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

Liegence's page

Pathfinder Society Member. 135 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 135 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

5 people marked this as a favorite.

Our entire group has been enjoying Shattered Star, particularly Kaer Maga. Just based on the rumors the Pathfinders knew the Asylum Stone was going to be something unlike anything they had ever seen. From the moment they surfaced after their jaunt through the Halflight Path they absorbed the sights. They were hesitant to pay for a guide at first, but after Gav gave them the speech about how they may be new to they city but they're nothing new to Kaer Maga they were willing to shell coin for the street urchin/philosopher-king's services.

They took in all the sights (most direct from City of Stranger "Seen on a Street Corner") - watching orc slavers haggle, gnome children in kites, the brothel with its very odd, clearly undead, patrons (the priestess of Pharasma was quite taken aback that this was allowed to be), a knife-fight all but ignored in the otherwise beautifully adorned streets of Oriat, etc.

But the one that put them over the edge... The half-orc, himself an orphan, heard while passing through the Warrens of Mother Millie's orphanage. They didn't stop at first, it wasn't until they split up to visit their own places of interest that he returned to the Warrens. He was intrigued by a half-orc matron looking over the cities lost children. After surveying her workhouse, he wasn't as put-off by the "less-than-stellar" conditions - but was actually moved to contribute. After donating 50g to Millie herself, she palmed him a small dog-like figurine with three-eyes in thanks.

Proud of his act of kindness (and with zero ranks in knowledge religion) he returned to the group. As they bantered in the Sorry Excuse about what they saw, he showed off the trinket Mother had passed to him after making his donation. The cleric and the paladin went immediately pale-face.

The only orphanage in sight - indeed, the only place where the group had seen anyone caring for anyone else... And she's a damnable priestess of Lamashtu!

That was the straw that broke the resolve of the Pathfinders - that's when they knew this place was truly an Asylum!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Scott Wilhelm wrote:
Liegence wrote:
Elbedor wrote:

One that has generated a few threads on occasion:

Greater Trip; is the AoO performed before or after the Prone condition is applied?

What's the complication here?

A successful trip knocks your target prone. Greater Trip triggers an AoO on a successful trip - the trip has to be successful to generate the AoO, so because it's successful they have the prone condition. If they didn't have the prone condition as a result, it wouldn't be a successful trip.

Ah, but attacks of opportunity preempt their triggers. When you provoke for moving out of threatened square, for instance, the attack happens before you move out of that square.

If the AoO happened after, then when your victim tries to get up, provoking an AoO, you might them Trip him again, provoking an Attack of Opportunity again!

So, Elbedor, you seem to think that the Greater Trip AoO definitely happens after the victim goes prone, and I think it definitely happens before! Sounds like a rules question.

Moving out of a threatened square preempts the movement because that is how that specific rule is written. That rule does not say "when an opponent successfully moves out of a threatened square" it says that the act of moving provokes the attack (in contrast to an accomplished successful move). Casting a spell (without casting defensively) provokes an AoO, successfully casting a spell does not provoke the AoO - it preempts because it does not assume the casting is yet successful.

Greater Trip, in contrast, states very specifically "whenever you successfully trip an opponent". Hence, the AoO is provoked only when the trip is successful, ergo, the opponent must be prone. Unless you can prove that the rules allow a trip to be successful without incurring the prone condition then the answer must be that the opponent is prone per the rules.


Elbedor wrote:

One that has generated a few threads on occasion:

Greater Trip; is the AoO performed before or after the Prone condition is applied?

What's the complication here?

A successful trip knocks your target prone. Greater Trip triggers an AoO on a successful trip - the trip has to be successful to generate the AoO, so because it's successful they have the prone condition. If they didn't have the prone condition as a result, it wouldn't be a successful trip.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Glad to see I'm not the only person that thinks Fury Road was the best film of 2015.


James Sutter wrote:
Andros Morino wrote:

** spoiler omitted **

I imagine they have plenty of normal laws as well, involving fines, imprisonment, community service, etc. But for what you're talking about, I think we're looking at a lot of knuckles. :)

slight spoiler:
Glad someone mentioned this. We're playing Shattered Star now and reading through that part of the chapter I know there's no way the party Paladin of Abadar is going to be up for a B&E. I'm brainstorming that a certain prodigal family member is rigging the Golem Games in Magnimar using the scenario in the back of the book. The party wants to enter into the games a certain Golem they gained in the prior chapter, setting them up as potential victims and getting them a nemesis before they even get to the Asylum Stone. The anticipated fallout is that Toth's Golemworks associates help the group parley with the Ardoc's for recourse which will get them into the abode with the family's agreement in the name of keeping good trade relations with the Golemworks - don't want to lose access to that sweet sweet Irespan stone after all.

