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

MendedWall12's page

1,584 posts. Alias of Hoary and Wizened.


RSS

1 to 50 of 1,584 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Broken Prince wrote:
I mean yay, but if the rules were followed to the letter a lot of that simply should not have worked - silent image certainly cannot replicate a goblin army.

I'm going to "third" this. Some of the things that happened there went well outside of the RAW adjudication. The crafting and illusion are the two most prominent examples. I'm also going to point at the rogue's climb check. That's a STR based check, and if I were GMing I'd be setting the DC at a minimum 25, for "A rough surface, such as a natural rock wall or a brick wall." Each set of the rogue's movement speed up the outside wall requires a separate check, and if he fails he's then taking some damage, or making an insane (45) DC check to catch himself. That right there would have given a lot of players pause to think.

Kudos to the players for ingenuity. I love to award thinking like that as a GM, but I also make sure everything they're thinking of fits mechanically within the rules.

Edit: Just noticed you said the rogue had a climb speed... which discounts all my above problem. Still, the crafting and illusions needed some adjudication adjustments.


Claxon wrote:
He's asking about Conflict RPG book, which is a 3rd party book that supports PVP for Pathfinder. He had another thread asking other questions about Conflict. This thread is also in the wrong location.

Ahh gotcha.


Page 60 of which book? Page 60 of my core rulebook covers the end of monks and the beginning of Paladins... You might want to be a bit more specific when asking a question like this.


I put them in plastic sleeves inside a three ring binder numbered/alphabetically just like the list on the back of the box. I have the numbered/alphabetical list inside the front cover and the inside pockets of the three ring binder. I used the sleeves they sell that fit hobby cards like baseball or MTG cards. For the Huge size pawns I actually used sleeves designed for photos, not sure the size, and I don't have it here with me, maybe 5x7, whatever it is it fits two huge size pawns right next to each other (with a bit of squeezing), and has two pockets per sleeve, so I get four pawns per sleeve. I just have the bestiary box set and it takes up two three ring binders, again not sure the size, but they're pretty big, 2 or 3". This system, while time consuming to set up, is absolutely ideal because I know exactly where every pawn is, and they are easily accessible. Of course it also takes up quite a bit of space in my bag, but I went to using a portable luggage cart a long time ago, because I have a huge tackle box full of all my prepainted plastic minis. :)

Edit: Forgot to mention that the bases all fit into the tackle box where my minis get stored.


d20pfsrd.com--Alignment Descriptions wrote:

Chaotic Neutral

A chaotic neutral character follows his whims. He is an individualist first and last. He values his own liberty but doesn't strive to protect others' freedom. He avoids authority, resents restrictions, and challenges traditions. A chaotic neutral character does not intentionally disrupt organizations as part of a campaign of anarchy. To do so, he would have to be motivated either by good (and a desire to liberate others) or evil (and a desire to make those others suffer). a chaotic neutral character may be unpredictable, but his behavior is not totally random. He is not as likely to jump off a bridge as he is to cross it.

Chaotic neutral represents freedom from both society's restrictions and a do-gooder's zeal.

For me it is always this one. It provides the freedom for my characters to do whatever they d@mn well please, without regard to anyone's rules or laws. If one moment I feel like rescuing the damsel in distress, and the next moment I actually shoot her myself, it doesn't matter. That kind of ethical freedom is liberating to be able to play with, and also, much as yourself Burma, not something I would ever be okay with IRL.


Suthainn wrote:
Conman the Bardbarian wrote:
Give the hand an unlife of its own.

Something like this, maybe along the lines of the Blackened curse? -4 to attacks that use the hand but the ability to cast some extra spells or such.

And if he can't stand it well then, as others have already linked...

"It got into my hand and it went bad, so I lopped it off at the wrist."

Exactly this. Give the character a free level in the Oracle class, and the Blackened curse. Even though he only stuck one hand in the effects could easily spread across his body to the other arm/hand. The very description of the Oracle class says: "These divine vessels are granted power without their choice, selected by providence to wield powers that even they do not fully understand." It doesn't get any better than that. The character gets a free second level when they might not have normally, (which comes with the benefit of new powers), but gains the deficiency of the Blackened curse, AND it becomes a great story element. Even though the character will try to do good, his actions will somehow betray him, and evil will result. Plus it is a killer story hook. The character could spend a lengthy part of his campaign life searching for a way to remove the taint of Orcus. It creates limitless potential for story awesomeness.


