|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Well, if you just throw one object of max weight then that's not an issue. But what I was thinking of was making grapple checks using telekinesis.
For weapons, I probably would want more than a handgun. A handgun is fine for close range combat with other humans, but you might end up in the wild facing a bear and that won't do it.
I'm not much of a shot, so a shotgun would probably be sensible. But a rifle would also be good (for range). A good modern Bowie knife probably counts as a masterwork dagger. Hopefully by the time I ran out of ammo I'd have enough combat experience to make do with what was available.
Kevlar body armor.
I would bring medical gear because even if I knew about fantasy clerics I wouldn't assume that one would be readily available wherever I "landed."
For transportation: a bicycle! Seriously, in this environment they can be awesome. If in rough terrain, you can walk the bike, and still load a lot of gear on it. This is how the Japanese were able to surprise the British garrison in Singapore in WWII. Make sure you bring some tools and several patch kits. Mountain bike style, obviously, with side baskets. If the cash doesn't matter then you can get a really light one of you are willing to spend the dough.
But as far as Warlocks in D&D/PF goes...
In 1e I used the word as a convenient term to refer to a fighter-magic-user. This has no particular basis in historical usage, but it worked for our group as "warlock" was definitely associated with magic, but the fact that the word begins with "war" evokes the image of a fighting wizard.
For the record, "wizard" has also historically been used as a male version of "witch," though witch does not necessarily imply females. A third of the "witches" executed at Salem were men.
The Hebrew word that gets translated as "witch" in the Old Testament actually basically means "someone who poisons wells." This was obviously very serious in a desert environment. It didn't necessarily mean a practitioner of magic. However, the manufacture of poisons kind of falls under alchemy, which was close enough to magic for most folks.
Sources of Scott's usage ...
I have to speak up because as someone of Scots ancestry this is really setting my teeth on edge.
A Scott is a person whose name is Scott. "Scott's" means something that belongs to a person named Scott, as in "That is Scott's car."
A Scot is a person of the Scottish nationality. The plural is "Scots" but the term Scots can also be used in place of "Scottish." Scots is also the name of the dialect of English that was once spoken in the lowland and Borders regions of Scotland up until the 19th century or so. Robbie Burns' poetry is written in Scots.
I suspect your use of "Scott's" when you mean "Scots" may be an a artifact of an autocorrect feature.
I think this has been a good discussion.
I like the rogue idea and want it to work. For limited values of "work", it can.
Whatever is done to "Fix" the rogue, I want them to maintain their sneak attack damage bonus as it is. I like the idea of the rogue as a swingy spike-damage kinda guy. When I saw the slayer, I went "meh." I know he is a lot more consistent and with higher BAB and studied target his attacks actually hit. But I want that big pile of D6's.
A lot of things specifically hurt the rogue, either deliberately or not.
In my mind uncanny dodge should never have been included in the game (except possibly for rogues). It's really a legacy from the 1e barbarian class, which was the most broken class in that edition and in that edition it compensated for this by punishing the rest of the party.
The trait system exists mainly to grant class skills to classes that don't normally get them. This drastically reduces the need for rogues or rogue dips. I like traits, but they reduce the value of a class who has skills as one of only two primary features.
My personal houserule archetypes are:
Specialist: Choose two skills. You gain a bonus to those skills equal to 1/2 your rogue level (minimum +1). This ability replaces Trapfinding.
Note: you can use that to simulate trapfinding if you want, though instead of granting a situational bonus it is just a flat bonus, which makes things simpler.
Renaissance Rogue: At 3rd level, a renaissance rogue gains a broad training that enhances his overall training, increasing the class bonus for any rogue class skills by +1. These bonuses rise to +2 when the renaissance rogue reaches 6th level, to +3 when she reaches 9th level, to +4 when she reaches 12th level, to +5 at 15th, and to +6 at 18th level. This ability replaces Trap Sense.
Keen Striker: At 3rd level, a keen striker gains a better understanding of the position of vulnerable locations on the bodies of her enemies. Whenever a keen striker makes an attack that is eligible for sneak attack damage, her chance to hit increases by +1. These bonuses rise to +2 when the keen striker reaches 6th level, to +3 when she reaches 9th level, to +4 when she reaches 12th level, to +5 at 15th, and to +6 at 18th level. This ability replaces Trap Sense.
Note: you would need to choose one or the other out of these two.
Actually, you don't necessarily need a race that grants a CHA bonus. You probably want to avoid a race that has a CHA penalty, but you really only need a CHA of 14 or so.
