they anticipate the secondary strike.

- The party gains a recurring villain, which helps advance the plot, and promotes role-playing. You may see your players start forming a genuine hatred for this nemesis if you plan it out correctly.

- The DM can try new encounter types and/or new monsters without worrying about how they fit into an Adventure Path or module - these basically replace random encounters and effectively provide a sub-plot from which you can insert side-treks if you need your party to level up again before hitting the next part of a campaign.

These techniques have worked for me in the past, and actually tend to be talked about in regularity in our current games.

Hope this helps!

Here's my take on the issue:

Drinking blood is not inherently evil. The REASON you do it, may make the action evil.

For example, if you drink blood because you need to in order to survive, it is not an evil act. After all, is a mosquito evil because it drinks blood?. I know that vampires also drink blood to survive, but I would argue that the fact they drink blood is not the reason they are evil. There are quite a few other habits they have (Domination, for one) that make them evil.

However, if you drink blood for any of these reasons, it would most likely be an evil act:

- Sheer enjoyment.
- You like the taste.
- You revel in the suffering of your victims.
- You do it to strike fear into the hearts of the allies/family of the person whose blood you are drinking.
- You drink blood to summon an evil outsider.

I think this is an excellent idea! The potential for adventure hooks to enable the PC to obtain this type of cohort alone make it an interesting option.

Yes, the intelligent item may be able to do things normal cohorts can't, but if you incorporate obtaining the item into the campaign instead of just giving it to the PC, and you replace all of Leadership's other abilities (i.e., eliminate the Followers) so that the only benefit is to obtain the item as a cohort, I don't see any issue with it. After all, the GM would control which abilities the item had, and the interaction between the PC and the item as they discuss strategies could lead to some great role-playing moments.

I say go for it!

Hi Wolfus!

Let me start by saying that just because a Rogue CAN do something doesn't mean he SHOULD do something - and it is definitely not an auto-success when he does it.

Regarding your questions:

1) Stealing and Pick Pocketing - This ability is largely dependent on the environment and the availbility of things to steal. If you're in a small town, there just isn't that much of value worth stealing and the average citizen doesn't have much in their pockets to pick. This is something you as a GM should keep in mind. Plus, even if the Rogue decides to pick pockets, it is a contested check, so each victim has a shot of noticing it - as does any member of the city guard in the vicinity. As for stealing in general, burglary is an encounter in and of itself. If the Rogue PC does want to steal a vital quest item, make sure there are plenty of traps along the way, as well as guards to get past. Chances are, your vital quest items are not easy to get to, so the presence of guards and traps should discourage this adventure-bypassing strategy. Part of your job as GM is to make theft achieveable, but challenging. It should not be an automatic part of the Rogue's class features.

2) Sneak attacks - Rogue's can get them in the surprise round of combat, and if their initiative is higher than their opponents. Otherwise, they must flank or find another way for their target to be deprived of their Dex bonus to AC. The Rogue is highly dependent on teamwork to be effective in combat. Tell your player he should work with any Fighters in the group and devlop tactics so he can optimize his Sneak Attacks, and help the Fighter in combat encounters.

3) Rogue Relevancy - A Rogue is a bit different than any other class in Pathfinder. As such, each individual player has a different way to play them. The fun of the Rogue is often in the role-playing and the non-combat encounters. If your Rogue player seems to be discouraged, provide a role-playing hook that is suited to his skillset - maybe an old acquaintance is in town and needs the Rogue's help with a situation. This can make the Rogue player feel important, as he is basically the adventure hook. Add traps to encounters, so the Rogue can scout ahead and disable them. Design encounters that require your Rogue's skills to accomplish, such as breaking into a building undetected, scouting out a campsite, etc. Remember, since Rogue's arent' full BAB melee characters, nor are the spellcasting characters, they take a little more effort (by both the PC and GM) to shine. I will tell you that in my personal experience, the Rogue has always been my favorite class to play, and my most memorable PCs are Rogues.

Hope this helps!

Hi Gellos!

First of all, welcome to Pathfinder! I hope you enjoy our little community and, of course, the game as well.

As to your questions, I'll take a stab at them:

1) Motivation. This is always hard to pin down, as each party has its own motivation. They key is learning about each PC's background so you can build in a plot hook to kickstart each chapter of the adventure. If you're looking to use Cygar's request, rather than customize it, you could make the grave robbers official enemies of the Pathfinder organization. Or, have the grave robbers be one of the PCs' old rivals from before he/she joined the Pathfinders. For City of Golden Death, tie one of your PC's backgrounds to Reginar, so they are doing it for personal reasons, as well as professional ones.