Thread necromancy, I know, but this episode of the dungeon bastard sums up my exact feelings about point buy versus dice rolls for stats.


I have the basics in my head for a halfling rogue (trapsmith archetype) I've been looking to play somewhere.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Are wrote:

The rules for designing a trap are actually rather simple: Just decide what you want the trap to do.

Then, once you're done, you can determine the CR of said newly-designed trap by using the CR-modifier tables. Since you can now ignore everything that's not applicable to your trap, the process becomes much easier than if you were to start with the table.

Of course, if the final result is a CR that's too high or too low compared to what you wanted, you can then check the table again to see which parts of the trap you can modify to reach the desired result.

This, right here, is why I failed my intelligence check. I spent so much time trying to figure out how to build a trap from the ground up, I never even considered starting with the end product and working backwards. There are now two things I must say: Thank you to Are and DM Under the Bridge for pointing out my idiocy, and: I'm an idiot!


I've found it!!! Whilst perusing the web for other digital resources the other day I was directed to check out this: Mathemagician.net. The town generator on this site does almost everything I was asking for above. Simply name the town, pick what size it is, plug in some population percentage numbers, and click submit. The output is entirely clickable. It lists all the shops in town by name, and each shop is clickable for notable NPCs. It lists all the town NPCs by name class and level, and even gives brief descriptions of their disposition or key character traits. This is the gold star winner. Combining this with any of the random city generators previously listed gives you a fully fleshed out town in mere minutes. Thank you Justin Dunmyre!!!!!


DM Under The Bridge wrote:

You let paizo's trap rules tell you how to make traps?

The traps were inside you all along. Come, let me show you the world.

linkified

While I appreciate the resource, and will more than likely use it. I didn't come here looking for a book full of other people's traps. I was really looking more for a dumbed-down guide to designing them using the given rules (which when I try to read them feel like they were originally written in Chinese, then translated into French, and then translated into English, but like I said, I failed my INT check). My sincere thanks for the resource, but I'm still really hoping somebody has either an alternate system for trap design that isn't so convoluted, or has taken the time to dumb down the existing rules so I can make sense of them. :)


Oenar, the Winter, those are great suggestions! I really appreciate the practical advice. I'm going to definitely be using your suggestions as I re-imagine the scenario.


Do you by chance still have that cheat sheet? I'd be interested to take a look at it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Does anyone else find the trap rules horribly difficult to wade through and apply to actual trap design? The last time I read through them and tried to design a simple mechanical trap I had flashbacks of high school trigonometry and my complete ineptitude to not only understand the words coming out of my teacher's mouth, but to discern any practical application thereof. Is there a guide somewhere, or a 3PP book that dumbs down the language or makes the formulas for CR determination actually make sense? Sort of a Trap Designing for Dummies book? If there isn't, to all 3PP out there, I would pay handsomely for such a book. Also, just so we're clear, I don't want a book full of traps someone else designed. I want a book that actually makes it easier for me to design traps and know that they are mechanically balanced to work within the Pathfinder system.

Thanks for listening.


That was entirely eloquent, and well argued. Henceforth I shall neither play rogues or fighters. Fighter/rogues though, are still open for discussion. :)


The only silly question is a question never asked.


You can control click or shift click in both the party and monster panes of the UI. If you shift click the whole party and then right-click and select Roll>Skill>Perception. Combat Manager will roll a perception check for the entire party taking into account their personal bonuses or penalties.


I've never found liches to be average or predictable. :P :)


Don't get me wrong thejeff, I certainly can conceive of a time when a group of adventurers might absolutely need to just take a 24 hour respite, to recoup and gather their strength. I've just always had players that felt like not moving "forward" in some fashion was akin to moving backwards.

I also get that the arbitrary timeline feels, often, like GM reprisal for whatever they consider bad form, or a railroad. The damsel in distress does seem to be a bit of a railroad-ish situation, used to create a false sense of immediacy.

Honestly, there are a couple of things about that particular module that I didn't like, and the damsel in distress was one of them. Which is why when I ran my players through it, I used her as a body-shield/negotiating piece. The BBEG had her tied up (helpless) with sword at throat, and as soon as the PCs entered his sight, he proclaimed his intention to kill her if they didn't throw down their arms.