So a race that grants +STR is good. Another physical stat would be awesome, but I don't see any Paizo race that gives a STR bonus and either a DEX or CON bonus. But a race like human, half-orc, or half-elf is still good.
Male Lashunta gets +2 STR and WIS and -2 INT. That's not bad.
I have a bit of an issue with how this encounter is written.
If the AP was written with the if the demon was actually trying to communicate with the player characters, but with the Nalfeshnee just "popping in" in front of the players with weapon drawn then there is a serious problem with the AP.
In a warzone, if one soldier wants to communicate peacefully with a member of the enemy forces, he is aware that they will normally shoot first and ask questions later. So he waves a white flag, raises his hands, shouts out that he is unarmed, and so forth. Even then he is still taking a risk. He's going to do everything possible to communicate to the enemy that he is not a threat, before they start taking shots at him, in fact, generally before they can even see him.
The Abyss IS a warzone. Even the demons are not friends with one another.
A Nalfeshnee has an INT of 23 and a WIS of 22; these values represent superhuman intelligence and wisdom. It should understand these principles and be doing whatever it takes to communicate this notion before the players have the chance to attack. Having a sword drawn is not a good way to do this.
If the adventure is written that the Nalfeshnee teleported in with the intent of talking to the players, it should have known better than to do so right in front of the players with sword drawn. In my mind that act represents an INT/WIS of about 7, not 22-23. The Nalfeshnee is doing something really stupid when it should be hyper-intelligent.
The Nalfeshnee could just have easily teleported nearby, then summoned a vrock to deliver a scrap of parchment with a written message on it. Even if the party kills the vrock they will still get the message. The message would include some kind of signal the party could make if they were willing to talk. Then the Nalfeshnee could come out with "hands up" if the players gave the signal.
Some players would STILL kill the Nalfeshnee at this stage but then it's on them.
This is exactly the kind of thing you ought to change as a GM.
Um... wow. OK.
Were you planning on not wearing anything?
The best class to play a naked greatsword-wielding chick would be barbarian, not paladin. Also that looks like a large greatsword. There are ways to get a barbarian wielding a large greatsword - not sure if there are any for paladins.
Not sure if that matches what Solange can do in the game.
BTW I agree with Azoriel that Angel-kin Aasimar is a much better race for you. Though I would certainly understand a GM's decision to bar access to that. If you are starting at 12th level though the Aasimar racial abilities are not that big a deal.
Hm, I guess you are right about ultimate mercy; never seen it done at that low a level before.
The trick with the low CON is the possibility of getting one-shotted by a crit, especially if you are taking other hits before that. At level 12 this build will have about 83 HP. Getting CON to 16 and putting FCB into hp brings it up to 119. A big jump. Since you are not planning to use a shield you will get hit fairly often, and you can only lay on hands during your action.
In the example I gave above you could just as easily switch around the starting CHA and STR. You can even go:
STR 17 (w/+2 racial)
By level 12 you put one +1 into STR, CON, and CHA each. This gets your CHA to 19 to get Ultimate Mercy and then brings STR and CON up to even numbers.
I don't really like dropping WIS so low - even with your CHA bonus it's still an important save. You will be immune to fear and charm at this level, but it's a bad save to fail. You could also do DEX 10 WIS 10 and the points would be the same.
I believe ultimate mercy requires 11th level. Maybe you can shuffle things around.
Not sure if I would bother with the energy resistances for your favoured class bonus. You need to be hit with energy 3 times in one encounter for it to be as good as extra hp. I'd just take the hp. Especially since your CON is so low.
BTW if you are going with INT 8 you might as well dump it to 7 as mechanically it will be no different (you will get the same number of skill ranks) though your INT skills (like knowledges) will be at -1.
I don't know the Solange reference so I'm not sure what you are aiming for specifically.
EDIT: It looks like this is for a 20-point build.
I would be inclined to lower your starting CHA or STR to 16. That would allow this:
STR 18 (w/+2 race)
Since this looks like a 12th level character you also get three level up bonuses - one could be applied to CON and the other two to CHA or STR. You need to get CHA to 19 by level 11 when you take Ultimate Mercy but you can use a CHA boosting item to get there.
I actually believe you are right in the idea that this was not the intent of the original design of the Mystic Theurge.
When the mystic theurge was designed the designers knew there would have to be some kind of cost for a class that advances in two spellcasting classes simultaneously.
The reality is that later on, the devs realised that the price they set was too high. So the revision was intended to address that. So you are right in that it's not the original intent; it is basically a retcon. But it is one that most people feel was necessary to get people to use the mystic theurge class in the first place.