2) Loot. Golden Death may indicate "look but don't touch", but in my experience as a GM, that won't work very well with many PCs. I would anticipate that your PCs will make off with quite a bit of loot. If you want to limit this, build in some consequences for the theft that the PCs won't want to face, or add an encounter where some of the excess loot is destroyed as the players try to escape the city.

3) The Cult. Razmir is a bit of a joke to begin with. He presents himself as a living god, and people buy into it. It's pretty easy to believe that the cult has some "not so bright" people in mid-management roles (and possibly leadership roles). This could make the initial infiltration relatively easy for your PCs. However, their eventual discovery could lead you down the path you wish - having the Church of Razmir become a serious menace. The infiltration draws the attention of some of the higher ups in the church, who "discipline" those responsible for letting the PCs in, then discovering the PCs identities. Vengeance is right up Razmir's alley, so having the Church of Razmir continually sending cultists, inquisitors, assassins, and other agents to harass the PCs in an attempt at revenge could easily be a result of Razmir's petty nature (and his Church's nature, by extension).

I'm not sure if this is what you were looking for, but I hope it helps!

I think the reason why people hate undead so much is jealousy. Undead are just strait up superior to their living counterparts, in the sense that they are effectively immortal unless slain, immune to disease, don't get tired, don't need to eat, etc. A community of undead would actually be the least devastating civilization on a planet to the environment, because they could exist without being a drain on the environment.

A city of 10,000 humans, dwarfs, and elves needs a lot of food (animals, plants, fish,...

This is true. You are all jealous of our superiority.

Liches have been going green for centuries! All of our enemies become fertilizer for the soil...

By definition sociopaths have a lack of remorse, shame, and guilt. They do things like normal people but can't care about the things they do. Now if that person intentially does something like stab someone in the back, murder, lie, steal, that might be considered neutral evil?

Yes, but the sociopath himself may not believe it to be so. He may consider himself neutral, or even good based on his perception of himself.

The only reason that a lich would appear as a skeleton would be if it desired so.

The only reason we liches do ANYTHING is because we desire to do so. We appear as we wish to appear. We act as we wish to act. You mortals should not question our motives. We are beyond your puny concepts of morality and perception.

I still lean towards chaotic (since it seems pretty unanimous about evil..)

The reasoning being that sociopaths use (and more importanly MISuse) societies rules. Not just that, but it's largely What They Do. It's a characteristic to be an abomination against cultural norms.

Neutral evil would be, in my opinion, less likely than a sociopath to deliberatly bend expectations/rules/mores/emotions to their own selfish desires. That leaves CE :)

True, but sociopaths also tend to follow their own code of rules (always leave a token, don't attack children, etc.). This means they do follow the concept of law when it suits them. This is why Neutral Evil is the perfect choice. Sociopaths tend to tread the line between law and chaos on a regular basis, due to their own twisted ideas and goals.

No self-respecting lich would ever resort to melee combat. That's what minions are for.

Trust me. I'm a lich.

We don't age, but we do rot...That's how we stay svelte.

Falling water has no surface, just like rain has no surface. A waterfall has a source, but that is not the same thing as a surface.

In other words, someone who stands under a waterfall with Water Walking gets wet. That's all.

(For my own information, several posters have indicated Water Walking allows you to float above the surface of the water. Can someone point me to a source for this? I don't see this in the spell description).

It's not RAW, but we've always played it as a single roll when Stealth starts, with multiple Perception checks as circumstances change.

For example, our party's Rogue is about to infiltrate an enemy camp. He rolls his Stealth Check (say, 32). That is his Stealth Result for the entire scenario. The DM will then apply modifiers to that (i.e,. 32+6 for long distance, 32-x for noise/extenuating circumstances, etc.) as the Rogue moves. This way, each person who is on guard or might detect the Rogue just makes a Perception check against the original Stealth Result + modifiers applied by the GM.

This means fewer rolls and a smoother encounter overall.

The GM, of course, reserves the right to call for a new Stealth Check if he determines circumstances warrant it (lighting changes, the Rogue changes his plans, etc.).

YMMV, but it works well for us.

Hello! Any ETA on when this order will ship?

Thanks!

Evil Lincoln wrote:

Leadership feat: disallowed by me. Hire them, diplo them, intimidate them, it is an ongoing process that takes RP.

The feat was always a failed experiment, and removing its GM-option status is possibly my biggest gripe about Pathfinder.