For whatever reason, be it pure happenstance, or maybe something I set up completely unawares through my own style of play, every group I've ever GMed for has taken to resting at what they feel is an appropriate time of day. Not when they needed to heal wounds, or get back daily uses of magic or abilities.


@necronus

Just so we're clear, I said I always give them a way to beat a hasty retreat. I did not say I always make them use it. I try to use the "hasty exit" only often enough that it prevents the players from thinking the outcome of every big fight is eventually their death or the bad-guy's.

I also sometimes have the "boss" surrender and ask to be taken to justice, instead of outright killed.

Also, much like Orfamay, I hate the one monster/NPC final encounter, and have never used it. Many people have mentioned that as a flaw. I see it that way too.

I guess for my own personal campaigns, all my "boss" type fights end up being with recurring NPCs and their minions. Sometimes the PCs win, sometimes they retreat, sometimes the NPC runs away, sometimes they surrender, and sometimes, just sometimes, they get turned into a sticky puddle of plasma on the dungeon floor.

I try to play every encounter, no matter the situation, with a fair amount of thought to what a character or monster would actually do in that situation, not just have them fight a losing battle until they die. Every creature has a survival instinct, and particularly powerful creatures tend to have plenty of significant reasons to live.


thejeff wrote:
I think you were resting too much, so I'm going to punish you by killing the girl.

I don't see that as a punishment. I see it as a realistic imagination of what the bad-guy in the dungeon might do to draw the PCs into his clutches. Sometimes innocent people die. There's nothing inherently wrong with that. It's part of a dynamic and realistic world filled with evil. Her dying isn't going to have any adverse effect on the PCs.

As to leveling in the dungeon, the module is designed for that to happen, but whether or not that actually happens depends on a couple of factors. How man PCs are there (if it's too many then every encounter's worth of XP might not be enough for them to level)? Do they actually find and overcome every challenge?

In the case where I ran it, the PCs didn't level because they skipped a whole section of the lower level.

As to the necessity of a 24 hour rest, I'd be inclined to disagree. Depending on the time of day that the PCs actually enter the crypt, it might be night time after only a handful of encounters (depending on take 20s and how often/much the PCs parley with each other, and any NPCs). In which case they'd be ready to rest. This is exactly what happened when I ran this module. The PCs arrived at the dungeon in the late afternoon, and spent the rest of the afternoon/evening clearing the top level, including rescuing aforementioned NPC, and moving him to a safe location. They then decided that moving into the lower level fatigued would not be conducive to rescuing anybody. The group I ran through this module actually debated whether or not to continue on, because they wanted to save the girl.

I can honestly say that I've never had a group of adventurers sit around for 24 hours in a dungeon or wilderness waiting to get their spells back. Part of the reason for this might just be the fact that I've dropped too many "random" encounters on them in the middle of the night. If PCs are in need of a rest that badly, they'll travel back to the nearest town. Which of course means travel time ticks off the clock.

I think the OP is looking specifically for those ways other GMs have used to create a world where 24 hour resting and the 15 minute adventuring day are avoided. There are plenty of ways to do that. One of them is through in game means, which is why I gave the suggestions I did.

I do agree though that the element of suspense is a very tricky element to sustain. For this particular module, I think the captured girl is really just a hook to make sure the PCs don't take the first NPC they encounter back to town and tell the local authorities that something really evil has awoken in the crypt. Which is a perfectly viable option, and actually one that the group I ran through it considered also.


I hear Orfamay, and have found some disillusionment with them over the years. One of the things I've tried to do with my boss fights, as a result, is always give the boss a way to beat a hasty retreat. This way the "bosses" become recurring NPCs that taunt the PCs from a distance, and spend their time figuring ways to specifically thwart the PCs. This has always been a source of great tension at the table, because when the PCs know that a powerful character is out in the world actively hating them, and plotting to kill them, they are very cautious, about everything. They literally distrust every NPC they run into, because they worry that they might be working for "the boss that got away." I also, many times, have the escaped bosses send the PCs messages through legitimate couriers. Of course all of these messages are written with explosive runes. Mwa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!


That module is an interesting one. When I ran a group of veteran RPGers through it, they swept through the top level of the dungeon in one in-game day, rested in the gateway with the NPC that was worried about his sister, and then headed immediately to the lower level and the end chamber (after having made some knowledge checks about the layout). Unfortunately the ease with which they handled the upstairs level made them overconfident and they ended up making some seriously poor tactical decisions and got TPK'd by the end boss and his minions.