Those that argue that the two weapon fighting entry under combat prohibits more than two attacks (because it specifically refers to two weapons) are not paying attention to the context of the rules they are in.
This is in the combat section of the core rules. Which means it doesn't just apply to player characters - it applies to all creatures capable of making attacks.
Saying that under this rule a player cannot make more than two weapon attacks also means that monsters cannot either.
But wait! The Multiweapon fighting feat specifically refers to "all it's off hands." Specific trumps general, and this is a specific case where more attacks are mentioned.
On top of that, the multiweapon feat says this:
Special: This feat replaces the Two-Weapon Fighting feat for creatures with more than two arms.
As a GM I would rule that if a creature with the TWF feat gained extra arms, it would immediately replace the TWF feat, because the text of the feat says that MWF replaces TWF for creatures with more than two arms. You gain two more arms? Your TWF automatically becomes MWF. Frankly, there probably shouldn't have even been a TWF feat; it should have just been MWF all along.
In my PF home game I allow my party rogue to make sneak attacks against foes with concealment, though not against foes with total concealment. I have three reasons for doing this.
1. The notion of a rogue bushwhacking someone in a dark alley is the iconic idea of a rogue, but without this house rule a human rogue cannot physically do it.
2. Concealment already causes the penalty of a 20% miss chance, which is sufficient to make players want to find ways of avoiding it. Since a miss will negate a sneak attack this means it is as bad for the rogue as for anyone else, but not worse specifically for rogues.
3. From the FAQs and errata around the Stealth skill, it is clear that there was some confusion during the writing of the CRB about the difference between concealment and total concealment, and sometimes one term was used when the other was meant in the text of Stealth. These issues were resolved with the FAQs and errata. I believe that this was also the case with sneak attack, that the original RAI was in fact that total concealment was what would negate sneak attack, and that the same writer that did the stealth entry also wrote the original sneak attack text and made the same errors. For some reason these were never fixed, and now that game mechanics exist based on mitigating it, we are now stuck with it.
Okay, I think I understand what you are saying here, as a natural attacker always gets all of his attacks when he full attacks, so if he uses a hand to gesture then he loses his attack for that hand.
But does a spell with a range of touch require you to make that touch with the other hand? I don't think it does. A Magus is allowed to make the attack with the other hand but I don't think it's required. If that's true then when using spell combat you could deliver the touch spell with the hand that cast the spell, and spellstrike allows that to be combined with the natural attack of the hand. Or am I missing something?
If a 1st level Magus uses spell combat but does not have spellstrike, then when he casts a spell like shocking grasp with his off hand, he makes the touch with the off hand; he doesn't get the ability to use the weapon to deliver the attack until 2nd level.
So at 2nd level, he gets the spellstrike ability to deliver his touch with "any weapon" he is wielding as a free action. This replaces the free touch that comes with a touch spell. So it seems like he can still use the hand that cast the spell to deliver the touch.
But it's not an "extra" attack because you already could have attacked with that hand as part of a full attack, whereas a rapier magus gets a second attack with his rapier this way which he wouldn't have normally received.
Have I got it right?
Guys, I think we need to get back to the point here. Hazrond is asking for help with his build.
It is clear to me that the interactions of the rules here for these builds are very complicated. The end result should mean that whatever build you choose you should make sure to discuss it with your GM to make sure that he will allow the combos you are proposing and also that he understands what you are doing.
The build posted here is quite interesting though I don't understand all the elements of it, and since I wasn't planning on playing a Magus anytime soon a lot of it was TL;DR for me.
I would note that as a GM I don't think I would allow frostbite and chill touch to work at the same time even if one was from a wand. But your GM may differ.
Specifically, In games I play we use the point buy system to make a character with 15 or 20 points. Your character has 70.
For the record I count 51. You may not be factoring in the racial bonuses to the scores, which are included in his main array. Still, it would be hard to go wrong with that array.
Mathwei ap Niall wrote:
Well, if you want to play a CHA-based spontaneous magus it seems to be the way to go.
The disadvantage of having to pay an eldritch pool to do spell combat is a pain but is necessary for him to have claws at 1st level. The disadvantage disappears at 8th level, at which point he is probably shape shifting anyways.
You normally lose a little bit with an archetype and this is no exception. But I don't think it's that bad and it works with his racial ability bonuses. I would prefer that you get an extra spell per day (which is the compensation that sorcerers get) but that's life.
Note that you can get Runestones of Power which are the spontaneous versions of Pearls of Power. But they cost twice as much. You can also get Pages of Spell Knowledge to increase your spells known.
There's a few things that nobody mentioned that I would like to chime in about.