That is why our group takes the view we do. Leadership ALLOWS you to get a cohort. It doesn't automatically grant you one. You would still have to find and recruit him/her/it/whatever. So with our group it is usually someone we saved, spared, or befriended that one of us decided it would be cool or useful to have around.

This is the same approach our group uses. It's a feat, not a Summon spell.

From page 472 of the Pathfinder Core Rulebook: "A vorpal weapon must be a slashing melee weapon." Since a stool is neither a slashing nor a melee weapon, it cannot be given the vorpal quality.

I agree with MDT. Forbid Action does not prevent you from moving, it changes your thought process so that you do not WANT to move.

Freedom of Movement doesn't even come into play, as you will not even attempt to move while under the effects of Forbid Action. While under these effects, there is nothing preventing you from moving but yourself.

Hi!

I received an email yesterday that you were getting ready to ship my January order. I needed to change the payment method, since the account I usually use is earmarked for something else, so I changed the payment method for the order.

Unfortunately, my bank account indicates you are taking the funds out of the old payment method. Can you correct this for me? I do not want to deal with bank fees if I can avoid them, especially if this is one of those "verification" transactions you guys use prior to charging the card.

In any case, I want to make sure you charge the correct account for this order.

Thank you!

If your friends like Hammer Horror Films with a Cthulhu twist, they'll LOVE Carrion Crown!

Welcome to Pathfinder!

The quick and easy answer for you is to pick up the Beginner Box. It is a great introduction to Pathfinder, as well as a solid adventure designed to introduce TTRPG to new players and DMs.

If you'd rather not go that route, any of the Adventure Paths should be a good fit (Although I'd stay away from Kingmaker, as it adds some new rulesets that may be too much for a new player/DM to handle while learning the basic rules).

For me, I really enjoyed Carrion Crown, but I'm a sucker for Gothic Horror and undead.

Whatever you choose, I suggest you use the pre-generated characters found in the back of the AP until you get a feel for the rules. After you've played the game a bit, you can get a better feel for the type of character you'd like to play and work through character creation at that time.

Hope this helps, and Happy Gaming!

Come on, guys. Haven't we already had the Rogue vs. Fighter DPR debate already? Let's try for something new...

For the truly vegan necromancer, you generally need either a convenient death (as in a creature that died of illness, old age, or accident), or a bit more magic.

I don't know why, but I find the notion of a vegan Necromancer somewhat amusing. Meat is murder, so I won't eat animals...but it's OK if I use the animal's corpse as a companion...

(I'm sure there are vegans out there who are vegans for reasons other than animal rights, the vegans I know (both of them) fit the animal rights description to a "T"...)

To the OP: Our group tends to shy away from Wizards and Barbarians. Out players prefer Sorcerors to Wizards, and Fighters/Paladins/Rangers to Barbarians.

Our group has a weapon of +2 Bane vs. Outsider and have recently traveled to a layer of the Abyss. We were informed by our GM in a fight that the weapon's Bane quality won't work on this plane because this is the demons home plane and they are not considered 'outsiders' here.

I thought this ruling of the bane quality may be in error so I did a little research. I could not find either support nor denial of this ruling.
Under bane it says:
'A bane weapon excels against certain foes. Against a designated foe, the weapon's enhancement bonus is +2 better than it's actual bonus.It also deals an extra 2d6 points damage against the foe.'

The only thing I could find for defining an outsider was in the Bestiary.
Under Outsider is says:
'Unlike most living creatures an outsider does not have a dual nature - it's soul and body form one unit. When an outsider is slain, no soul is set loose.'
Also under outsider:
'An outsider is at least partially composed of the essence (but not necessarily the material) of some plane other than the material plane.'

Am I missing something? Does a bane vs. outsider weapon loose it usefulness on outer planes? Or should they retain their quality for those who travel to the outer planes?

Thanks for the help in advance.

Your answer to your questions is in your post (bold mine).

An Outsider, by game definition, is composed of the essence of some plane other than the material plane. This means that your Bane (Outsider) weapon will work on any creature that meets that definition. There is no limitation indicating that the physical location of the Outsider has any bearing on the Bane ability, nor does the physical location of the creature have any bearing on the creature type.

Larry Lichman wrote:

This is it exactly. Think Sorceror. They don't learn how to use magic, they just know how to do it. The ability that allows them to do this is Charisma, as all of their DCs and other spell-dependent abilities rely on this ability. Same thing with Bards.

