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

Peet's page

Pathfinder Society Member. 1,005 posts (2,919 including aliases). No reviews. 1 list. No wishlists. 5 Pathfinder Society characters. 22 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 1,005 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

s: 6d6 ⇒ (5, 5, 6, 6, 6, 1) = 29
g: 3d4 ⇒ (1, 4, 1) = 6
w: 3d6 ⇒ (2, 4, 2) = 8
f: 1d6 - 3 ⇒ (2) - 3 = -11d6 - 3 ⇒ (4) - 3 = 11d6 - 3 ⇒ (5) - 3 = 2


@ Alia:

The Kyonin Mission:
Okay. I didn't know what the Winter Court was so I guess your previous explanation didn't "click" with me. I do know what/who Treerazer is, but most of the Kyonin material I have only skimmed.

Numalar only knows what Alia tells him though, and until now as a player I didn't know either.

I thought though from the hints that you were also looking to recover something from a specific site in the region. Do you still have that mission?

Difference of Opinions:
You may have pegged Numalar as LN, and as I mentioned earlier there are two main reasons why he would seem that way (one of which is deliberate roleplaying on my part), rather than LG which is his actual alignment.

But what if he was LN? We should still be able to work together.

I don't feel that any player should have to submit to any other player. And I don't feel that the point that Numalar could have submitted is valid since Alia didn't back down either. But as I have said before, Numalar is quite willing to submit to the will of the group. Just recently he was outvoted on the "leave Tor et.al. their weapons" issue. And that's fine.

Winning Over Numalar:
For the record though, Alia was not making the kind of arguments that would move Numalar at all. So here are some things that would have had an impact:

"The Levetons will be safe from reprisal because _______." Numalar just couldn't see how it was possible to manage the risk involved with letting the two bandits live. Keeping them at Oleg's made the bandit population almost equal to the guard population, which seemed like a recipe for disaster, as did just releasing them. And Alia didn't seem to have any answers there. But marching the group of bandits to your elf-gate would have been something that Numalar would have considered, had Alia mentioned it.

"I spoke to the bandits and they want to atone for their crimes." The charter specifies unrepentant bandits, and having some evidence that they were repentant would have forced Numalar to take a second look. As it was there wasn't any such evidence and Numalar wasn't willing to just assume that they might repent at some point in the future.

"But you promised!" Numalar keeps his oaths. This one is tricky, because Numalar is wary and doesn't swear an oath lightly. He takes them very seriously. But if you were able to get Numalar to promise something he would feel he had to live up to it, even if it was not in his interests.

Leadership:
Well, someone has to fill the "Ruler" role of the kingdom, no matter what the titles are. Numalar would be good at several roles but was designed with the Ruler role in mind.

That much being said, "First Among Equals" is a hell of a lot better than "I am King, My Word is Law, so Kneel."

It is worth thinking about what role Alia would like to fulfill when the time comes, so you are prepared for it. My guess would be Magister but there are plenty of options.


RPGGGM wrote:
Hope that clears up more things than it muddles.

Yes, I think it has.

About Kyonin, etc.:

RPGGGM wrote:
Alright, first off major spoiler: Eventually the characters in the Kingmaker AP get the opportunity to rule the lands they are chartered with exploring.

I don't think the above is a surprise to anyone. Most Kingmaker recruitment threads ask what kingdom role you see yourself as taking.

It makes sense that a lot of different groups want to get their hand in the new kingdom. The various Brevoy factions, plus Pitax and Mivon are the obvious ones. But they need not be restricted to humans. So Kyonin makes sense.

Nevertheless Brevoy is ideally suited to be the "mother country" because the instability of Brevoy provides a plausible reason for the ease of achieving independence and acquiring colonists. Kyonin does not have that problem, so a Kyonin-sponsored kingdom would have a much harder time acting independently.

As a player I want to run the kingdom with as little interference as possible. So Kyonin as a sponsor doesn't seem attractive at all. That doesn't mean that Kyonin can't try to exert influence in more subtle ways.

Morals:
I am relieved to hear that it is not actually Alia's GM-assigned job to police Numalar's morals. :)

I can understand how you would feel that Numalar is very Lawful. But he is also very Good. He will offer aid to those in need without hesitation and with no thought of reward. He will risk his life for others. He is respectful, caring, giving, and charitable. I could go on and on.

Numalar knows that some people take advantage of such intentions though, so he conceals this attitude with a certain gruffness and feigned indifference. So he often projects LN even though he is LG.

The thing is, the good/evil axis hasn't come up much in this adventure. We haven't met a band of starving refugees or come upon a group of goblins burning down a schoolhouse. So the Law/Chaos thing is coming up more.