Critical Hits - any class that doesn't use spellcasting as its main focus can get a lot out of critical hits - except rogues.
* Fighters' STR, weapon training, and feats like Weapon Specialization all multiply on a critical.
* Barbarians' STR, including bonus STR due to rage multiply on a critical
* Paladins' smite damage multiplies on a critical
* Rangers' favoured enemy multiplies on a critical
* Inquisitors' judgement bonus (when applied to damage) multiplies on a critical
* Bards' inspire courage multiplies on a critical
* Monks' improved unarmed damage multiplies on a critical
* Clerics' (and oracles') buffs from spells like divine favor multiply on a critical
* Magus' shocking grasp multiplies on a critical
The list goes on and on. But:
* Rogues' sneak attack damage does NOT multiply on a critical.
Not every melee/ranged combat character needs to be built as a crit fisher, but most classes can. Rogues are specifically a class where that strategy is a complete waste. Why bother giving rogues proficiency with a rapier when its only benefit over the shortsword is improved crit chance?
For God's sakes, if a Magus can crit for double damage off a shocking grasp, a rogue should crit double damage from a sneak attack.
I would at least say that each sneak attack die should grant a +1 damage on a crit (+2 for x3 weapons and +3 for x4 weapons). This is not a bad houserule. It doesn't "fix" the rogue but it's better than nothing.
For accuracy, another option would have been to have a limited full BAB, like the monk. Essentially a rogue would attack as if it had full BAB when making sneak attacks (just as the monk attacks as if it had full BAB when flurrying).
Finally, rogues need enhanced mobility. Sneak attack is only really good when you get multiple attacks, but most of the time you need to move to get a sneak attack, which means only a single attack. Using acrobatics to move through threatened spaces is penalized if you make a full move. A better ability to move is in line with the core concepts of the rogue but they don't seem to have any way to do it outside of magic. Some kind of pounce mechanic would have been fitting too, but I don't know how you can do it as a rogue.
Dervish Dance is one solution but it requires you to know how to use a scimitar. You don't, currently. The dervish dancer archetype and the archaeologist archetype are not compatible, so you would have to take it as the feat and get proficiency with scimitar somehow (another feat possibly, or a level dip). Or ask your GM to allow a version that uses rapier.
Another way to go is the scorpion whip. You have a reach of 15' and can hide behind other characters when you do that. You could try to trip things with it as well. The damage is not great but that's life. As your GM if he will allow the slashing grace feat (or a custom version) to work with scorpion whip, and if yes, then definitely take the feat.
If you want to be an archer you could go with that; it will certainly be better than throwing daggers. You need to start putting feats in it to make that work though.
Your CHA of 20 means you will be very good as a spellcaster casting offensive spells. Hideous laughter and grease are both powerful 1st level spells. Glitterdust, hold person, blindness/deafness, and silence are all good 2nd level spells.
Illusions are good too, and if the wizard character is stealing your thunder in that regard, ask him to stop. Why? As a wizard, he can change what spells he chooses to use. You can't. So if you can cast silent image then ask him not to; he's just trampling on your character's thing. You can cast it 5 times a day; there's no need for him to add more.
Thought I would chip in here.
There are basically three things I have seen on here that inspire me.
1. Darklands - I would love to see an adventure path that takes you deep into the darklands. Let's get those Urdhefans and Aboleths in play! There are a lot of awesome creatures that live down there, but it's a big job to plot all that out.
2. Distant Worlds - a plotline that takes you from one world to the next, in a way that isn't tacked on. More than just "you have to get to X exotic locale, which in this case happens to be another planet, to retrieve quest item Y." Perhaps Golarionese characters find themselves on Akiton and have to make there way there. Eventually it could morph into something inspired by spelljammer with outer dragons.
3. Dragons - an adventure path that treats dragons with a bit more respect. So far in what I've seen they seem to be just hired lackeys to the BBEG. Let's have some dragons who are doing things with their own purpose, and a dragon-themed campaign. Make Hermea be significant. WotC doesn't own dragons, last I checked.
Dervish Dance may change things a bit for you.
Were your stats rolled or point-based? If they were point-based then I would have to say you put way too much into INT and probably too much into WIS. I notice you didn't post your CON. I'm guessing from your HP though that it's 10 or 11. I would probably have swapped that with your INT. CON is a very important score for any character. Bards already get 6 skill ranks per level; there is no reason to need 9.
Throwing javelins is better than throwing daggers unless you have class features that do neat things with daggers.
Ironically you are the only character in this party that can cast any healing magic.
It depends on the type of campaign you are running.