Pathfinder (and D&D 3E before it) extended Charisma beyond its original meaning and added a magical affinity aspect to it. Innate arcane casters draw upon Charisma when they cast their spells - they don't learn spells like Wizards, they have an innate talent for using magic and harnessing it. This part of the game-specific Charisma trait is what UMD is based on. The more Charisma your PC has, the easier it is to tap into his/her natural affinity for magic, making it easier to use a magic device they are unfamiliar with.

There is no such definition of Charisma in the rulebooks. Charisma is simply your ability to influence "non-mindless" beings.

The only exception are undead, for whom Charisma has an additional meaning as a measure for their "lifeforce".

Sorcerers have a bloodline that is the source of their magical power. Their Charisma let's them influence their subconscious selves which is part of their bloodline.
Bards cast their magic by performing art. How well you perform your art is dependent on how well you influence your audience. Hence, just like the Perform skill, it is based on Charisma.

In both cases magic itself isn't influenced.

Your argument that Charisma is merely the ability to infuence non-mindless beings is not supported by RAW either, so playing that card to trump my interpretation is still not valid. This is your interpretation based on an out-of-game definition of Charisma that you have applied in game.

While the Core Rules don't spell out Charisma in this way, you can definitely imply this to be the case when you compare the spell-casting ability of each type of class. To further support this, Bards also use Charisma as their base ability to use magic and cast spells. If Bloodlines are the only thing that Sorcerors use to cast spells, how do you explain the Bard's reliance on Charisma to cast spells?

And if magic had sentience, then why is it only influenceable by UMD and not any other Cha-based skills? Why can't one Intimidate a Fireball flying one's way?

While I don't agree at all with the idea that magic has sentience, your question about why other Cha-based skills don't influence magic can be answered if you take each skill individually, as opposed to grouping them by ability score.

Bottom line: Intimidate draws on a different aspect of Charisma than UMD.

All ability scores have multiple layers to them. They are more complex than they appear at first glance.

Let's look at each ability score and how the different aspects of each ability impact the game:

Strength - Melee accuracy (to hit/attack rolls), damage (armed and unarmed), Tensile Strength (Encumbrance, Break Checks), Gross Motor Skills (Swim, Jump and Climb Skills).

Intelligence - Knowledge (knowledge skills), ability to learn (Skill Ranks), Spell Retention (Bonus Spells/Spell Slots for Wizards)

Wisdom - Willpower (Will Saves), Observation(Perception Skill), common sense/self-preservation (Survival Skill).

Dexterity - Quickness/Reaction Time (Reflex Save), Ranged Accuracy (to hit/attack rolls), fine motor skills (Disable Device, Sleight of Hand Skills), Agility (Acrobatics Skill).

Constitution - Resistance to Foreign Substances (Fort Save), Health (Hit Points), Overall Fortitude (Holding Your Breath, Enduring Elements).

Charisma - Force of Personality (Diplomacy, Intimidate Skills), Deception (Bluff Skill), Innate Arcane Spell Use (Sorceror/Bard, UMD Skill), Perception by Others (Perform, Disguise Skills, NPC Reactions)

Each ability score has at least 3 in-game aspects (I'm sure there are more, but these are the ones that immediately come to mind) to it that apply separately to different situations.

Applying this to your question: The reason UMD applies to magic, but Intimidate doesn't (even though they are both Charisma-based skills) is the same reason Knowledge (Arcana) doesn't influence the number of Bonus Spells a Wizard obtains at each level - they are different aspects of the ability.

Your argument that Intimidate should be able to influence a Fireball (or other magic effect) just because another Charisma-based skill influences your ability to use magic is simply not a valid one.

Saying all skills based on the same ability should apply equally to all situations where the ability itself can apply defeats the entire reason for skills in the first place.

It could just as easily be due to having an innate affinity for magical items

This is it exactly. Think Sorceror. They don't learn how to use magic, they just know how to do it. The ability that allows them to do this is Charisma, as all of their DCs and other spell-dependent abilities rely on this ability. Same thing with Bards.

Pathfinder (and D&D 3E before it) extended Charisma beyond its original meaning and added a magical affinity aspect to it. Innate arcane casters draw upon Charisma when they cast their spells - they don't learn spells like Wizards, they have an innate talent for using magic and harnessing it. This part of the game-specific Charisma trait is what UMD is based on. The more Charisma your PC has, the easier it is to tap into his/her natural affinity for magic, making it easier to use a magic device they are unfamiliar with.

Sorry, but my big beef with this entire discussion is that the creature compelled was Undead. To me, this means the ghoul is:

1) Already dead, so there is no moral code regarding its rights as a living creature from a Paladin perspective because it's not a living creature.