Illusions - learn how to do them well and they're amazing.

Confusion - always one of my favs.

Dictum/Word of Chaos - let's face it, your BBEG is going to be higher level. The Word spells have no saves / partial saves and can be fairly nasty debuffs or nova strikes. I prefer the Law/Chaos axis as you'll typically only impair a select few. Remember it is based on caster level which can be enhanced without a straight level increase. It also sends back non-aligned summoned monsters without a save which helps.

Clouds - stinking cloud / cloudkill are fantastic party hazards that the caster can plan around

Waves of Exhaustion - no save solid debuff. I caution against using this if the party martials are already lagging behind the casters in party performance, but its really effective


No legal way around the healing, but I would recommend using the Variant Channeling in Ultimate Magic. Asmo has the Fire domain, and the Fire variant can get pretty nasty. Just take Selective Channeling and go out and melt face!

Conversion Channel is an option but it only works 1/day and only heals PC's that worship the same diety but it's an option.


+1 advising against the stat array. Way too high - on top of that you're giving them high HP and bonus traits (RotRL prepared before traits even existed so even 1 would be a buff).

Your PC's are going to walk over every challenge unless you continuously devote time to update and revise. Sounds easy and fun, but in time you might find this constant stat revision a bit tedious which could motivate you to hit the reset button down the line as the group matures.

15 or 20 point buy, 2 traits plus an optional with a drawback, and max level hp at first and round-up average at each additional level is more than sufficient for the challenges, especially if they optimize.

It's your game, but you asked for advice and it sounds fairly consistent to me ... You may want to consider it.


Abomination Psychic!


To be honest man, every time you talk about stats and character options they sound over the top. ~85 stealth, +40 diplomacy, +18 initiative. Are you sure he's not trying to adjust the power level to make some encounters actually difficult for you?

Look here's the straight on AP's - they're barely a challenge for non-optimized core groups. If you max optimize or twink-build characters then the AP will be no challenge. Is that what you want? It's not easy for a GM to constantly go through and legitimately buff each encounter fairly to amend to your groups power level - most will just wing it with template-like adjustments. Examples could be adding fire immunity to one creature and pounce to another.

If you are going to bring power builds, a GM has to adapt. That's his job. No challenge is no fun. If there's no challenge, no threat, no climax... Well maybe you should just ask him to read the narratives and skip combat if that's the case. Sounds boring to me.

Are you guys potentially dying or coming close to dying occasionally (no your familiar doesn't count - what 200gp to replace no big deal)? Threatening TPK's? Close calls? That's what you want - on the edge of your seat begging the dice gods to save you with a clutch save or godsent Crit to just make it by... Or maybe slightly easier if you can't stand that kind of pressure.

But letting a group just mow through unchallenged? A good GM has an obligation to prevent that for everyone's enjoyment.


I also disagree with the level requirement.

My question is: do you really believe this is the BEST class combination to ROFL-stomp AP's? That's the best you can do?


DominusMegadeus wrote:
Liegence wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
Liegence wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
Liegence wrote:
And 4 wizards, really? You'll need to be very lucky to finish even the first chapter, or you'll have to rely on a weak/forgiving GM. Even god Wizards need front liners - what are you gonna do staff strike everything to death?
Simple, you bring a Paladin in crab form.
Like I said, you'll need a weak GM to make it work. A real GM isn't going to let that bs walk over him - not with monsters that use actual tactics.
...I'm not entirely sure what you mean? A Mauler familiar with grab on its natural attacks and divine caster saves is works just as well for a frontline as a Fighter would.
Sure it does - you need to re-read those entries. You way overestimate the benefit you'll get. You do realize Spirit Bonded familiars don't give actual class levels, right? And Mauler doesn't give anything till level three.