As a GM I would never "force" a player to play a character they didn't want to play.
So I would probably ask the player to come up with an interesting idea for a race to play as a reincarnated character, if they were willing to play such a character. I would say that the new character could gain some interesting things from his new race as long as there was still a down side.
If it's good for the story I'd let a player choose what he comes back as.
Some of my players would probably prefer to roll and see what happens though. :)
The main problem here is that the feat is badly written.
It often happens that verbiage gets cut to reduce word count, and something that would have clarified things gets left out.
I don't think the intent of the feat was to classify a character as human. The character already was human when he got the feat. I believe that the feat was worded that way to keep clear the fact that you keep the "human" classification even though you have also gained another classification.
Imagine if you had a feat that required you to be human and the effect of the feat was that you count as human?
Personally as a GM I would tell the player that the feat wouldn't be valid, but since reincarnate is pretty wonky already I would say that he can retrain anything that he doesn't qualify for any more.
The first sentence is true. Rikkan, where you are going wrong is your understanding of what is an "attack."
Fireball is not an attack. It is a spell. A spell CAN be an attack, but it is not automatically one, even if it does damage. An attack is defined as anything where you have to make a roll to hit. Since you don't roll to hit with a fireball, it is not an attack.
It makes sense that anything in the rules that refers to "weapons" does not include improvised weapons. This is because anything can be an improvised weapon if it is small enough to try to hit someone with, and therefore the distinction is moot if "weapon" includes "improvised weapon." As a class of objects the term becomes meaningless - it then includes everything.
However, when a phrase like "weapon-like object" is used, I interpret this to mean anything that can conveniently be wielded in a fashion similar to a weapon. It would have to be reasonably hard and would be meant to be gipped in the hand (or possibly two hands). So this would apply to most kinds of tools, sticks, glass bottles (broken or not), and what have you. Because wands are rigid and meant to be held in a hand when used, I would definitely include them even if they weren't mentioned specifically. I would put rods in this category as well.
But it wouldn't apply to a segment of rope, a piece of cheese, or a handkerchief, because these things are flimsy and flexible or malleable. While you could try to hit someone with a piece of cheese, it is not intended to be wielded that way, and wouldn't do much damage (if any).
Scrolls I would generally have to put in the second category as they are flimsy and flexible. A scroll case would probably qualify as a "weapon-like" object, but you have yet to get the scroll out of it.
Even if putting a scroll in a spring-loaded sheath is allowed, the scroll is still rolled up and not ready to use.
The funny part though, is why not take some twine, or glue, or something like that, and wrap the scroll, word-side out, around your forearm? Once it is attached there, you could read it by just looking at your arm. I would rule that only one scroll per arm could be laid out this way.
A normal potion vial would not fit properly in a spring-loaded wrist sheath, but I could easily envision a custom flask made from a narrow brass tube (about as thick as an arrow) maybe 8"-10" long, with a stopper on the end. Assuming they were in a town with someone who could make such a thing they probably wouldn't cost more than 1 gp to buy. The action of using a normal potion includes removing the stopper, and the amount of fluid in a potion is pretty small so the volume wouldn't be a problem.
The main thing about Winter Wheat is that it survives being frozen in the winter. If you are playing with a warmer climate for Varisia then you could just have something that is planted and harvested later.
I had there be recently planted winter wheat when I ran this and it meant the fields didn't provide any cover or concealment. But I didn't worry about that as the Hambley Farm was supposed to be pretty easy.
It occurred to me that one way to do things would be to have the farm be more than a day away. Have a bunch of ghouls attack when they camp for the night.
Tommaso Gollini wrote:
No, it's just a standard assumption about wands and similar magic items (such as potions and scrolls). The wand is indeed intended to be CL1. Lyrie is not supposed to be that tough, certainly not on her own.
Most of the time a wand at a higher caster level is not as good as buying multiple wands at the minimum level. This is certainly true for a wand of cure light wounds or a wand of mage armor. For attack spells it is debatable, but getting two magic missiles at a time from a wand costs you three times the cost of a single missile at a time.
Remember that if you boost the CL of items in the hands of enemies, you are also boosting how much gp their treasure is worth. By quite a bit, potentially. There is already a lot of treasure in Thistletop, so if you do this you may need to adjust the value of other things downwards.
If you use a lamp every night and use 1 flask of oil in it per night, then you are spending 36.5 gp per year on oil, plus the cost of the lamp. Under such circumstances, at 110 gp a pop an everburning torch pays for itself in about 3 years.