2) Inherently evil - They EAT PEOPLE. Anything goes when combating or coercing this menace from a Paladin perspective.

In other words, I see nothing wrong with the Paladin's actions in dealing with it.

The GM's argument that compelling the ghoul to give up a book is akin to stealing implies that the dead can own property. Lawfully, this is not the case, so compelling the ghoul to hand over the book does not in any way break the Paladin code.

Further, compulsion is an acceptable tool when used to promote the greater cause. Some entities will not cooperate willingly, and need a little push to help them do the right thing (Of course, this applies to living beings. As I mentioned before, anything goes with Undead).

As others have pointed out, the only issue is that the Paladin left the Ghoul alive, not that he had his minion Command Undead to obtain information the Ghoul otherwise would not have shared.

Just my 2 cents. YMMV.

Dotting.

I'm a bit unclear on some of the specifics of the command undead ability of necromancer wizards.

As it is, the description of the command undead feat in the CRB reads:
As a standard action, you can use one of your uses of channel negative energy to enslave undead within 30 feet. Undead receive a Will save to negate the effect. The DC for this Will save is equal to 10 + 1/2 your cleric level + your Charisma modifier. Undead that fail their saves fall under your control, obeying your commands to the best of their ability, as if under the effects of control undead. Intelligent undead receive a new saving throw each day to resist your command. You can control any number of undead, so long as their total Hit Dice do not exceed your cleric level. If you use channel energy in this way, it has no other effect (it does not heal or harm nearby creatures). If an undead creature is under the control of another creature, you must make an opposed Charisma check whenever your orders conflict.

Bold mine.

Let me take a stab at this...

First of all, since necromancers don't have a cleric level is the limit of how many undead they can control at once their wizard level? Or do they not have a limit.

The Necromancy School feature substitutes Wizard level for Cleric level when determining your DC, so you can safely assume that your Wizard level will substitute as your Cleric level to determine how many undead you can control.

Second, how long does command undead last? Can it continue as long as the caster wants? Can they dump their undead minions in a cave while they visit a town and then come back for them when they leave?

As the Command Undead feat indicates that the undead fall under your control and obey your commands as if under the the effects of Control Undead, the duration of the effect can be answered by referring to the Control Undead spell:

* How long does it last - 1 minute/level.

For that matter, is their a maximum distance or anything that the undead need to maintain to stay controlled? As far as I can tell they only need to be within 30ft for the initial channel energy, and can then be sent as far away as the caster wants for as long as they want.

Maximum Distance is unlimited once the channel is completed, so the controller can go as far from the undead as he/she likes and the controlled undead will perform his/her last order until the duration runs out.

Finally, How does the process of disposing of commanded minions go?

As soon as the caster's control is over, they revert to their normal behavior. If they are hostile, they will become so again. Per the Control Undead spell, intelligent undead remember being controlled and may seek revenge on the one who controlled them.

Does the wizard just say the word and they become hostile again?

Since this is not addressed in the Command Undead feat, I refer once again to Control Undead. Control Undead is not dismissible (as there is no D in the Duration section), and does not depend upon Concentration, so the undead remain under your control until the duration ends, or the effect is countered in some way.

Can they be ordered to leave without attacking?

,

Yes - until the duration runs out.

can they simply be chopped up while still under the caster's control and not fighting back?

Yes. The controller control them, they are not charmed, so they are, in effect, inanimate objects if the controller orders them to stand still. So, they can be attacked with no threat of breaking the controller's control.

Hope this helps!

I have a player in my group that does this. His reason (because we talked to him about it years ago) is that he likes to be the DM more than he likes to be a Player.

We rotate DMing between he, I, and another player because sometimes we need a break from running games (whether to create a new campaign, or just take a mental break from DMing). During his breaks, he plays in our campaigns, but he plays the same kind of apathetic character the OP describes. He doesn't mean anything by it, and doesn't disrupt the game (in fact, he's pretty good at problem-solving if the other PCs prompt him in-game), so we all work with it as an accepted player-style.

What really helped us understand where he was coming from, was to simply ask him about it, as others have mentioned up thread. Once we knew where he was coming from, no one took offense from his playing style, and we've been able to have fun gaming together for years!

Or, carry less stuff.

Seriously, as a Rogue you want to travel light anyway, so just wear your leather armor, a melee weapon, a small belt pouch and your picks and tools. Let the rest of the party handle the other mundane gear, and see if your DM will let you exchange your gp/sp for paper script (this is a standard in my games). This way, you'll have the space available for any magic items you find/buy and they won't weigh you down.