I think you don't realize the benefits. Full BAB, Good Fort and Will, Familiars get Improved Evasion for free. Level 3 turns medium. Can be the target of Enlarge Person and Bull's Strength, stacking with the +2 from Battle Form. Size increases on natural attacks plus grab. This just gets crazier as you go up in level and get even more incredible Transmutation spells for Your Full-BAB better-saves-than-a-Fighter Familiar.

One Wizard has given up his bonus feats for this guy. There are still 3 other casters and, at low levels, they can easily just be built for battle. By the point they stop being an acceptable frontliner, their familiar will be far enough along to take their place, and they turn into a regular old caster who relies on the saveless/buffing spells. I wouldn't be surprised if all four of them gave their familiar for this. A cabal of Crabadins out to save the world.

And each with half the hp of the wizard rounded down... So about 4-5 hp each at level one, maybe 9 by level two? And "shelling" out 200-800 gp per encounter to replace your frontline? How is this ROFL-stomping? Read the thread title again you can do better right? 4 Druids with Big Cats would be way better


Arachnofiend wrote:
Liegence wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
Liegence wrote:
And 4 wizards, really? You'll need to be very lucky to finish even the first chapter, or you'll have to rely on a weak/forgiving GM. Even god Wizards need front liners - what are you gonna do staff strike everything to death?
Simple, you bring a Paladin in crab form.
Like I said, you'll need a weak GM to make it work. A real GM isn't going to let that bs walk over him - not with monsters that use actual tactics.
...I'm not entirely sure what you mean? A Mauler familiar with grab on its natural attacks and divine caster saves is works just as well for a frontline as a Fighter would.

Sure it does - you need to re-read those entries. You way overestimate the benefit you'll get. You do realize Spirit Bonded familiars don't give actual class levels, right? And Mauler doesn't give anything till level three.


Arachnofiend wrote:
Liegence wrote:
And 4 wizards, really? You'll need to be very lucky to finish even the first chapter, or you'll have to rely on a weak/forgiving GM. Even god Wizards need front liners - what are you gonna do staff strike everything to death?
Simple, you bring a Paladin in crab form.

Like I said, you'll need a weak GM to make it work. A real GM isn't going to let that bs walk over him - not with monsters that use actual tactics.


Sure, by making sub-optimal Wizards you could shore up the lack of weapon-based offense for as many encounters as you can muster the spells. So then you're resting every other encounter and gimping your power development. That's hardly the ROFL-stomping the OP is requesting builds for...

And that goes beyond the obvious Shaman is not a Wizard / Arcanist is not a Wizard. Mixing spell casters could easily work. Summoner and Bloodrager are both great options.

Four Summoners = viable

Four Wizards = sub-optimal, especially at low levels. Might not even finish chapter 1.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If you're not slotting a Paladin I'd say your group is sub-optimal. Class is way too strong in AP's at all levels to not deserve at least one slot.

And 4 wizards, really? You'll need to be very lucky to finish even the first chapter, or you'll have to rely on a weak/forgiving GM. Even god Wizards need front liners - what are you gonna do staff strike everything to death?


First encounters mooks (plural) - show 'em I'm not messing around ;)


For me, the interesting aspect of the Luonim encounter is the centrifuge and that you have to take him alive. And the interesting thing about the Maligast encounter is the conversation leading into the sudden threat, and then the surprise when he dies and you find he's just a simulacrum.

Also, clearly this is not a boss fight. Nor is Maligast. I'm not sure what there is to be upset about - you've basically got a hard counter PC with an unusually high CMB. 4 encounters out of the adventure isn't disrupting at all.


New characters come in at same level with base gear for their level per the Core. Assuming they are Pathfinders, their gear is returned to the order to be appropriated per the dead PC's will or wishes - returned to their family, their order or clergy of their choice. This helps keep gear within balance limits and is especially useful when running AP's where the introductions of more than a few new PCs could really skew the party treasure.


Amazingly enough, the boss encounter you're theorizing reminds me a great deal of the final boss in the mega adventure in Dungeon #101 which is one of my favorite boss battles published in Dungeon. Check it out!


In most cases #1 makes the most sense, but since I don't know the PC type we're working with here I can't be 100% sure. What are your options for obtaining fortification through other means? The SR scales but can the DR? What's your role?

I typically do not recommend PC's seek out SR because it rarely is affordable at a level that actually benefits, and it possibly causes problems since you actively have to lower it to receive beneficial spells.