I'll echo Bacon666 too. Casters need a full 24 hours before they get their spells back. So if they are taking on one or two rooms, which in game takes maybe a couple of minutes, then camping/resting, they aren't spending enough time to get spells back. They'd need to rest for a full 24 hours, and NO adventurer is going to sit around a campfire for 24 hours shooting the breeze waiting to get their spells back.

Like many others have said, new players many times bring a video game mentality to the tabletop. There's nothing wrong with that, it can be a great way to bring players to the game, but they'll need to learn the difference between the two systems. Lot's of great suggestions up thread, so I won't reiterate. If I were the GM I'd have the end boss kill the girl at the bottom of the stairs to the upper level so her screams echo throughout the whole dungeon. Then I'd have him raise her as a zombie to fight against the PCs when they finally make their way down to the final chamber.

I'd also have...

Spoiler:
Kassen the ghost express his great disappointment with their lack of urgency and allowing the girl to die. Subsequently I would NOT have him give the PCs the treasure that is listed to be given by him.

Remember, as a new GM with new players you are all learning the system, and your chief job is to make sure they are having fun. You can be a good tutor of the game, without being overtly harsh.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

@Orfamay Quest

No, yeah, I completely get it. I actually wholesale changed those three entries top to bottom (as well as made significant changes in just about every other section). I guess what I meant was that there are principles behind the tenets of the contract that most gaming groups already adhere to. Most of them probably adhere to them, though, because they're mature adults, not because they need a written document to guide all their social behavior. Sometimes, though, when you aren't playing with mature adults, a written set of expectations can be a helpful tool to spark discussion. Like I said, I personally wouldn't craft something with such draconian inflexibility, but if it works, it works.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Tone...

I realized after I made my changes to the original document (thanks again to the OP for the framework) that much of what probably really irked people about the "contract" was the draconian tone of the language.

I will... required... etc.

After looking over my revised document I realize that much of what I did was subtle, or maybe not so subtle, changes in tone of language. I said things like: "The club has a reasonable expectation that I will..." or "this activity may incur repercussions and jeopardize my standing in the club."

In the end I think a lot of gamers would agree that the tenets of the "contract" are reasonable expectations for any gaming group. It's the actually putting them on paper, and stating them as if they can have no exception, that is bothersome.

Just my 2cp.


Ding ding ding ding ding ding...

Fighters to your corners.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
aboniks wrote:

lol!

Hopefully you'll be able to step back into a floating referee role to help the DM's out when they need it. Maybe get them up to speed running individual encounters (Combat and Non-Combat) rather than dropping an entire module on them at once? How are you pacing your sessions now?

That would be absolutely ideal. Not that I wouldn't want to still run a game of my own, but if I could turn into a floating "final arbiter," and watch as a bunch of smaller groups play, it would really fulfill the purpose of such a club.

Pacing is a great question, right now we meet about once a month (sometimes twice depending on schedules--not sure if anyone would be surprised by this, but high school kids actually have really busy schedules, even on weekends) on Saturday mornings for three to four hours. This seems to work out the best as a lot of the players have after school activities or jobs, and I try to give them enough advance notice of upcoming sessions to provide for time to adjust schedules should they desire. This schedule provides me enough time in between sessions to prepare myself, and would hopefully give me enough time to help any other GMs prepare as well.

HaraldKlak wrote:


I believe the suggestions toward conscripting new GMs is definitely the way to go, MendedWall.
But I think you should be careful not to control the assignment process of different types of games/gameplay.

I'm mentally committed to this option. I really can't believe I never thought of it myself. That's just one of the reasons a community of gamers like this is such a blessing. As to the assignment process, I'll be thinking about that quite a bit. I don't want to create a system where there's a musical chairs scenario of players at a GMs table, especially for new GMs. At the same time, as you say, I don't want to unnaturally railroad players into certain playstyles. This one will be something I'll have to muddle over for a while.

I mentioned an application process. As part of that process I do actually have a two part online "playstyle" survey that I make potential members fill out. This is both to make sure they are dedicated enough to take the time to fill out the survey, but also to help me gauge the varying playstyles I'll be encountering. If you want to take a look at the surveys you can do so: here and here.

Damian Magecraft wrote:

Might I suggest using the APs with your "conscripted" GMs?

It might help some if they use "canned" campaigns and do not have to do all the grunt work we "organic" GMs do.