I don't think the "gut feeling" thing necessarily works here. Numalar's gut feeling in the case of the bandits was fear - fear that if freed the bandits would return with greater numbers and take their revenge against the Levetons, carrying out threats they had already made. And Numalar, having freed them, would think he was responsible. The "gut feeling" will be different for each character.

Re: Differences of Opinions:

Not spoilering this as I think it is the most important.

The thing is, as characters of different alignments, we are inevitably going disagree on some things. Numalar is not about to become chaotic; he probably wouldn't even hit neutral. I don't expect Alia to change alignments either.

But a party of characters with different alignments should be able to work together. We should be able to "agree to disagree." And the most sensible way to do that is to defer such decisions to the party as a whole, and accept that the party as a group is not always going to want to do what we want individually.

And if the issue of executions comes up again, rather than reopen the death penalty debate, you could just say "You know how I feel about the death penalty." Because we all do.

Leadership:
You are right that Numalar is set up prominently. He has a high CHA and comes from an aristocratic background. He has good skills for courtly life, and he likes making speeches. But even with that, Numalar doesn't want to lord it over everyone (and neither do I) - he just wants respect. We should be deciding the important things together as a group. That's what Pathfinder is about.

Numalar's background was designed for this in a way you probably haven't noticed. Valdralee, Numalar's model for a perfect society, did not have a king. It was ruled by a council of nine princes. Yes, one prince held the "chair," but they ruled together. When it comes time to actually found a kingdom, this will be Numalar's proposal for the basis of the new government.

The Recent Argument:
I acknowledge that the fault is partly mine in that I brought up executions in that post. I should have been more clear in that I wasn't advocating for the death penalty for them, just saying that if we do it we should own it.

The idea that for due process of law we need a disinterested third party is exactly the argument that would have worked with Numalar. Not sure I would pick Renault though. Maybe Jhod Kavken?

Imprisonment:
For the record, Numalar thinks that imprisonment is a pretty cruel punishment. Partly because the only prisons he has ever seen are those in Brevoy, and I am sure they are pretty awful (and those in Mivon and Pitax are unlikely to be much better). Seems like you are deliberately inflicting suffering. Throwing someone in there for years only to have him emerge much later a broken man seems worse than hanging in many ways, and Numalar might choose death over such a sentence.

But even good prisons are not a great recipe for reformation. You basically throw someone in a box with a bunch of other criminals. It's possible they can come out worse than they went in. When it comes to the time where we we actually have to set up a justice system, I hope we can avoid imprisonment as a punishment as much as possible. If someone steals farmer John's pig, he should have to work on Farmer John's farm until he pays it off, plus interest.

No hurry to answer any of this... part of it is venting. And some of this stuff deals with things that are a long way off in the game.


@ MordredofFairy:

Thank you for this post. I do believe we are clearing the air here and I appreciate it. I know you don't have the time that you used to and I appreciate the level of detail you went to.

Opinions and Actions:
I understand we are butting heads over opinions. But opinions should not be the issue.

Numalar is not trying to force the issue with regards to what to do. He is willing to go along with the will of the group as a whole. Numalar is outspoken, but he is not the group's "leader," nor does he think he is.

The whole thing about the death penalty for the bandits was that we voted on what to do. But because Numalar is willing to talk about it, I find he is defending the decision that the GROUP has made, even though he can only offer his own reasons for thinking the way he does. Then I become the target and you seem to treat it as if it was MY decision alone. You didn't spend any time trying to change Zokon's or Celyne's mind on the subject.

Really, aside from a few in-character comments, once the GROUP makes a decision we should move on. If the party had decided to spare the bandits, Numalar would have grumped about it for a moment but then focused himself on making it work.

But though Numalar hasn't changed his opinions, I feel I am working to try to accommodate Alia in actions. Remember hiring the priest to cast heal on Faeria? That was my idea, and I came up with that as a means of trying to accommodate Alia.

So when I talk about compromising, I am not talking about revising opinions. Alia doesn't seem to be changing her opinion either - in fact, her opinions seem to be getting more extreme. But that isn't important. It is the actions that matter.

The Current Argument:
The latest conflict came about when I suggested that as a group we should decide what to do about the prisoners rather than nominate an outside person to be the authority figure. I actually thought you would be happy with that idea considering how much it seemed to piss you off when the bandits were taken to Brevoy. Renault is from Brevoy, and is unlikely to do anything differently.

Numalar's proposal was meant to be a discussion point for the whole party. Yet you pounced on it and seemed to feel that you had to shout me down. I don't know what everyone else was thinking, but it seemed like nobody else wanted to talk about it because they didn't want to get involved in an argument.

