Leper's page

How to download the files without a 4shared account:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkviMpwOmJM

I'm in, although I'm sure you can tell my posting rate is down. I'm sorry for that - Getting swamped by my kiddos these days.

Dexter, blinded by the darkness, feels his way toward the nearest wall and says,

Please don't hurt us! We are but lost travelers in need of guidance!

bluff: 1d20 + 8 ⇒ (9) + 8 = 17

Would love to play if you can find one of these mythical GMs.

I'm about to run this one and have a couple of concerns that haven't been very well addressed IMO.

A) What's stopping the goblins from running at the first chance they get?

B) The fact that Act 1 involves an attack by goblins is too coincidental to ignore. As a player, I assumed that the goblins were there to rescue their brethren.

So, did anyone else deal with these issues? I think I'm going to tell my players at the beginning that the goblins don't want to escape because they are in Icetooth territory and they would kill Frostfurs...

(BTW, this is the player formerly known as Dickey - RIP)

Sorry for that delay, but I now have Dexter posted. Hope I haven't held things up too much.

Hey, I'm here - just have a busy weekend. Will try to post a character within 24 hours.

I'm interested. Should know within the next 24 hours if I can join.

Count me as interested. I've never done PbP before, but I'd love to try. I'd like to play a Druid or Wizard (Illusionist or Necromancer likely) and promise to be a regular contributor if recruited.

Although I doubt we'd ever do it... a slow progression track would probably allow us to do an AP that reaches 15th level with ease. Slow isn't THAT much slower than Medium.

Aw - that's too bad. I'm really loving this idea. I could completely do without 15-20th level. By that time, I want my players characters to be retired or dead.

Thanks for responding, guys. I mainly wanted to make sure I was understanding this correctly.

That said, this seems to be an area where the AoO rules are a bit clunky IMO. For example, do threatened squares extend to three dimensions? So if a tiny bird attacks from above, it passes through a threatened square above the creature's head and is thereby subject to an AoO? That doesn't make much sense to me - birds (and any tiny flying creature I would imagine) should be very difficult to hit in melee combat and certainly not easier to hit than say, a wolf, just because it has a reach of 0'. And shouldn't speed play a role in a creature's ability to pass through a threatened space? I mean, something travelling twice your speed should be a bit more difficult to get extra attacks against.

In the meantime, I'm going to have trouble justifying a familiar over a bonded object.

Oh well, that's my two cents.

Couple of questions about using familiars to deliver touch spells:

First, the easy one: when a touch spell is cast on the familiar, does the familiar hold the charge until the touch spell is deliver

Second, based on my understanding of the rules, when delivering a touch spell, since familiars seem to have a reach of 0', the familiar actually has to occupy the same space as a "small" or larger (small+) target to deliver a touch spell. This, in order to avoid an attack of opportunity, actually forces the familiar to stop in the neighboring square to small+ targets, and then, on the next round, the familiar uses a 5-foot step to touch the target. And THEN, the familiar has to spend another two rounds to withdraw from the target (ASSUMING the familiar actually delivered the touch), or I guess it could keep attacking, trying to hit for 1 measly point of damage while exposing it to imminent death. Am I understanding the rules correctly?

Commentary: Assuming I'm correct in my understanding of the rules (not a confident assumption FTR), isn't this unduly burdensome for a familiar (considering the vulnerability of familiars and the additional time it takes to deliver a touch spell, during which the master can't cast another spell)? Beyond that, it doesn't seem to make such sense for flying familiars - I mean, you would have to have supernatural reflexes to hit a bat, hawk, or owl that flew in just to touch you? As a GM, I think I would have to make some house rules in this regard, which I generally like to avoid...

I'm a PF GM for a casual gaming group (lightly familiar with the rules). I'm also thinking about returning to 3.5 rules.