I'd agree with you, with the caveat that your average sawmill probably doesn't spring for bunches of magical torches (that cost 150 gp per, mind you), just to avoid explosions that are preventable by not working during the night. The Seven's Sawmill totally could buy everburning torches, but then that would beg the question "Where did they get the money?"
It could easily be a city by-law that requires mills and grain silos to use light sources that don't constitute a fire risk. This would increase the end cost of cut timber, but not by that much, since the cost of using torches or lamp oil will add up eventually.
For the record, using a rough baseline of 1 building per 5 residents works for both the middle ages and for today.
In the middle ages a shop was likely the residence of the owner. There won't be too many buildings that are not "lived in".
Nowadays there are a lot more buildings that will have nobody actually living in them. But this is mitigated by the fact that multi-units residences (i.e. apartment buildings and condos) have a lot more residents than their medieval equivalents.
As such, Sandpoint does appear to be about the population it seems to say it is.
Magnimar, on the other hand, has WAY more buildings than necessary. I tried counting them and gave up - there were too many. If anyone ever does a count though I'd love to know how many there are.
One Final Thing:
I do agree that the story is good overall and doesn't need changing. If your player is an experienced player and able and willing to "play along," you don't need to change much. But recommend that he play a character native to Sandpoint. That way some of his out-of-game knowledge becomes in-character knowledge, because he grew up there.
In my campaign I have a character who grew up in Sandpoint. I let him make Knowledge:Local checks pertaining to Sandpoint untrained.
If you want to keep going with the "good Tsuto" angle, have Father Zantus actually be evil and be the one who set up Lonjiku. Perhaps he is secretly a priest of Norgorber and connected to the Skinsaw cult. Nualia and him had a connection before the cathedral burned; Zantus took advantage of the situation to become head of the church while he directed Nualia to seek out the Skinsaw cult in Magnimar.
The "good Tsuto" turns out to be uninvolved (and perhaps was framed by Zantus) and ends up becoming the head of the Sandpoint Cathedral after Zantus is exposed.
Here's another one. Have the players uncover some kind of plot that Jubrayl Vhiski is involved with early on. Jubrayl is publically exposed, Sheriff Hemlock is on the hunt for him, and he runs for Magnimar. There he is recruited by the brothers of seven and Xanesha to investigate the misgivings... and eventually becomes the Skinsaw man. Foxglove IS actually trying to hire people to help work on the manor but other than that is a complete red herring. Vhiski might have even arranged for the "workers" that volunteered for the work to be sczarni that he had recruited for his own purposes - Rogors Craesby could in fact work for him rather than Aldern.
Actually that doesn't really affect knowledge of Burnt Offerings, it's more the Skinsaw Murders.
Before heading to Thistletop, the party discovers (perhaps through Shalelu) that the goblins have set up an advance base at the Pauper's Graves to stage their attack on Sandpoint. Have the journal (Tsuto's or Zantus' if you are using that) not actually specify that Nualia is at Thistletop. Make your party think that it is just a mini-adventure to level them up before the next session.
But rewrite all of Thistletop so that it takes place there instead. :)
With a bit more work you could even have the whole thing happen under the old light. But you would have to re-work the greed stuff into wrath-themed stuff instead.
Keep in mind that Varisia is modeled after the American Pacific Northwest. Outside of the mountains, winter usually means rain, not snow.
Geographically Varisia doesn't resemble the Pacific Northwest at all, so this never occurred to me. I do know that Sandpoint is based on a town in California, but only in layout and "feel," not in climate. It is noteworthy though that Varisia is significantly north of the American Pacific Northwest. It will be colder than that.
I'm wondering if it's theoretically possible in such a climate for the Hambley Farm to have a crop of "winter corn/maize" growing in winter. I want the effect of the tall cornstalks hampering visibility during the ghoul attacks. If not green corn stalks, then what about post-harvest, somewhat wizened but still "tall and broad" stalks?
I had the winter wheat planted by the time the players got there, but it won't be "tall and broad" until the spring. Any grain crop that is harvested will be cut down to stubble.
You could just make up some fantasy crop that doesn't exist on Earth.
OK, here's a couple of things to work with:
First of all, you can have personal items of the Drow's start disappearing almost right away. Aside from that there don't need to be actual "messages."
The idea that Aldern needs a spell to restore his manhood might result in more communication with Xanesha, but overall this just gives her another carrot to dangle in front of him to get him to do what she wants. It would be amusing if the players think that Aldern getting castrated was the reason behind the whole plot in part 2.