I had a rules question about the Order of the Dragon's 2nd level ability. Is it +3 to all of "armor class, attack roll, saving throw, or skill check" or choose one? For example, you use aid another on an ally, and the ally gets +3 to whichever in that list applies first?

RAW isn't as clear as it could be.

Bold mine.

It's safe to say the bonus applies to whichever ability applies to the action you are aiding. For example, if you are aiding your ally while he is attacking, the +3 would apply to his attack roll. It wouldn't make sense to apply the bonus to any of the other options. (Although it would be nice if I could aid my ally by giving him +3 to his AC while he attacks).

I can see what you're saying, as it may be unclear what check to apply the bonus to if more than one of those categories applies to the task at hand, but I honestly can't think of a task that would combine multiple checks in a single round to complete. If it ever came up in my game, I would allow the bonus to be applied to any and all checks that are necessary to perform the task the PCs want to complete.

It's an issue of what's fun for everyone...

Unfortunately isn't *NOT* much fun if you're the character that's dominated and your party's next three weeks of playtime go into the adventure of rescuing you, so I'm not sure how fun that is.

Unfortunately, some people actually like combat instead of watching the DM playing out a combat in front of them rolling for both the giant and the bad guys.

My question gets exactly to the point of how to make all of this fun? I'm having an issue keeping the party on one page. It's easy enough to throw a deus ex machina and fix whatever the heck you want with the adventure if people are wrecking it, but as all overpowered things, it tends to make the game less fun for the players at the short end of the stick.

Maybe the dominated Cloud Giant is an important member of his society. If this is the case, after a day or two, they'll probably send out a search party. Watch with a smirk as your PCs try to explain their way out of a confrontation with 10+ Cloud Giants who find their friend enslaved by "puny humans...."

Mike, you keep bringing up Pathfinder Society. This isn't a PFS thread; it is a general rules question on the basic core Pathfinder Rules. PFS is an option that has absolutely no bearing on this discussion.

Master Arminas

I think Mike keeps bringing up PFS because they are strict adherents to RAW (with some exceptions). I agree it's not a perfect way to make an argument for or against a rule in this forum, but I can see where he is coming from.

No, it's not. The term "Amulet" is never defined in game terms,

Neither is "necklace." Or "periapt". Or "collar". Or "rations." Or "canatloupe" for that matter, but we all know what they are based on the actual English language and we easily apply them to our games. At some point you have to rely on the real world definitions of terms or the game itself will fall apart.

it's English definition, as Lohengrin pointed out includes any object intended to bring good luck or protection to its owner.

From Dictionary.com:

am·u·let   /ˈæmyəlɪt/ Show Spelled[am-yuh-lit]
noun
a small object worn to ward off evil, harm, or illness or to bring good fortune; protecting charm.

I don't disagree at all with Lohengrin. Just pointing out that an Amulet is not the same thing as a necklace (although it may be possible for a necklace to be an Amulet).

Reading the rule, I don't see anything that says you can't push your target into a pit, off a cliff, or through a Wall of Fire.

The key phrase is "the target must end his move in a safe space it can stand in" - it says nothing about what happens between the time he starts his move and ends it.

Thus, you can infer that:

- Wall of Fire - you can kick your target through the Wall, as he will end his movement on the other side of the wall, where he can safely stand. Damage is done prior to landing in his final space.

- Off a Cliff - you can kick your target off the cliff as the space they land in is a safe one where they can stand. Damage is done as he enters the space, so he takes damage before ending his movement. Because of this, technically, this is a valid use of the maneuver.

- Into a Pit - you can kick your target into a pit as the space they land in is a safe one where they can stand. Damage is done as he enters the space, so he takes damage before ending his movement. Because of this, technically, this is a valid use of the maneuver.

I am aware this is a stretch, but I believe this will work RAW. In any case, I cannot imagine the maneuver was intentionally designed RAI to prevent you from using it in these ways.

FYI:

An Amulet is not a necklace. It is something attached to a necklace, then worn around your neck.

Arguments stating that an Amulet is the same thing as a necklace (or choker, collar, etc.) are not valid.

A periapt, on the other hand, is a synonym for Amulet, so a better argument could be made for using a Periapt instead of an Amulet for a bonded object.

Thank you for your attention.

Carry on.