Basically, PF is too much of a pain. PF added hps to everything without changing hp amounts for other stuff. This means all damage and cure spells/abilities have been effectively nerfed. Instead, PF adds MORE spells and abilities, which equals longer combats and more work for me as a GM - to the point where it sucks some of the fun out of the game. A few examples:

A barbarian wants to rage? In 3.5, players says "I'm going to rage" - frankly, this ability is already kindof a pain cause I have to recalculate their HPS, hit rolls, damage rolls, saves, AND AC. But I'm willing to put up with it cause this is a central ability for barbs. In PF, they actually made this ability MORE complicated. Now, in addition to the (too many) calculations), I have to tabulate how many rounds he's raging and keep track of a multitude of rage abilities, in addition to all of the other crap that's going on during combat.

Zero level spells may be cast "at will" now. At first, I thought this would be a good change. Now, I hate it. Light sources are now useless. That USED to be a fun part of the game - what can the characters see? Who's carrying a torch? Your torch gets knocked out, NOW what!? Now, the casters just cast light at whatever they want to see. I barely even bother with lighting issues anymore - that kills a lot of the creep of a dungeon. Also, now, during combat, EVERY round, the arcane casters are casting a spell or spell-like ability. It REALLY slows combat down AND spell effects are barely, or often not even, the equivalent of swinging a sword. I remember when wizards were fun - they held on to their money spell, just basically trying to survive, until just the right moment and BAM!!! Out comes the gamechanging spell! Those used to be climactic moments. No more. Now, with everyone having a substantially more hps and reflex abilities, Fireball rarely kills anyone, it just burns them some - not much better than a fighter attack. Yawn.

More attacks. Now we're rolling even more dice when melee classes attack. Yay. THAT slows down combat.

MORE friggin feats and abilities. Man, I'm tired of trying to keep track of feats and abilities. Plus, some players (at least in my group) don't want to mess with that. For those players, I used to recommend they play fighter, monk, or rogue. You know, simpler and easier-to-play classes. Not anymore. Every class has a bunch of rules baggage now. (Paizo, please note: MORE IS NOT ALWAYS BETTER).

And I don't even bother with the additional base classes and subclasses that have been added to the game. And I don't have an issue with people wanting to play with those, but now they are starting to seep into PF adventure publications and I have to learn about them, and I just don't need more stuff to learn.

PF is just more work. And combat is unnecessarily complex (and consequently slow). Maybe this is good for fanatic gamers who are always wanting more customization, but it's definitely not for casual gamers.

What PF has going for it IMO is ongoing publications. Their adventures are THE BEST products, content-wise.

But for me, there's enough 3.5 material (including some of the quality stuff published by Paizo) that I think I could go back without missing anything.

Okay, that's my rant (it's been a little pent up on this topic). Excuse any tendency I have for minor exaggeration, but the "small" differences between PF and 3.5 seem more glaring to me everytime I play now.

I worship the Pathfinder pantheon, and I DEMAND that Paizo create new deities that so that don't risk offending me!

Tell them, Finn K, how they must treat all of our religions equally!

Because they're not extinct or near-extinct-- they're just not as commonly worshiped as the Judeo-Christian-Islamic versions of "God". If you're going to say it's okay to use Gods/Heroes from one faith, it ought to be okay to draw them from all faiths-- yet, that's exactly what you're saying isn't okay.

Care to explain to me why it's okay to offend some people because they're a minority and maybe you can get away with it, but it's not okay to do anything that might offend a larger group?

First off, I don't think it's ever okay to purposefully-offend someone.

And I see your point about the unfairness of treating different religions differently, but you can't cater to every extreme-minority group that cries foul. At some point, you have to draw the line between groups that are large enough that they're worth catering to and groups that are not. I think that line is somewhere between offended Muslims/Christians/Buddhists and offended Zeus-worshipers.

For instance, would you remove animals from the game because some PETA people found the imaginary killing of animals offensive? Do you think it was right to remove devils and demons from the game because some fundamentalist Christians find them offensive? Where do you stop?

I don't know about you, but I think it's unreasonable to cater to such extremist groups just as I think it's unreasonable to think RPG players should cater to some obscure, hypothetical population of people who both worship Zeus and are extreme enough to get upset that an RPG references Zeus as deity.