You can suggest anything you like, it's a free country. :) I think, though, just using my personal knowledge of how things have run in the past, and what we've been able to accomplish in any given session, I'd lean towards using published modules first, as a trial run, before using a full adventure path. I think that with GMs in training a "one-off" module adventure might be easier to grasp. I also happen to have a good supply of Paizo's published modules that I could loan to the GMs in training.

I'd like to thank all those that have offered helpful suggestions. I'd also like to apologize to the OP for derailing his thread. I take some comfort in the fact that I, at least, have proven there is a time and place where a (albeit a modified version) contract like this can fit into our hobby.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Darkbridger wrote:

I also hope it works! I just boggle at the thought of 6 years worth of students and not a single one with DM interest. I must be an aberration in that I wanted to run the game almost immediately upon getting my first Basic Set. <shrug> Maybe we're ALL old? :(

You will of course create more work for yourself with this solution. You're going to have to spend some time getting those players into the DM chair. There are likely going to be multiple playstyles, and matching up DMs with players will give you fits and headaches, not to mention handling the inevitable arguments, power trips, and drama that will come from teenagers. Hopefully it will be worth it though, for yourself and the hobby.

Oh greaaaat! Way to squash my new-found, unbridled enthusiasm with your pragmatism. Can't a guy just dream about a brave new world where the upper classmen are running tables for four to five freshman and sophomores, and he can just hand pick a table of thespian optimizers to GM for?! Huh?! Can't he?!! Nooooo, you've got to come in here with your wise words, and realism.

Also, just to be clear, in six years I've had two mediocre nibbles for GMing (and both were after heavy begging sessions as previously mentioned). One who talked a big game, but never made any effort to actually take the next step. Another, whom I actually started to sit down with and discuss the differences between the two sides of the table. Unfortunately, when he saw the amount of work I had to do to prepare for our gaming sessions, he got daunted and backed off. I've always tried to think about it optimistically, and have told myself that it's because I'm such a superb GM, that they don't feel like they could possibly live up to the high standard I've set. :) :P


3 people marked this as a favorite.

@aboniks

That! Is an excellent idea. Consider it stolen, and I will absolutely be instituting this for next year's iteration of the club. I feel shamed I never thought of such a thing earlier. Must be old age. :)


I've begged veteran players and other teachers who've shown even a mild interest in gaming to take the mantle of GM for the up and comers, or even for a smaller group of veterans. Literally, I've begged. No player has ever accepted the challenge. The usual excuse is, "I just want to play." Believe me, I am sickened every single year at the number of people I'm probably turning away from gaming, because I have the necessity/luxury of being selective. Before I started the rigorous application process I, during the year where I decided enough was enough, was Game Master to a room of 23 students. That is unbearable, and exactly when I decided me being burned out was not conducive to continuing the existence of such a club.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I love when an argument becomes more about how people are, either successfully or unsuccessfully, arguing than about the actual topic which is being argued about. It is a truly elevated form of human argument to argue about the validity or impotence of a person's arguments.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'll echo Syssyl and say that every person needs to give themselves license to fail, in every aspect of their lives. As Samuel Smiles once said, "We learn wisdom from failure much more than from success. We often discover what will do, by finding out what will not do; and probably he who never made a mistake never made a discovery." If we do not try something new, we'll never know it doesn't work.

Having said that, the scenario you developed and one of your possible solutions (nagging NPC) sound awfully railroad-ish. I've discovered over the years that leading characters down a linear path to directly where you want them to go will kill a game faster than a well placed hand grenade. This does not mean all games must be sandbox, but it does mean, at least in my experience, that you have to allow the players more than one way, and more than one reason, to get where they are going.


While I understand the animosity for most "normal" gaming situations. I do see a place for this contract, albeit a very unique place. I will actually use a modified version of the contract, but, as I said, I have a unique situation.

I am the GM/Adviser for a high school RPG club. At first it was a club started by some students that knew I was a gamer, and had an interest in gaming themselves. That was 6 years ago. As the club progressed, it eventually became too big, and I had to have a process for weeding out the dross. Which, funnily enough, is much like cutting players for sports teams. I had to have a way to pick and choose who was worth it, and who wasn't. While I have an established application process in place, I'm going to add my modified version of the above contract as the very first step for next year's iteration of the club. Essentially, prospective members will need to sign the contract first in order to move on with the rest of the application process. Yes, there are several steps in the process. I'm only one man, and I'm the only GM, so I have the great luxury of finding those players that will be mature and dedicated.