Ironically now GGGM has chimed in and pointed out that yes, we are supposed to be doing things ourselves. He actually pointed this out to me privately some time ago and Numalar changed his stance on our role in the game.

Dragging in the death penalty argument was not only counterproductive, but not relevant to the discussion, since we hadn't decided to execute anyone at that point. Numalar was yet undecided about what he wanted to do to them, but was inclined to let them go, probably with some kind of compensation, oath, or something. I recall only Zokon actually said we should just kill them all.

But either way, both our positions on the death penalty are already well known. We don't need to go over them again.

Morals:
I find it interesting that GGGM asked you to try to be a "moral compass."

But the thing is, Numalar is a deeply moral character. He is basically the "paladin" of the party. Some of his views could be inconvenient for the party (as is often the case with paladins), and in a previous campaign (which died - this was before the current campaign) there were moments where the party had to get Numalar "out of the room" so they could do something that he normally wouldn't stand for, even though it was generally good for the adventure and the party.

So trying to tell Numalar that his actions are "wrong" is just going to piss him off. But remember his sense of right and wrong is weighted heavily by his sense of responsibility.

Executing someone for just cause is not a good act, but it is not evil either. It is essentially neutral, just as killing someone in battle is. Not executing someone, and giving them the chance to reform IS a good act. But only if doing so doesn't lead to harm to others.

So Numalar looked at the situation of the bandits and thought, "Can I allow these men to live safely? If so, how?" And frankly, he really didn't see how he could do it, not with the resources at hand.

But that doesn't mean his actions are evil or immoral.

If the party had voted to spare the others, he wouldn't have liked it, but he would have tried to make sure that the bandits weren't a danger to anyone else as much as he could.

The way to get Numalar to change his mind on that issue would have been to go to the prisoners and try to actually get them to repent. If they did so, and it seemed genuine, it would have gone a LONG way towards changing Numalar's mind.

Once we actually HAVE a kingdom, discussions on crime and punishment will be very fruitful.

There will be a couple other things to say but I will post those later.


@ Alia/Mordred:

Okay, I spoke to GGGM before posting this, but I think it's time.

Alia of the Blade wrote:
...

Okay. I'm going to call it here. We are going around in circles and I feel like I am beating my head against a brick wall. So I am going to step out of character and address you player-to-player instead of character-to-character.

Alia of the Blade wrote:
Yours are. I'll keep brief where possible

My posts are getting long. The reason for this is that I feel as a fellow player you deserve for me to give clear and cogent answers to your points rather than some kind of rude dismissal like "no you're wrong."

I am trying to be respectful. And from the tone of the remark above and others like it, I don't feel I am getting that respect in return.

Somehow I find myself dragged into the death penalty argument again, even though I wasn't even advocating that at this point. Numalar still needs more information to form a definite opinion as to what to do. And we are just repeating the same stuff we have already been over.

-----

So:

Ultimately here is what I feel is the real problem.

I understand that you are in the process of creating a vivid character and the more you play Alia the clearer her personality becomes for you. And that's great.

But the problem is that Alia seems to be operating at cross purposes with the rest of the party. In two ways.

-----

1. Alia feels passionate about her opposition to the death penalty, except in extreme circumstances. The problem here is that the basic premise of the adventure involves it. The Royal Charter that the earlier characters all signed mentions it explicitly, and the charter serves as not only a mission but an introduction to the adventure. It tells you that this is something that will sometimes be necessary. The earlier characters were all designed with this understanding.

Had Alia been present at the beginning of the adventure, and refused to sign the charter on the grounds of her opposition to the death penalty, then she would have been excused from the adventure, and you would have got to roll up a new character.

But instead your alternate origin gave you an end run around the charter. I had thought when you joined us that gradually your character's goals would fall into line with the rest of the party's in a roleplayed transition, and that eventually you would get your own charter like the rest of us. But it feels like you are digging in your heels and just pushing harder in the opposite direction.

This is Pathfinder. We're not supposed to be constantly agonizing about whether to kill things. And it's getting frustrating.

-----

2. The second issue is your Kyonin "mission." Every time you bring up the idea that Kyonin should move in and take over, I feel like you are trying to sabotage the mission that I know as a player I will receive but as a character I don't know I will even get yet. It puts you in competition with the rest of us, only our roleplaying hands are tied because we don't yet know that your "elven enclaves" will make it more difficult for us later. It seems unfair. Theoretically Numalar shouldn't care about Kyonin enclaves popping up because as far as he knows he will never actually have a stake in the Stolen Lands.

If the group decided that we were happy with being a Kyonin-sponsored kingdom, I think GGGM is a good enough GM that he could wing it. I GM the majority of games I play f2f and I have to acknowledge that he is better than me at it. I don't say that lightly, and it is not the case with any other pbp GM I have so far.