Tired of constantly being overshadowed by Christmas, the Easter Bunny teams up with Jack Skellington, Uncle Sam, the Lucky Charms Leprechaun and a band of Pilgrims to take back the Season!

kyrt-ryder wrote:

Da'ath wrote:

Kelsey MacAilbert wrote:

Yea, I've figured out that level dipping isn't my problem, PCs who aren't following the rules are. They keep overriding my decisions to do things that are 15 different kinds of illegal, and I'm enough of a worthless pussy that I didn't stop them. I just let them yell at me until I backed down and let them have their way.

If your players are yelling at you and you're berating yourself, then you should quit running for them, lose the stress and take a lengthy break, and find some adults to play with later on.

Seriously Kelsey, please stop dissing on yourself. Yes you might have trouble asserting yourself and taking a strong stance, but that doesn't make you worthless, nor does it make you genitalia (or a coward, however you view that term.)

I know. I'm just really rattled. I'm former military, for Gods' sake, and I may reenlist at a later date. I shouldn't be letting myself get intimidated like this.

Kelsey, what city do you live in? Maybe someone on these boards lives nearby and can let you sit in on one of his/her games. It sounds like you really need some exposure to a gaming group who knows how to play well together to help build up your confidence in the ruleset and DM techniques.

If you live near Cleveland, my group would be glad to have you sit in on a session or two.

I like the premise!

I might link different parts of the Lycanthropy curse to each moon.

Assuming the moons are different sizes, the curse can have more or less severe effects:

Largest (Dominant) Moon: Controls the transformation itself.

- When Waxing, the Lycanthrope can only transform into his Hybrid form.
- When full, the Lycanthrope can transform into any of his forms.
- When Waning, the Lycanthrope can only transform into his full animal form.
- When New, the Lycanthrope cannot transform at all.

Medium (Medial) Moon: Controls the powers and abilities attached to the transformation. (This moon has no effect on the Lycanthrope if the Dominant Moon is New, as the transformation could not occur).

- When Waxing, the powers and abilities are as indicated in the template.
- When Full, apply the Barbarian's Rage ability to the Lycantrope's stats and abilities.
- When Waning, treat the Lycanthrope's powers as if he were Fatigued.
- When New, treat the Lycanthrope as though he is Fatigued and Staggered.

Smallest (Bantam) Moon: Determines the level of control the Lycanthrope has over his actions when the transformation takes place.(This moon has no effect on the Lycanthrope if the Dominant Moon is New, as the transformation could not occur).

- When Waxing, the Lycanthrope controls his actions out of combat, but reverts to Full Moon form whenever combat occurs.
- When Full, the Lycanthrope has no control over his actions during transformation. He reacts by instinct alone based on his Alignment. Evil Lycanthropes attack anything within range, Neutral Lycanthropes attack when threatened, and Good Lycanthropes fiercely protect anything or anyone they feel attachment to. If the Lycanthrope is a PC, the GM determines his actions outside of combat.
- When Waning, the Lycanthrope controls his actions out of combat, but reverts to Full Moon form whenever combat occurs.
- When New, the Lycanthrope has full control of his actions and acts per his normal form, including Alignment and all mental attributes.

This would make it interesting for Lycanthrope hunters, as there would definitely be more benefit to hunting their prey during New or Waning Moons, and much more danger if all three were full at the same time.

"To crush your enemies, to see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women."

So, if a touch attack is a free action, would the following scenario work.

Say I am playing a magus. I have prepared Shocking grasp twice in a day. My group is walking into an ambush, and I make the perception check to perform an action during the surprise round.

Could I cast Shocking Grasp during the surprise round, hold the charge, make a touch attack on the first round AND recast and use Shocking grasp on the same target twice. The way I see it, if a touch attack is a free action, this should work.

No. A Touch Attack is a free action ONLY DURING THE ROUND IT WAS CAST. If you hold the action, you must use an attack action to make your Touch Attack on ensuing rounds.

Larry Lichman wrote:

Because killing the mount will make the rider less effective in combat.

Think about it. If a mounted rider has already charged by once and done great damage and the NPC has been unable to hit him while mounted, it might occur to them that killing his mount may even the odds a bit.

Of course after some atempts they realize the guy on horse is harder to kill than the horse. But then it might be too late.

It should be some check related to combat experience to know, if rider is a lot harder target than horse. One should be able to notice from combat behavior (e.g. a high CMD has to show in respective movements and positioning, you cannot avoid being grappled by a titan by being stronger). Sense motives would be fitting, but its wrong because an experienced fighter would know without being trained, whether the rider is pro or not.