If the DR scales and you're looking to tank it could be a reasonable alternative. You can protect yourself from crits through other means such as a jingasa of the fortunate soldier or fortification armor.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
N. Jolly wrote:
Liegence wrote:

Yes, the language is strong but I firmly believe the ultimate resolution falls to the GM if its his home-brewed campaign. The weight of the GM's authority is often backed by how much time he has invested in the plots and themes of his campaign, and if he doesn't want to risk it on trying to fit guns into a low fantasy games, or making a svirfneblin work in a land where a single regular gnome would be a mystical rarity, then I think a firm no and tabled discussion probably moves the group closer to starting off on an entertaining journey.

But as to your example, if I said no and the player said "what about a regular Gnome Bolt Ace"? I would probably just respond sure as simply as the prior concept was denied.

I can agree that final adjudication should fall to the GM, but as stated before, it's a cooperative game. Finding a middle ground is best for everyone, and in that respect, I think a GM should lay out what they don't want in a game.

For example; no summoners, races made using the race builder, guns.

This is just an example, but if a PC came to me wanting to make something banned on that list, I'd find out if there was anything that could possibly work for their concept. Maybe a conjuration focused mage, a race that had comparable racials, or bolt ace. As an aside, bolt ace is better than EVERY gunslinger archetype, it's not even funny.

I have no problems with offering acceptable alternatives. I also have no issues with providing limiting guidelines such as "only core pathfinder books + ultimate guides, but no guns and no uncommon races" - a GM should do that; a set ban list is probably too much as every GM cannot expect to have a listing of all acceptable/not-acceptable character options (there's just too many and no certainty you know them all). I think we're on the same page, I'm just not going into the minutiae of the details of the following table banters. Saying "you could instead play a core rulebook gnome with the bolt ace archetype" is effectively the same as saying no you can't play a svirfneblin gunslinger.

What I am not ok with is the player demanding or feeling entitled to an extended debate as to why he can't play the proposed concept with a requirement that the GM provide supporting evidence for his decision to ban the concept. It delays the game and creates table disorder.


N. Jolly wrote:
Liegence wrote:

Not entirely sure what you're saying, but policing concepts strikes me as a fairly essential skill for a GM.

Under house rules, if I as a GM take exception to your Svirfneblin Gunslinger that's not an invitation to debate it's viability, or thematic appropriateness - it means write-up up something else, please. No further discussion necessary. Don't like it? Find another table.

I find this second statement needlessly stifling. It sounds like you're not willing to communicate with your players, where this could be a chance to work with them to help reaching a design goal that you both are satisfied with. Don't like GS due to guns? Offer bolt ace. Really a GM should lay out a ban list of things ahead of time, but if a player wants to play something banned, a GM should try to work with them to help reach a compromise with their concept either thematically or mechanically.

Yes, the language is strong but I firmly believe the ultimate resolution falls to the GM if its his home-brewed campaign. The weight of the GM's authority is often backed by how much time he has invested in the plots and themes of his campaign, and if he doesn't want to risk it on trying to fit guns into a low fantasy games, or making a svirfneblin work in a land where a single regular gnome would be a mystical rarity, then I think a firm no and tabled discussion probably moves the group closer to starting off on an entertaining journey.

But as to your example, if I said no and the player said "what about a regular Gnome Bolt Ace"? I would probably just respond sure as simply as the prior concept was denied.


Not necessary. Want to sacrifice HP for more power elsewhere? Dump your CON and spend it on Int/Wis/Dex or whatever. Or change your race to elf.


Not entirely sure what you're saying, but policing concepts strikes me as a fairly essential skill for a GM.

Under house rules, if I as a GM take exception to your Svirfneblin Gunslinger that's not an invitation to debate it's viability, or thematic appropriateness - it means write-up up something else, please. No further discussion necessary. Don't like it? Find another table.

Under PFS the rules are developed and administered by Paizo. Either your concept follows the mechanical rules or it doesn't. PFS characters can't be evil so "evil" concepts aren't allowed which clears up alot of uncomfortable thematic issues with character concepts.


Beowulf killed Grendel with his bare hands. Grendel is in pathfinder as a CR 19/MR 7.

Beowulf -
High level? Undoubtedly, very high level. And Mythic (must be to break the epic DR)

Spellcaster? Nope.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Here's some legacy information that may be clouding the issue:

In 3.5, the Grease spell specifically stated the following:
"those that remain in the area must each make a new saving throw every round to avoid falling and to be able to move"

If you played 3.5 before Pathfinder, you are likely convinced that starting your turn in an area of grease requires some kind of check in order to move because that's how it has been played in the past.