But I do NOT want our kingdom to be New Lothlorien. I want it to be uniquely ours, a vibrant, squalling mess, and not a copy of anything. A human kingdom works for this because they tend to be inclusive. I'm happy to have elves in it, but I don't want a new elven kingdom. I don't want a gnome kingdom either! Numalar was made to work with the way the AP is designed to ultimately develop.

And I can't express these opinions in character, because Numalar doesn't know that the kingdom phase is coming. Only you have that information. I'm also starting to think that I am not the only one who is bothered by this.

-----

At this point I don't know how to resolve this. I have tried to find ways of accommodating you without compromising Numalar's values. I do know that these arguments are starting to make the game not so much fun for me any more. And that's a problem. I put a LOT of work into Numalar and had been looking forward to playing him for a long time.

So what can we do? Are you willing to build some bridges, and if so how do we do that?

Peet/Numalar


Good luck, folks, and have fun!


MordredofFairy wrote:
@Peet: I gave some thought to what Hotaru brought up. I'm not sure if it truly fits what you are going for, but companion figurine feat could also set you up on the familiar thing.

I had originally figured that I would go with the Falconer archetype of Ranger as my gestalt class, which provides a bird animal companion (which is small) but I think this is probably a bad idea mechanically and I don't really need three ranks of ranger in gestalt.

My submission will have the haunted oracle curse and so he will be frequently haunted by a spirit that manifests as a silver raven (probably only he can see it). I want something unusual to spark an interest in the silver ravens in the character, so he will take this as a sign.

The companion figurine idea is neat but I will have to pick up the figurine first. Does the companion figurine improve as you gain levels? I can't find that in the text.


Lost 33 wrote:
Current Submissions: ** spoiler omitted **...

GM: I'm getting the feeling you missed this one:

Peet wrote:
Okay, the campaign trait Ozak would take would ideally be Robot Slayer, but Against the Technic League could also fit. Either would be based on a hostile encounter as Ozak crossed Numeria. The rest of the traits don't really fit as he isn't from Torch and isn't much of an academic.

So with the right link it should be:

Ozak Daggertooth – Half-Orc Inquisitor / Slayer (Robot Slayer or Against the Technic League)


DM-Camris wrote:
Peet: I see nothing objectionable there.

DM Camris:

I am sending you a PM with some stuff about the character that will need to be approved - I don't want to make an alias for the character yet. I haven't bought mundane gear or done the fluff yet but the build is done I think.

Are you using Background Skills? If so I would take craft (carpentry) and perform (wind) but I can't afford those skills under the normal rules.

Peet


Lost 33 wrote:
@Peet: There’s no reason a non-technological focused creature can’t run in Iron Gods. In fact even through the campaign is technology themed, it would be odd to find that many competent technologists at once in Golarion.

Okay, the campaign trait Ozak would take would ideally be Robot Slayer, but Against the Technic League could also fit. Either would be based on a hostile encounter as Ozak crossed Numeria. The rest of the traits don't really fit as he isn't from Torch and isn't much of an academic.


I know that Iron Gods has sci-fi and technology as well as the normal Pathfinder stuff. Do you recommend playing a character that is designed for that? I have a gestalt Half-Orc Slayer/Inquisitor of Gorum that I am keen to play but the only campaigns I have gotten him into have died. He has nothing to do with Iron Gods per se, though his origin is nearby (he was originally written for Kingmaker which is just next door) so I won't have to change much.

The character is Ozak Daggertooth. I will have to rejigger the starting ability scores but otherwise he is mostly ready.

Wow, 45 is a lot of points.

Probably would go with:
STR 20 (including +2 racial)
DEX 16
CON 16
INT 12
WIS 16
CHA 07

I don't have to dump CHA that much but he was designed that way originally.


Hi there, DM Camris.

How would you feel about an Aasimar (Azata-Blooded) Oracle of the Wood Mystery? He would have the "Scion of Humanity" trait but instead of making him look like a human I would go with looking like an elf.

The character concept is a bit vague at the moment but I can put it together if you think this would work.


MordredofFairy wrote:
Still over a week. With all the quality submissions already made, I will probably start the 48-hour countdown on monday 28th, ...

Glad to see this is still open.

@ MordredofFairy:
Hmmm... an idea is percolating in my mind. So let me ask you a couple questions about builds:

1. If we are taking a gestalt class for 3 levels, do the 3 levels have to have the same Gestalt class? Or could you do 2 of one class and 1 of another?