Like I said, this is a unique situation where something like this can fit in. Most "normal" gaming groups would be abhorred by the very idea of a contract in regards to their free time. I know I would. That doesn't mean such a contract doesn't have any place at any gaming table though. Obviously, as I hope I've just proven, there is a time and place where this fits in.


I was not aware of Short Grip for 3.5. We did consider making it an Immediate action as opposed to a Swift. Keeping it as a swift action, and adjusting the weapon damage, means that the polearm fighter ability still has value, though.

Edit: I forgot to mention that when the character uses the butt end of the weapon we change the damage type to bludgeoning.


Even before the massive thread was going around, I had a player in a game that has a reach weapon, not a longspear, but the spirit of the weapon is the same. After discussions, much like those taking place in the thread of a similar name, we decided to houserule it. When the character uses the spear to attack at 10' he, obviously, threatens only at 10' for that entire round. If the character should "switch grips," which is how we've taken to referring to it, mechanically speaking, he must do so at the beginning of his round in the initiative, as a swift action, and cannot then switch back until the beginning of his next round. Once "switched" he can use the weapon to make attacks at 5'. Those attacks take a -4 attack penalty, and do 1d6 + strength bonus damage. Once the character has switched grips he only threatens at 5'.

This is our table's way of providing for the use of the butt end of a spear as a weapon, which we believe adds a bit more realism to the weapon's use.

I wondered what tweaks, if any, other GM's would make to this rule. Any and all advice for improvements would be appreciated.


In between PF sessions I'm usually prepping for the next PF session. So...

Also @Krensky: If you aren't using any of those things you subscribe to, since you aren't actually playing PF, I'd be more than happy to borrow them for an indeterminate amount of time. :P


My understanding is that the negative energy and paralyzation are both part of the same attack.

My reasoning is that the language of the ability says: "Any living creature a lich hits with its touch attack..." Meaning it's hit you with its touch attack, and now you not only take the 1d8+(?) negative energy damage, but also must make that fort save or gain the paralyzed condition.


Umbriere Moonwhisper wrote:
MendedWall12 wrote:
Ah! Okay, well that certainly is a lot less restrictive than mine. As I mentioned, one of the reasons I do have restrictions is that I'm attempting to get players to explore the myriad character options that this wonderful game has to offer. I don't ever want someone to pigeon-hole themselves into one class, by failing to figure out how to play some others.

build impacts a character more than class

you can have like 10 very different human paladins by means of archetypes, patron deity choice and feat selection alone, or like 25 styles of cleric that way.

different schools of wizard, whether specialty or opposition, or different bloodlines of sorcerer, encourage very different spell selections that lead to very different playstyles.

Very, very true, and something I will consider for future campaigns. You've given me some good things to muddle over. Thanks for being an intelligent counterpoint to my obstinate GM-ery. :)


Point taken, the only reason I balked is because they have several aquatic themed adventures published, and it amazed me that at no point in the creation of those aquatic themed adventures did they think this feat needed creating/adding to the official lists.


Zaister wrote:
As an interesting aside, one could also ask, why isn't there a Walk-by Attack feat, for those that cannot qualify for Spring Attack?

I'd call it Run-by attack, but that is an interesting aside. A feat that let's a character make a single (standard action) attack, in the middle of a move action, which will undoubtedly provoke AoOs, doesn't seem like a game breaker. Maybe you could also create Improved Run-by attack, where the character gets the attack, and doesn't provoke AoOs from the target of the attack. Other creatures/characters could still get AoOs though.

Speaking of AoOs, I've always thought it should be AsoO, shouldn't it? It is attacks of opportunity, not attack of opportunities.


Excellent point for those creatures/characters that have the required 13 Dex. In my particular case the creature does not meet the Dex requirement for that feat tree.


@DrDeth: For frick's sake man, I did just say he's got swim-by attack instead of xxx, frick it all anyway! Even if no feat existed anywhere, I would have created one based off of the fly-by and ride-by attack rules. I wasn't saying: can I do this? I was saying: I can't believe the Paizo devs haven't already done this somewhere!

@Ssalarn: Completely echo that sentiment. My players trust me because they know I don't use rule 0 unless I have to. They also know that I live by the what's good for the goose is good for the gander rule. If NPCs/Monsters can do it, PCs can do it too, and vice versa. Because I'm essentially adding this new feat to our campaign, I have to make it known to the group, so that, should they be capable of acquiring it in the future, they know of its existence.