I'm ambivalent to the current interpretation as I can see it both ways. As a GM I would rule to the benefit of the players if this became an issue during game, but hold to the common interpretation. Honestly our current group is old-school players and we've always stuck to the 3.5 tradition of requiring a check to move out of grease if you begin your turn in grease without ever debating the revised language.

I think the rule is not very clearly stated. If the devs intended you to be able to 5' step out of grease, I think a better narrative would be to simply state the 10' area creates difficult terrain (instead of saying moving in greased tiles halves movement), and additionally moving into a greased tile requires the acro check.

However, IMHO, there is nothing in the Pathfinder grease spell's wording that suggests an Acro check is required to move out of a grease spell, so I am inclined to conclude the 5' step out is ok.


Agree with OP and a few others - Oracle seems like a fine choice. The class excels at a specialization of your choosing. 4 single class Oracles could work exceptionally well without requiring the group to use broken builds or abuse rules.

For Core classes, Druid probably wins. Your animal companions can hold the line and Druids have a nice diversity of spells. That's something above and beyond what you'll get from just Clerics.


I think this is one of those cases where a class option is clearly overpowered compared to other similar class options (whether this class or another). It's pretty clearly, in general, the strongest Hex in the pool (even considerably stronger than some greater Hexes) but can you also imagine how great a 30' standard SoS with infinite uses against an equal number of targets would be as a rogue talent, monk ki power, or rage power, etc?

There aren't many comparable options because this one is, IMHO, out of balance.

Also - just an FYI - this is really an outlier in the full caster disparity argument. To wit - a Hexcrafter Magus can take this as on option at level 4.

I personally don't take this as a witch because I find its power disruptive to the flow of the game. I've had players take it as an option but after a few encounters where the power was clearly unfair for the challenge-level we talked it out player to GM and decided we would keep it toned down (mainly, we negotiated it down to not work on outsiders which were primary antagonists).


Nope.


To answer the OP's question, from a party makeup I can say from actual experience that you do not need a caster capable of 7-9 level spells.

From a world building perspective, most AP's at some point will assume powerful magics (i.e., 7th-9th level) were used in creating something in a dungeon, whether it be traps, denizens, or other divine/arcane features. If not a full caster, then deific intervention or powerful outsider.

But back to the basic question, to rise to the challenges of an AP a party does not need a full caster.


Duiker wrote:
Eliandra Giltessan wrote:
Godsmouth Heresy starts at level 1 and includes lots of plot hooks for a GM to build on. Plus, Kaer Maga!
Godsmouth is definitely a good one, but the OP wanted something around level three or four, which it wouldn't work too well for.

If he's up for adapting it's a great place to start in a really cool City that is very well fleshed out. He could also move right into City of Stranger I/II (PFS Modules).

There's tons to do in Kaer Maga.

Actually, one of my biggest issues with Godsmouth Heresy is that Kaer Maga doesn't "feel" like a level 1 city. The average street thug could take you down easy, and everyone's got nasty friends - gangs are everywhere. It's a dangerous, tough place to survive. But if that's what his group is up for that's a good module.

I started a campaign on Master of the Fallen Fortress as Mark suggested. Great module, and free, also easily adaptable. Unfortunately I don't actually have alot of experience with level 4 modules - usually by then I'm off and running.

Good luck!


Humbly accepting the OP's parameters without arguing whether or not a disparity exists, here are my thoughts:

First, for reference you can try the originally mentioned methods:
1) E6/E8 game
2) Buff martials either with inherent abilities, mythic powers, or magic items to bring them to "par"
3) Ensure you have enough scenarios in your adventures where martial or skill characters can shine

Here are some further recommendations

1) Spell restrictions - limit the problematic spells. When the character levels, limit the spells they can pick by school to a set few core spells that match the power level of the game you are running

2) Class restrictions - if 9 level casters are causing problems then ban 9 level casters. The Occultist, for example, could be the alternative for the Wizard.

3) Stat restrictions - draw a line between the classes that create disparity and classes that suffer under the disparity and limit problematic classes to 15 point buy or increase stats for classes that underperform. Limiting casting stats greatly impacts their ability to perform.