2. How do you feel about applying weapon finesse to a quarterstaff, or an Unchained Rogue that uses a quarterstaff? Strictly speaking a quarterstaff does not qualify for the Rogue's Finesse Training as it is a two-handed weapon, but I figure mechanically counting the two ends of a quarterstaff as light weapons isn't mechanically any better than a rogue with two shortswords - as long as you don't try to use it as a two-handed weapon that gives 1.5 x DEX damage which would obviously be offside.

3. I am trying to figure out a way for my character to gain an animal companion or familiar as an oracle of a mystery that does not grant one. The companion I have in mind is an albino (i.e. silver) raven. I don't expect to be delivering touch spells or using it as a combat buddy (except maybe to provide flank once in a while) - I am more interested in it as a messenger and as a symbol. I was considering the Falconer Ranger archetype but this would be as a gestalt class meaning that the companion would never advance. Would you allow a revelation to be spent to give me such a companion?


This would seem to be a good campaign for the Vigilante class from Ultimate Intrigue. So far I have only seen the playtest version though.

I have a character that I did up for PFS and then hardly ever played that would be good for this campaign. He is an Aasimar (Angel-kin) Bloodrager with the celestial bloodline. His background was never that well fleshed out but he is of Kellid Stock from the Realm of the Mammoth Lords. I would have to figure out why he would be in Kintargo.


As I already said, I don't want to resort to plot magic if I don't have to, especially if there is a way to do it at a reasonable caster level without plot magic. The enemy doing this would not be the BBEG but a minion, so I don't want to invest too much into some "special power."

Edymnion wrote:

Honestly, I would ask myself the following questions:

Is it important that the Players learn about how the creature was being controlled?

Not specifically, no, but since the enemy caster will be comparable in level to the PCs, I do want the potential to be there.

Edymnion wrote:
Is it something you want the Players to be able to do themselves in the future?

If the players want to spend the resources to be able to do it, sure. Though none of the people in the party are really configured to do this without some jiggering.

Edymnion wrote:
Is the control of said beast something that will hinder the enemies (as in, do they have reduced amounts of gear themselves because they spent wealth on the worm)?

Yes. Maybe not in gear, but in terms of actions or participation, possibly. I originally envisioned the encounter having the controlling caster controlling the worm at a "safe distance" away, but still within LOS.

Edymnion wrote:
You are the GM, you don't have to be fair or follow the rules when you don't want to.

I understand this, but I do want to, which is why I created this thread. I'm sorry if that wasn't clear earlier.


Mechagamera wrote:
I would have had the bad guy obtain a variant awaken spell that can affect purple worms.

And then give him class levels! How about bard? Sid the Singing Sandworm, at your service!

Seriously though, I don't think I need an intelligent worm. If I take a Lamia Matriarch, and give her sorc levels and the serpentine bloodline, That should be enough.


I brake for Kingmaker. Not interested in most APs but want to play that one. I also would be into Iron Gods.

I can do PbP but not Roll 20.

This sounds like a wild and wooly game and if it is on I will roll up stats and come up with something.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
GM Mowque wrote:

Easier option.

Write up the roll, preview it, then erase it.

That's good unless you want to be able to look back later.


6d6 ⇒ (4, 6, 4, 5, 4, 5) = 28
3d6 ⇒ (5, 6, 4) = 15


CorvusMask wrote:

Plot magic

...What? <_<

Yeah, I considered that, but I don't like to resort to that if I don't have to.

Dyspeptic wrote:
Serpentine Bloodline Arcana allows you to treat Magical Beasts as Humanoids. So... at 10th level Sorc, Dominate Person.

Or Charm Person at level 1! This is good, and I could have the controller be a Lamia Matriarch, so the serpentine bloodline is a natural one for her.

The 20 STR Aristocrat wrote:
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/s/summon-elder-worm

I don't want a 17th level druid doing the work here - a bit out of the league of the players. And for plot reasons I would rather have the worm be a semi-permanent companion rather than a summoned creature.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Diego Rossi wrote:
Matthew Downie wrote:
Let's say I cast Enlarge Person and Dominate Person on someone and then kill him and bring him back as an undead creature. Is he still affected normally by those spells even though he is no longer a valid target for them?

Enlarge person: yes. It is the same body.

Dominate person: yes, but you are dominating the original person, not the undead you just created. They are different creatures.

The difference between enlarge person and dominate person is an interesting one. I think that instinctively GMs would rule against dominate person continuing after death, without necessarily articulating why. So if you then say that enlarge person should work the same way you get a bit of traction.

But there are two things that make me think they would work differently.