Experience is definitely a big factor here. I would think any NPC with levels in a Martial Class (Warrior, Fighter, etc.) would know some basic tactics that would work against a mounted opponent, even if they are just some basic "use reach weapons and stay out of the open"-type strategies.

If you think a check would be necessary for non-martial characters (or inexperienced ones), I would look for a Knowledge skill. Is there a Knowledge (Tactics) skill? I don't think there is one RAW, but it may be an interesting skill to add for home campaigns. Otherwise, I like the Sense Motive idea. It would probably require a flat DC, as I'm not sure what skill would be appropriate for an opposed check.

You could also make the case that the NPCs will react based on the weapons at their disposal:

* If they have spears/polearms, they may try to unseat the rider.
* If all they have are short swords, they may go for the horse simply because they can't reach the rider.
* If they have access to a net, they could try to entangle rider and horse together.
* Tanglefoot Bags are also a nice option to stop a charge.

In any case, there are a lot of factors involved in devising a strategy for mounted opponents (moreso that there are for infantry), so from a rules perspective, I believe you'd have to rely on your GM for a lot of these grey areas.

Eridan wrote:

carn wrote:

So upon what knowledge might a NPC decide correctly that the medium sized medium armor wearing raging level 8 barb is as a target harder than the heavy armored 3 HD horse? They do not have their AC printed on forehead and certainly not their HP.

The horse is the larger target and easier to hit ..

And has in real life more hp and more musles aka natural armor. After killing the horse battle is not won, after killing the rider it is.

If it takes 2 arrow to stop rider and 5 to stop horse, why shoot the horse?

Because killing the mount will make the rider less effective in combat.

Think about it. If a mounted rider has already charged by once and done great damage and the NPC has been unable to hit him while mounted, it might occur to them that killing his mount may even the odds a bit.

So two guys just made wishes to a genie they found. I ALMOST got one to wish to know the rules of the wishes, but he caught on after he asked the rules and I said "Do you wish to know?" very casually :) I'm looking for creative responses to these wishes like tricky Djinn would come up with.

Here are their exact words they used in the request.

"I want a magical weapon that doesnt hurt me and the right size for me to wield, and that can kill my enemies."

And the orator bard wished: "I'd like a ring or an amulet or some sort of similar item that would give me a great boon to my oratory proficiency without giving me any problems whatsover"

1. Give them a weapon that grants him immunity to fire and that drops a Fireball (Caster Level Your Choice) centered on him every time he hits. It won't hurt him, is the right size for him to wield, and can kill his enemies (Friends, too...)

2. Give him a bullhorn he can wear on his wrist.

a thug is still a type of thief. the classic 1e style thief won't last very long in your typical pathfinder game.

80% of the game is generally assumed to be combat, and a build that can't keep up in combat is a weak link waiting to be eliminated. i learned from this mistake when i played a bard with a 7 strength and constitution as a sickly little noble girl who couldn't fight her way out of a paper bag. she got killed in one swing by a monster 2CRs lower than her.

I disagree. I have made several Rogues who were not combat oriented, and they managed to get along just fine.

In any case, the OP did not want a combat oriented Rogue. He wanted a "traditional" Thief. Don't assume he's playing the same way you are.

Larry Lichman wrote:

Thank you from the bottom of my undead, unbeating heart!

Wouldn't that be the bottom of your phylactery?

What do you know about my phyactery?

<starts scrying on Serisan>

Larry Lichman wrote:

On the flip side, a healing spell is NOT an obvious threat, so this would not break the condition.

However, unless you have spellcraft (at a -4 penalty from being fascinated), you wouldn't know that it's a healing spell being cast.

Good point. This would come down to GM fiat. I may rule that the fascinated character could recognize a healing spell if they have been healed repeatedly in the past. Otherwise, it would be perfectly acceptable to rule that any unfamiliar spell would be seen as a threat and break the condition.

Larry Lichman wrote:

The key phrase to this condition is Obvious Threat. This the the part of the description you need to focus on when determining when the fascinated condition is broken. Someone coming at you with weapon drawn is an obvious threat, so it would break the condition even though it is not listed in the description. Keep in mind, the examples after the text are just that - examples. They are not considered to be an all-inclusive list.

On the flip side, a healing spell is NOT an obvious threat, so this would not break the condition.

Well, I guess I don't see how someone drawing a weapon is a more obvious threat then someone standing there with one already drawn.

Once again, it is just an example provided for clarification, not an actual rule. You may have chosen a different example had you written the descriptive text, but even if you did, it makes no difference regarding the rule itself.

Focus on the actual wording of the rule, not the examples given and you'll be fine.