4) Review your approach to encounters and consider the following:
A) Are you running your creatures appropriate to their intelligence/skills/knowledges? If disparity classes are overpowering in your world, than Intelligent creatures should be targeting them, preparing themselves against their unfair tactics, and using their own cunning tactics to bring them down first
B) Are you running an average of 4 encounters a day? Many of the disparity classes require fuel that sputters over more and longer encounters
C) Are you using Wandering Monsters and ambush encounters to endanger groups that try and rest too often to reduce the impact of B. Remember skills such as survival (track), stealth, perception etc as well as abilities like See Invis, Detect Magic, Scrying, etc. on your Wandering Monsters.
D) Monsters can and should flee when endangered, and intelligent monsters that get away will warn others and build defenses based on their knowledge of the group. Use that to formulate intelligent defenses (again, appropriate to the creatures).

5) Grant key enemies "Villain" points they can use similar to how Hero Points are used. They can be spent on extra actions, buffs to saves, gain insight (equivalent to GM hint, they gain preternatural instincts to overcome "unfair" advantages of disparity classes) or spend 2 points to outright survive encounters. This is easy to justify if your players want to play a Hero Point system.

*** As a side note, not to argue, but generally the Hero Point system favors martials as "disparity" classes tend to use unfair mechanics or anti-climactic strategies while Martials shine at doing acrobatics, gambits while otherwise putting themselves directly in harms way. Thus, they gain more and likely benefit more (HP cannot cast two spells per round, for example, while a HP can be spent by a martial to move granting him a full attack when not otherwise allowable).

6) The "Common Sense" approach - talk with your group about overpowered tactics and discourage them for the sake of game balance and entertainment.

7) What's fair is fair - if your group uses an unfair tactic, use them against them. Or come up with your own unfair tactics. You are the GM. The players have limited ability to scale their power, you do not

8) Use enemy rogues. Rogues counter most disparity classes because of their excellent skills, burst damage and ability to disarm magical impediments. Appropriate level rogues have the tools to disrupt disparity classes, and have features that allow them to bypass almost any magical defense. They also tend to be perceptive, stealthy, patient, crafty and very deadly when they reach their target.

Just some thoughts. If you have this problem, I hope some of the above help you in overcoming this obstacle.

As expressed multiple times in this thread, many GM's don't have this issue. You too can achieve that game balance as a GM; it can be done, I can attest to that!

Now... Paladins... :(

:) :) :)


Athaleon wrote:
Liegence wrote:
Everyone talks about it but truthfully in practice I've rarely seen this problem...

Anecdote.

Quote:
More likely I'm dealing with Paladin disparity, where the Paladin pops Smite Evil and wrecks what could have otherwise been an epic encounter.
Martials are good at combat; that's not the issue.

Not merely an anecdote, but another of a common opinion expressed throughout the thread: it's not a disparity, it's just differences. There are plenty of voices opining the same.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Everyone talks about it but truthfully in practice I've rarely seen this problem...

More likely I'm dealing with Paladin disparity, where the Paladin pops Smite Evil and wrecks what could have otherwise been an epic encounter.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Sure, try 5E.

But here's the thing...

If this player enjoys min/maxing and scouring bloat for the prime options, chances are 5E may not appeal to him as it tends to reign in power level by limiting mechanical design choices in favor of a more balanced approach where combat power is more generic.

If he just wants to play an OP character Pathfinder is more of an enabler in that regard.

I will also say that depending on the maturity level of your players this becomes more/less of an issue. We prefer the Pathfinder system because of the wide range of options in a system we've grown to know and love (3.5 OGL). In 5E, to get that variety of options I'm basically forced to flavor text it. But my gaming group does an excellent job of policing their own power levels, and in our games everyone finds their time to shine.


Awesome. We had talked about switching the campaign into shattered star and the group sounded interested. Never tried running an AP before. It's nice that we've built a natural lead-in


I'm assuming the adventure path covers making the exploration legal? We noted the Magnimar guide says it's illegal to access the piling and the group has a paladin. Thankfully he's of Abadar which should make getting permission easier but if it's written in the adventure even better.


Simple question: players want to investigate the pillars of the Irespan in Magnimar. I -think- this is part of Shattered Star adventure path but I am not sure. Are there any premade Pillar dungeons in scenarios and/or published adventures to date?