1. Dominate person is a mind-affecting spell. Turning a dominated person into a mindless creature would presumably render the spell useless. If the spell allows you to control the target's mind, and target no longer has a mind, then the spell should not do anything any more. The spell may still be active, but I can't see it doing anything.

i.e.: If you chop the legs off of someone, their expeditious retreat spell no longer has any effect. But if you then cast regenerate and restore their legs, and the expeditious retreat spell's duration is still ticking, then expeditious retreat still works.

2. Dominate person cannot be made permanent. Really the issue is the permanency spell, not the enlarge person spell.

* * *

As a GM, in my games I would probably allow Permanency to continue working, on the grounds that you spent gold on a permanent effect.

Permanency is not as good as a magic item, since it is vulnerable to dispel magic. But nevertheless, if I was going to impose a "permanency expires upon death" rule, I would feel obligated to warn players about that before they cast permanent spells on themselves. If I didn't explain this and then dropped it on my players when their characters died, they would have cause to be pissed.


Yeah, the Dune thing was kind of in my mind in the OP. Though those would have to be colossal worms at least.

GreatKhanArtist wrote:
Maybe he doesn't. Maybe the worm is just a savage beast to be pitied, for the bad guy is keeping it managed through cruel methods. When he opens the cage door, the worm explodes out in a rage-driven attempt to end the suffering. As long as he doesn't stand in its path, he's safe. How will PCs feel about ending its life to end its suffering?

That's not bad, but I want the worm to pop out of the ground and attack a specific group (the players), with the controller being at some distance. This will require a bit more finesse than that, so magical control or training will likely be necessary.


The "bury itself" ability of the Giant Emperor Scorpion would lend itself to them being good guard animals. They could remain buried at "watchposts" the giants want guarded.

They are also large enough to ride. I don't want to introduce colossal creatures at the moment, so huge is big enough for me. I could use the young template if I want "easier" ones.


Ascalaphus wrote:

You could use Handle Animal:

Quote:
Special: You can use this skill on a creature with an Intelligence score of 1 or 2 that is not an animal, but the DC of any such check increases by 5. Such creatures have the same limit on tricks known as animals do.

Yeah, this is not bad. Probably you would use charm monster at first, but then use handle animal to train it.


In the Purple Worm entry in the Bestiary, it says:

PRD wrote:
"They make popular guardians for those who have the magic to control them..."

I would like to have an encounter in my game where the players are attacked by a purple worm that is controlled by their enemies.

So what kind of magic would you use to control one?

Dominate monster would obviously work, but it is a bit too high in level. The six-person party will probably be 11th level when the encounter happens.

Charm monster would work, but how do you communicate with a magical beast? I don't think speak with animals works as that specifies animals. And the worm is not intelligent, so tongues won't work either. And awaken cannot target a magical beast to make it intelligent.

So how would you do it? I want the enemy caster to be able to actually direct the worm to attack something.


I think I like the scorpion angle, just for thematic reasons. This takes place in an arid environment so scorpions seem good for that.


Ash Giants have a natural affinity with vermin creatures.

Any recommendations as to what sort of vermin to add to an Ash Giant encounter? Preferably in the same or slightly lower CR range to the giants themselves.


6d6 ⇒ (4, 6, 6, 1, 2, 1) = 20

1d6 ⇒ 4

1d8 + 2 ⇒ (5) + 2 = 7

1d8 + 1 ⇒ (1) + 1 = 2


Joey Virtue wrote:
I think a pack of giant lycanthropes would be a lot of fun and really cool

Yeah and at the same time, once you have one lycanthrope it would be pretty easy to have a bunch. I imagine an Ogre tribe that worshiped Lamashtu would be down with deliberately infecting themselves with lycanthropy.


@ Mudfoot:
I was a player in a 3.5 game once where we infiltrated a Giant city (I think the adventure was from a Dungeon magazine). They had Bugbear slaves as cannon fodder. Similar to your orc idea, but with a few more HP.

As it is an Orc Warrior 1 will probably be unable to hit any of my players except on a natural 20. So I might beef them up a little - maybe Barbarian levels. It's a good idea.

@ Raisse:
Yeah, once the party is in the tunnels under Jorgenfist things will get more interesting. But the overland encounters are basically Ogres, Hill Giants, patrolling Stone Giants, etc. with a few animals thrown in.

I expect the party will figure out a way to sneak past the giants in the camps rather than just smash through them. Though if they mounted a guerilla campaign against them I could see them actually winning if they were smart. As I mentioned, they have developed very effective tactics for dealing with giants.

One of the things the giants did in the 3.5 adventure was in addition to throwing rocks they also threw pickled carrion crawler heads, which would hit as splash weapons and paralyze people.

The variant Ogre thing I already mentioned... werewolf ogres would have DR silver and fiendish ogres would have SR and stuff. Any particular other templates you think I should try?