To water down the game because you might offend some overly-sensitive extremists is the real sin, IMO.

I never had a problem with stating out the deities of past actual cultures, because they're just that: past. I don't remember anything in the original Deities and Demigods that covered any actual current religions with modern day worshipers. There's no current Zeus worshipers out there to offend.

Agreed. That there's some tiny segment of people out there who worship Zeus and probably doesn't care if Zeus is recognized by Pathfinder shouldn't be a deterrent to using Zeus as Pathfinder deity. If anything, it would be good publicity for Zeus worshipers since Zeus is basically a bad-ass force for good in the old Deities and Demigods.

I don't advocate making Jesus, Mohammed, or Bhudda into Pathfinder deities, but why not use extinct or near-extinct deities?

If somebody started worshiping Pharasma (which frankly wouldn't surprise me), are we obligated to create a new deity for Pathfinder? Or would that be crossing a line into ridiculous over-sensitivity, not to mention inconsistent with PF's current inclusion of demons, devils, and angelic beings?

Maybe I'm just old school, but using real or literary deities seems more flavorful to me somehow...I also liked that I learned about mythology while playing a game I love. AD&D gave me some basic knowledge about Norse, Greek, American Indian, Babylonian, Indian, and Egyptian mythos. To this day, I can sometime recognize the mythical references of certain historical or religious artifacts because of AD&D.

IMO, the Golarion dieties are just fluff, particularly for casual gaming groups who aren't going to read a bunch of side texts about made-up dieties. My current group couldn't care less about Golarion dieties (they say stuff like "Sarenrae or whatever her name is"), and I don't blame them.

I'd also add that, IMO, the game is more relatable/enjoyable when you add elements of realism that don't interfere with the playability of the game.

Anyone else disappointed by the PF pantheon? I miss the days when D&D pantheon was based on real life or literary mythology...

Sometimes murder and self-defense can overlap. After all... he was STILL a threat. They were going to tie him up and gag him.. then what?

Take him to town? Turn him into the authorities? What happens when the gag comes off and he looks at the Dhamphir and says 'But that's an undead spawn!!!"

To anyone else in the party, the threat was over... to the Dhampir, it was STILL very active.

Now... I would say that the PALADIN would have a MASSIVE issue with this. AND SHOULD!! Especially since he doesn't know the whole story about WHY he killed the guy... and I doubt a paladin would CARE for any excuses!

I see it as kind of a 'What if' random bad guy found out James bond was...

I agree. Just cause a prisoner is bound up and helpless doesn't make a person evil for executing the prisoner. IMO, it's an unlawful act, not an evil act (unless you can somehow the killer is obeying some code or tradition which seems unlikely).

For example, I would allow a chaotic good character kill a helpless goblin on the basis that goblins are an inherently evil/threatening race.

Now, if there was no reasonable cause for killing the victim (i.e. I killed him cause it's fun), then I would characterize that as an evil act.

Ghost Sound is a special case where everyone hearing it does get a Will save to disbelieve, dispite the usual Illusion magic rules, mostly because (unlike a visual illusion) there's no real way to 'interact' with an audio-only illusion beyond hearing it (it's not like you can poke it with your sword...).

That was kindof my impression. Do you have any authority to support this or is this just how you treat it as a GM?

I'm having trouble dealing with ghost sound being used against my PC's...

Okay, example situation: NPC creature engaged in combat with the PC's casts ghost sound to create the sound of reinforcements coming from the door behind the PC's.

Here's the problem:

I notify PC's the creature casted a spell, and then a bunch of sound comes from the door behind the PC's. Won't your players have to be idiots to not know what's up?

Even ignoring that, the spell says "Anyone who hears a ghost sound receives a Will save to disbelieve." So I roll saves for each PC privately. Out of 4 PC's, it's extremely likely at least one will make his or her save. So I tell saving PCs that they recognize the sound is illusory, but that pretty much tells everyone that the sound is illusory...