Btw, this is for a game we as a gaming group have well established as a module-based "campaign" so that's why I am asking for published material. I'm looking for something I can pick up, read, slightly adjust and run with. Thanks!


This system seems to make Vital Strike OP. Vital Strike triggers on an attack action, which in this system is specifically a 1 act.

Then again, is that really a bad thing?


*rubs hands together, cackling maniacally before the opened pages of the new unchained diseases and poisons*


They come relevant at very high levels, but some of them are quite good. Stealth 15 is crazy for rogues. Intimidate is pretty nuts as well.


Based on what the OP has said, then no this is not ok. There are circumstances where it is ok to bail. Ex: I have a priest of Pharasma and the quest is specifically to go tomb raiding. But "go underground" is hardly an unreasonable plot hook. Nor do I think the DM misrepresented or failed communicating efficiently as some people here suggest. It's nice when starting a campaign if the GM suggests appropriate builds, but what GM has to warn his players "oh yeah hey in this game you guys might have to go underground!" That's ridiculous. I can't recall the last time I played a character that didn't go underground. I never ever have felt as a GM that players need to be sufficiently warned at character creation that they may have to go underground. If I did say that, I can only imagine the "well duh" looks I would get.

In short no it is not ok. I feel bad for your GM if he spent time developing that plot hook. You basically had the party say "we're not into challenge and adventure, please keep it in the comfort zone or we bail". You may think that's ok b/c you're new, but in my mind it's just the wrong attitude.


The feat Twist Away paired with a Ring of Ferocious Action is going to be staple to overcome bad fort saves. The rank 15 stealth skill is now incredibly amazing. Getting access to Vanish on other form of Invis could be huge. We also now have a class where 2-wep fighting is viable.


Starting a new Pathfinder game and one player wishes to be a Cleric of Pharasma. Within the scope of the lore, help us come up with good reasons why a Cleric of Pharasma would leave the clergy to become a Pathfinder? Could she have received a vision? A calling? Does the clergy feel it appropriate to commit clerics to the pathfinders as a reciprocal service?


Hey Harry Dresden is a badass. He just has tons of hit points due to a high CON score


There are plenty of pathfinder based (and other 3.5 rpg worlds) novels out there and while I havent read them all I'm pretty sure none of them go through a constant CLW wand narrative after each dramatic combat. They wouldn't. Because it's a lame narrative.


Thank you all for the comments! I value your input and appreciate the responses.

My primary motivation is probably best classed as "realism". Maybe that's not the best description, but I really dislike the idea of "wanding" everyone back to full after every fight. It just seems lame. I can't think of any successful fantasy story (movie, book, comic) with this kind of dynamic. Heroes fight through their pains and conditions. I would even doubt there's a single pathfinder or other novel out there where a CLW is utilized even a .1% of the time it gets cranked in your typical pathfinder game.

I do, however, consider slowing down the game to be a huge detriment. Do you believe pathfinder modules and scenarios are really written with the assumption that PCs are going to heal to full after every fight using virtually limitless resources? I would think they largely assume PC's are not spamming wands after each fight, and that hp loss is suffered and heal spells are coming from spells/day from characters.

As for time as a motivator, I love and use this as a DM all the time (ha!). But for a while I will be running straight from modules and cannot always rely on this as part of the story. Also, over using this is also a concern. Always pushing for minute-by-minute demands is taxing.


Ah, the ole Wand of CLW. This has been a party staple for years, but it's gotten way beyond old for my tastes. Do you think it is unfair and overpowered? I'm thinking of starting a new campaign and I am really debating limiting this item. The problem is it is so well established (and PFS legal) and I don't want to play a low magic game. My proposed home rule is just to say all wands are minimum CL 5 (the base CL for getting craft wands). That will at a minimum keep things interesting through the first few levels, and should somewhat stymie the normally outrageous healing per gp that this wand provides.

How would you react to this rule?


You have more than enough damage to handle any published module appropriate for lv 14. With a wand of cure light and lesser restoration you could probably solo a few of them if you're lucky enough to not botch a crucial save. To be challenged your GM is going to have to custom craft high difficulty encounters. Your lvl suggests this isn't PFS, so whether you have enough is really up to how high your GM cranks it. I'd suggest he puts 2d4 Cthulhu's on the wandering monster table.

1 to 50 of 135 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

©2002–2016 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.