@ Joey Virtue:
I take it you mean from THIS THREAD? I looked over it and for the most part you are just increasing the numbers of enemies in existing encounters.

I am interested though: What is a War Troll? Is that a template for trolls?


I've been thinking about Fortress of the Stone Giants and that perhaps I need to do something to add a few new creature types to the mix. I am posting my ideas and fishing for ideas others might have.

I have two reasons for this.

#1 - Repetition. The Hook Mountain Massacre was basically a string of encounters which were almost all giants. There were a few exceptions, such as Xanesha, Lamatar, and the Hags, but almost all the encounters were fights with ogres or their kin.

Looking through the Fortress of the Stone Giants module, I see more Giants, Giants, and Giants. Not until the party actually penetrates the catacombs under Jorgenfist do we get any real variety.

#2. - Tactics. The party I have is likely able to walk over a lot of the encounters. In particular, there is one Strix character and an air sorcerer who flies a lot. Even with stone throwing the giants will have a hard time dealing with the party, and they have gotten very good at dealing with big slow creatures. So I want to mix it up.

So far here is what I am thinking:

A: Harpies. A Bog-standard harpy is a little too easy for my guys but with a sprinkling of class levels and good numbers this will give my aerial characters something to think about.

B: Ghosts. A group of Thassilonian nobles pledged themselves forever loyal to Karzoug. These nobles found themselves abandoned by the Runelord when Earthfall happened. They desire revenge, but are bound by Karzoug and cannot defy him. However, they are useless as souls for the Sihedron Ritual because they are already dead. Karzoug has given control over some of them to Mokmurian.

C: Weird Giants. I figure we ought to have a variety of giant types represented and I was thinking of making things interesting. I don't like the proliferation of "terrain based" giant types, but a few other giant types might be in order, such as:

* Ettins. Possibly with levels that take advantage of their two-weapon ability.

* Variant Ogres from the Monster Codex: Shaggras and Pickins.

* Fiendish Ogres. A tribe dedicated to Lamashtu has been using a Demon Mother's mask to give them Fiendish offspring.

* Werewolf Ogres. Why not? Give the party some work to do about needing silver weapons.

Anyone have any other suggestions?


Ferious Thune wrote:
Is there an Oracle that can get Channel Negative Energy to harm?

There ought to be, and there might be in 3pp material, but I have never seen a Paizo one.

The Versatile Channeler feat specifically mentions Clerics but not Oracles, so that doesn't work unless you get a GM that houserules it.


dragonhunterq wrote:
Probably wise to talk to your GM though in case he houserules in some alignment changing effect.

I am the GM in this case and I'm trying to decide if I want to limit the summons of the NG oracle in the party. The oracle in question is a devotee of Pharasma.

Some good points here and I will have to think about it. But it's a good point that an Oracle suffers no penalties from changing alignments.


My search of the forums indicate that clerics cannot do this. But can Oracles? Is the prohibition based on the type of spells or solely on the class features?


1d8 + 1 ⇒ (1) + 1 = 2


Latrecis wrote:
Given where you're at, it's hard to introduce an assassin's guild. After Hook Mountain (even before) the as-written AP is pretty well set in stone :)

There is a bit of wiggle room, but you are right, not much. And once in the runeforge, the RMA are not going to have an impact at all.

Lorax: I do like the Lamia matriarch angle. It throws a bit of a twist into things. There are two that we know of so far in the story, but there could easily be others operating in secret here and there all around Varisia. Stopping Xanesha and Lucretia doesn't stop the Sihedron sacrifices; it just slows them down, so there are likely others.


Joey Virtue wrote:
I don't use the NPC classes unless it's super low level or makes total story sense with like a Noble. Because I hate the NPC classes I rather just give them a PC class and be done with it.

Adding a PC class also involves a significant ability score boost, and I didn't want to go that far. Adding Warrior 2 is similar to adding racial HD but it also grants a few proficiencies that are reasonable to have (like armor). This also gives you a bit of an excuse to add some armor as treasure.

Basically I would put a giant with Warrior 2 as CR+1 over their normal CR.


Nothing?


Dotting. Appreciate this as I am running with 6 players, mostly well optimized.

One thing I have been doing that is rather simple is making my ogres and stone giants Warrior 2's. Then give them a little bit of armor (like studded leather, hide armor, or scale mail) and weapon focus in their weapon or something similar.

Part of the reason for that was to boost the HP of the ogres a bit. At 7th level, the party sorcerer was throwing 10d6 fireballs thanks to Varisian Tattoo and Spell Specialization, so a fireball would usually take out any normal ogre that didn't save (which would be most of them).