Aldern probably isn't seeing anyone who comes to the Misgivings, but Rogors Craesby (the groundskeeper) could assure Hemlock that "Lord Foxglove is fine and thank you very much for asking, sir. No, he is not seeing visitors today." Aldern is unlikely to want Hemlock to be involved; he wants revenge himself. Hemlock is unlikely to press the issue.
However, this does give Hemlock a closer look at Craesby, and he could describe or identify Rogors before or after the Walking Scarecrows chapter.
If the players are turning evil then remember that you will need to give them reasons for doing things later in the campaign. The AP assumes you have a typical "good" party who is willing to volunteer to help out because they are great guys. As you get to know them better you will get a better idea of what motivates them.
Some great ideas here.
Sadly, my players had figured out the clue about the Misgivings and were ready to head out to Foxglove Manor at first light, so I had to throw Maester Grump at them right away or skip the whole Walking Scarecrows chapter.
We will be starting the Misgivings today. I know they will be heading there in the daytime but I am going to have a snowstorm roll in (it is the start of winter). It won't be a blizzard but enough that things will be grey and gloomy even in the daytime.
The joke is that aside from Darkvision, ghouls aren't any more powerful at night.
No. It is the spell level for a small town which the writer of the AP copied over from the "template" data from the GMG. Without thinking about what it means for the Sandpoint writeup- at least that's my interpretation.
This complaint is like saying "yeah, they only did that because it's in the rules."
The original AP was written for 3.5 which had similar systems for determining what could be found in a town of this size, so I don't think this changes anything. The assumptions were already there.
It always seemed to me that the levels of the listed NPCs in town were "dumbed down" to allow the 1st level player-characters to shine in the goblin raid. If there are too many high-level NPCs with PC class levels then there isn't much need for the PCs to get involved.
To make this consistent, though, you just need to include some "shut-in" type NPCs who wouldn't be likely to get involved, or boost the level of the listed NPCs, possibly over time.
I for one never assumed that Father Zantus was the most powerful cleric in town; rather, he is the most qualified to be the head of the church, which means a high INT for skill points and a high CHA for dealing with the public. Neither of these things are necessary for a character of the cleric class, but would lead to him being selected to represent the church to the public. This is not 1st edition, where the highest level guy is automatically in charge.
I envisioned a character like a crabby old priest of Abadar who doesn't get out much and nobody particularly likes, but he's been there forever and nobody has the heart to get rid of him. This particular guy would be 7th level and able to get 4th level spells if necessary, but being a priest of Abadar, would insist that they are paid for. "It's the principle of the thing, you know."
Strictly speaking, there is also a 75% chance that a scroll of remove disease is simply available for sale in the marketplace somewhere.
Good catch to Misroi and Ashkar about Ilsoari Gandethus; serves me right for not checking. Though you have to wonder how this guy got the job... he doesn't seem especially qualified, unless he got the job under false pretenses. Being part rogue I suppose that is possible.
However, the point about Zantus also applies here. Are there other instructors at the school? Gandethus is the headmaster, not a teacher; headmasters typically do not host classes. Also, though Gandethus is a wizard, there is no need to assume that arcane magic is the only type of magic taught at the academy.
All in all, it really doesn't stretch things much to assume that there are some casters in town who are higher level than those who are featured. A few dozen people out of a thousand are mentioned; there are going to be others who are also interesting.
On the other hand, to assume that remove disease cannot be found in Sandpoint is assuming that the Vargouille's disease is intended to give players a real one roll save-or-die at 2nd level. I feel that this is a bit extreme for this type of module.
Yea... But that's just the number in the GMG for a "small town."
No, it's the number in the actual statblock for Sandpoint in the AE edition of RotRL. It's in the second appendix.
The most powerful caster in Sandpoint is probably the head of the Turandarok academy... who is never named.
Yeah, I saw that and its a very good price since a restoration to restore negative levels costs 1000 gp in materials.
But it looks like you can just buy these things. If dragons' blood only costs 60 gp per vial, why would you take a feat to make it? Just buy some in Magnimar or wherever.
Dragonhide Armor isn't particularly interesting. Actually making a suit of Dragonhide full plate requires hide from a colossal dragon (or possibly multiple dragons; talk to your GM). It also takes forever. Assuming a craft skill of 10, taking 10 on your craft checks would allow you to finish a suit of full plate armor in about 40 weeks - the better part of a year. You will not have that much free time in this campaign.
You can also just buy dragonhide armor if you want. It costs double what normal armor would cost, which isn't that much really. But Dragonhide armor provides no benefits other than making energy resistance properties cheaper to impart. You will be much better off getting mithral or adamantine armor.