@Marc Radle: Just downloaded the free version of Sunken Pyramid, I'll give it a perusal. Thanks for pointing me to it. The sahuagin material will be most useful as I'm also building an encounter based around a group of sahuagin and skum baddies working for an aboleth.


Ah! Okay, well that certainly is a lot less restrictive than mine. As I mentioned, one of the reasons I do have restrictions is that I'm attempting to get players to explore the myriad character options that this wonderful game has to offer. I don't ever want someone to pigeon-hole themselves into one class, by failing to figure out how to play some others.


Yeah, I'm noticing that. Thanks for pointing me to a good resource.


As I'm in the midst of building some aquatic encounters (thanks to those that offered great suggestions), I was looking to trade out some feats on a Dragon Turtle, and in my research found out that there is no official Paizo monster feat that is the equivalent of Flyby attack for swimming creatures. There is a feat from Tome of Horrors by FGG: Swim-by attack, that is exactly what I want. Suffice it to say, I'm flabbergasted. With so many excellent aquatic based creatures, to not have the equivalent of flyby attack seems ludicrous. Is this something that a lot of GMs out there are using from ToH, or just house-ruling?


Umbriere Moonwhisper wrote:

I would restrict it not as tightly, instead of being based on class, it would be based on Region and how well the character is tied to the new region. as an Example.

Andrew, the Samurai known as Taro Hanzo died in glorious combat. you can either hope you get him ressurected, or you can build a character appropriate to the region. though i will not restrict you from creating a second paladin with a different flavor, the party is currently 3 days away from a Lawful Neutral Hobgoblin Military Camp, a True Neutral Lizardfolk Swamp, a Chaotic Good Nymph's Grove and a Neutral Good town of Planetouched trying to get along. so your race options are Hobgoblin, Planetouched, Half-Nymph, or Lizardfolk or you can get your human paladin ressurected. the Hobgoblin Paladin would be the most similar to Taro. but if you wish to try a Half-Nymph or a Lizardfolk, you may get a chance to start a little later.

Half-Nymphs make excellent Bards, Sorcerers and Arcanists, and Lizardfolk make excellent Barbarians and Rangers

I'd be inclined to say that's actually more restrictive. Your giving a small set of available races, and suggesting which classes those races fit the best with. In my houserule I'm saying you can be anything you want, (depending on the campaign of course, each table has come to agreements on some races that aren't allowed) except for the race and class you just played.

I do see a benefit to your way of thinking. This is the region we're in, so a new character joining at this point would more than likely be from this region. All my campaigns, at this point, are in Golarion. While some races are, certainly, more prevalent in certain regions, my imagining of Golarion is that there is a chance you could find a person from just about any race, anywhere, at any time. Especially if that person is an adventurer. They could/would have a great story reason for being where they are, which always adds to the fun. Some times a new character entering, of an exotic race, has actually pushed the story in a new direction.


That's so interesting, and really right on, because, again, we're talking about mastery. During Gygax day playing every combination of race, class, etcetera would have been a wonder in itself. Can you imagine even trying to accomplish that today, with all the character building options? I dare say trying to play every combination of race, class, archetype, feat progression, and skill-set would be darn near impossible in today's D&D/Pathfinder.

The reason I find that so interesting though, is that I actually have a houserule in all of my campaigns, and every player has always agreed to it. If your character dies, retires, or you just get bored of it and want a switch (which I strongly discourage, by the way), the new character you design cannot be the same race or class as any previous characters in the same campaign. Partially I do this for the simple variety. Partially I do it for exactly the reason Gygax suggests, essentially: you won't know what you don't know, until you've figured it out. So sometimes playing a character race and class that you haven't thought about before opens up entire new "worlds" within your viewpoint of the campaign setting.


If you can carry it- Heavy Crossbow. 1d10 damage with the attack bonus based off of BAB + Dex bonus. Full round action to reload, so there's some action economy that needs to be thought about, but it provides at least the potential for consistent damage outside of spells.

Also, as soon as you can afford them, you'll want to invest in wands. Trigger items for low level casters are a must.


These are all awesome ideas, but I'm still open for more to select from. Anyone else have some memorable aquatic encounters?


More great ideas. I'd still love to see more though. Any other memorable aquatic encounters?

1 to 50 of 1,584 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 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.