Doesn't playing this spell as written make it pretty much useless or is it just me?

The way I think I'll play it is to only allow the Will save if someone declares they are attempting to disbelieve the spell. In addition, I'll probably let some time pass between the casting of the spell and telling the PC's about the sounds they hear, but I'm guessing that still won't be enough to throw them off...

How does everyone else play this spell?

1. Attacking an opponent 4 times with a greataxe in 6 seconds

Barely acceptable.

2. Slamming the ground with your weapon, causing a shockwave/ripple that damages opponents in a line

Stupidly unacceptable.

3. Cleaving through and killing 6 armored warriors with one attack

Unacceptable.

4. Taunting your enemy, forcing him to attack you and not your allies

Acceptable.

5. Drawing upon inner strength, regaining lost hit points a few times a day

Unacceptable.

6. Managing to hide from a peasant that's looking at you from 30 ft away with no cover in broad daylight

Unacceptable with no cover.

7. Running across a pool of water, like a small lake

Unacceptable.

8. Jumping 50 feet long after a running start

Unacceptable.

9. Roaring load enough to deafen or stun enemies temporarily

Unacceptable. I might buy stunning as a consequence of intimidation, but not based on sheer volume alone.

10. Slicing the air, creating a vacuum wave that cuts your opponent from a distance

Stupidly unacceptable.

As has already been said, one of the main concerns, at least for me, is bleed through to other products. For example, this month your APG spells got in my Pathfinder. What will it be next month?

Completely agree.

This is the only non-"recommended" archetype I voted for (and I only used 5 of my votes). As has been harped on, there are mechanical flaws, but you've come up with a fun and interesting design here, and that's the bottom line IMO. Personally, I would enjoy refining this archetype.

So, you got my vote on flavor and concept. Good luck.

I just bought and read this adventure. There's a lot of good things to be said about this adventure, all of which have already been said - the encounters and NPC's are flavorful and well-designed (independently speaking)...I imagine players will enjoy this adventure.

However, there are flaws I see right away. As someone already mentioned, there is a serious problem with the layout of the dungeon and encounters...

*SPOILER ALERT*

For instance, there are predatory creatures, like a gelatinous cube inhabiting pathways between kobold tribemembers. There's one part where four ghouls are eating a kobold in one room and there are six kobolds on the other side of the door, seemingly unconcerned about the fact that there are four ghouls who could easily devour them as soon as they open the door.

Someone mentioned a typo with the new "Forge Spurned" (pretty neat new monster btw). I'm not so sure that's a typo - either way, the thing seems too overpowered to me - I don't see a party of four 2nd level characters surviving 40 hp beastie that has two attacks dealing 1d8+6 and 2d4+10+1d6 fire damage (plus special abilities!). I guess I haven't play-tested it, but my instinct says there is no way - the DM would have to engage in party protection and I hate doing that.

Finally, I really dislike one of the new monsters - a sabertooth giant toad/kobold steed. It's just too ridiculous. I can't stomach allowing such silly creatures into my campaign.

As a DM, I would recommend removing some of the encounters - creatures hostile to one another are just too packed-in to make sense. And it's nice to have just an empty room every now and then to let the PC's know that sometimes there is nothing to be encountered or found...this builds up suspense and excitement when they do actually encounter or find something worthwhile. Besides that, the adventure seems too tough for 2nd lvl characters as it is.

I also anticipate adding kobold "markings" of some sort to indicate danger zones for the kobolds. Kobolds are intelligent enough to do this and seems an absolute must for the kobolds' survival. Plus, it would be fun to have the PC's figure out what these markings mean.

Finally, I would replace the laughable sabertooth giant toads with a kobold companion that isn't quite so ridiculous...maybe a regular giant toad, giant lizards, or dire rats (I believe rats were kobold companions in 1E).

With that said, I give the adventure barely 4 stars for it's flavor and well-developed encounter. I'm just disappointed I'll have to do so much tinkering to make this adventure "realistic" for my campaign.