I had Shalelu send a message to the Mayor from the fringes of Mosswood, saying that the Mosswood goblins were getting ready to send a force to join the Thistletop goblins, who seemed to be in charge. She was delaying the Mosswoods by sniping and laying traps, but the message basically said that the leaders of Thistletop had to be dealt with before the Mosswood goblins arrived. The players took the bait.
BTW My estimates for the sizes of the goblin tribes were (in terms of how many goblins could take the field):
For a total of 250 potential goblin hostiles.
Note though that in the module there are less Thistletop goblins than this (maybe the others were "not home" when the players arrive); I added more on the lower level to try to beef them up. By that time the players mopped the floor with them.
I don't think your feat chain is especially effective. You are putting way too much into defense. A number of issues:
I would consider not getting the EWP: Bastard Sword feat as your first feat. It is only a +1 to your overall average damage and that's pretty poor for a feat. If you really must do EWP for a one-handed weapon I would go either Falcata or Katana. Smite evil damage multiplies on a crit so you should be fishing for crits in combat. If you want to play a katana paladin there is actually a country in Tian Xia which is largely inhabited by Aasimars, and being "Asian" can actually give the GM an in angle for your character. I won't say more than that. FYI there is also a LG god in the Tian pantheon that has Katana as a favoured weapon. The main advantage of a bastard sword over these is that they would be easier to find.
However it is also worthwhile to note that with access to Martial weapons that you already have, a cracked Opalescent White Pyramid (Ioun Stone) costs 1500 gp and turns a weapon into a martial weapon for you. So 1500 gp will spare you the cost of a feat; you can probably afford this by level 3 (especially if someone in the party can craft). Use a scimitar or longsword until you can get one of these.
This frees up a feat slot with which I would take Power Attack. Fighting one-handed reduces your damage output noticeably and you need to focus on ways to increase your damage output. Power attack scales by level, making an all around great feat.
FYI if you get the Divine Bond (weapon) ability then when you boost your weapon to +4 (or just use a +4 weapon) it will bypass DR/Adamantine. You can get an adamantine weapon if you want, but it's not a priority for you. Paladins are great for dealing with DR.
I would put Greater Mercy much earlier, preferably 3rd level. You are able to wear heavy armor; once you have +1 full plate and a +1 heavy shield your AC will be 23 (or 24 with DEX 12) which is plenty for low level, and it will rise as you get better stuff. Remember that you don't want your AC to be too high. The idea behind a paladin is that he draws fire away from everyone else (because he can self-heal); if you are too hard to hit then opponents will just go and attack your allies. So I wouldn't be spending feats on making yourself harder to hit. As a Paladin, you WANT to be hit. Every hit on you is a hit that someone else doesn't have to suffer, and you can take it.
Likewise, covering focus isn't that great for a Paladin. Your saves are already good; normally reflex saves are the least important to lose; they tend to cause HP loss but only rarely have nasty status effects. And you can soak the damage. If you were going to try to boost saves I'd boost Will or Fort instead. Or just don't worry about your saves; get extra lay on hands instead. Boosting CHA and getting a cloak of resistance should be more than enough.
Dragoncraft is interesting, but questionable... there are dragons in this AP, but not that many. Talk to your GM about whether this one will be worth it. If you can buy dragon parts in a marketplace, then it could be cool.
BTW, unless you think it is cheesy, consider the Fey Foundling feat at 1st level. That's the only time you can take it. It's awesome for Paladins.
Ulfen Death Squad wrote:
"But is the raise dead casting worth the cost of 10 uses of Lay on Hands?"
Oh yes, absolutely. Note that you will probably be doing this on a day when you are not adventuring; you have withdrawn from the dungeon, etc. You also save the party 5000 gp which is not chump change. You totally want this by 11th level if your CHA is high enough for it. Note that permanent bonuses from magic items count, though you lose access to the feat temporarily if you lose the item.
Here's my feat chain suggestion:
1. Fey Foundling
You could swap around greater mercy and power attack. If you are wondering why use Improved Critical, look at the paladin spell bless weapon.
EDIT: Regarding skills...
Yes, perception is good. But with a WIS of only 10 and not having it as a class skill, you will never be that outstanding at it. Still worth ranks, but don't expect miracles.
For this AP, someone with Knowledge: History is good, but again, your INT is only 12 and it's not a class skill. This is a great skill for the wizard.
Don't expect too much from a Paladin in the skills department. If you really want to play a skilled divine warrior, consider the Inquisitor class instead of a Paladin.
Removing paralysis is nice, but remember that you won't be able to do this to yourself, since you are already paralyzed. The main focus of lay on hands is to use them on yourself.