Latrecis wrote:
Meangarr wrote:

Also I wish I'd have removed the well entrance to the caverns beneath the Misgivings. I appreciate the consistency of the ecology but in the eventuality that the players enter the Misgivings that way it's somewhat disastrous. The dungeon really falls apart from both a storytelling and engagement perspective if played in reverse this way.

It's a good nod to player choice, but all this choice really does is let players make a worse story for themselves.

This is a pretty good observation/warning for other DM's. You could also simply not let them find it. Don't ask for a perception check unless they specifically explore the well, etc. Relatively easy Knowledge Engineering checks (or simply provided when examined) reveal the well is on the verge of collapse, any effort to enter or otherwise interact could lead to a complete cave-in. (This is of course would have to be used judiciously - for some groups this would draw their attention instead of discourage it.)

I had the same problem when I allowed my players to go downstairs into the catacombs without first exploring the upper floors of the house. They explored the upstairs afterwards, but it was all anticlimactic as the BBEG was already dealt with. In hindsight I would have put something upstairs that allows the players to access the catacombs.


I want to integrate the Red Mantis somewhere in the AP thanks to them playing a role in a character's backstory. The character joined the game during the Hook Mountain Massacre and we will be moving on to the Fortress of the Stone Giants soon.

Any suggestions as to how the Red Mantis might be involved with the plot somehow? I don't want to just add a Red Mantis hit team encounter. I want it to connect with the story somehow.

Anyone have any ideas?


6d6 ⇒ (4, 6, 1, 5, 4, 5) = 25


T: 1d6 ⇒ 3
I: 2d6 ⇒ (6, 4) = 10
R: 2d6 ⇒ (4, 3) = 7
6d6 ⇒ (1, 2, 1, 3, 1, 5) = 13


Int A: 18 - 1d20 ⇒ 18 - (20) = -2
Int Fe: 10 - 1d20 ⇒ 10 - (7) = 3
Int Fi: 9 - 1d20 ⇒ 9 - (20) = -11
Int M: 14 - 1d20 ⇒ 14 - (7) = 7
Int T: 17 - 1d20 ⇒ 17 - (20) = -3
Int Z: 18 - 1d20 ⇒ 18 - (13) = 5


Perception: 3d6 ⇒ (1, 2, 2) = 5


3d6 ⇒ (5, 1, 1) = 7


thzero wrote:

Step 10: Benefits Rolls

rolls: 6 terms + 2 (for 4 rank) +1 (for cash only)
...
dice=6 Free Trader

thzero: I may be wrong but the free trader benefit probably gives you +1d6 ship shares instead.

So while we are on the subject, let's see where we stand on owning the ship:

Ship Shares
"Varkha Gzegdoug" - 4 shares
"Allrianne" - 3 shares
AGamer70 - 2 shares
Fnord72 - 10 shares
"Myro Palk" - 1 share
thzero - 4 shares possibly +1d6
"Lodic" - 0 - he doesn't believe in ship ownership.

So we have 24 shares, maybe more. That's not too bad.


Allrianne wrote:

Navigation=on Planet

Astogation=Space

Ah, so the navigator doesn't need navigation skill then? Well that makes MDT's "Lodic" the logical choice for navigator then unless someone else has a better combo then?

Allrianne wrote:
Intended to be an Engineer-type, but rolls didn't work out.

Well, with mechanic 2 you have a good start for a lot of stuff the engineer normally would work on. You could pick up Engineer 1 from the skill package.


OK where do we stand now party-wise?

I had originally thought there were a lot of applicants and that I would stake out the Small Craft Pilot position, but it looks like we don't have that many people. Instead of Pilot 3 (small craft) I could have had Pilot 1 (small craft) and Pilot 2 (spaceship).

Piloting is my only big ship skill but I also have Jack-o-T 3.

AGamer70 - Navy guy. Looks like you have Gunner-2. Having a decent gunner can be a big deal. Also Navigation 1, Pilot 1, Astrogation 1, and Medic - not sure what rating.

"Allrianne" - Scavenger/Salvage. Mechanic 2 and Sensors 2, but none of the main ship skills. Maybe she can get Engineer-1 or Navigation-1 out of the skill package?

thzero - Merchant. Broker 1 and Medic 1. Good personal combat skills. I don't see any ship skills there though.

drbuzzard - "Myro Palk" - Agent - Investigate 2 & Streetwise 2 but not much for ship skills, except Gunner 1 and Computer 1.

Fnord72 - medical researcher. Medic 3? Also Engineer 1.

MDT "Lodic" - Darrian telepath. Astrogation 1 and computers 2. Also some sciences.

If people can "double up" in crew positions, then Fnord72 could do both Medic and Engineer, and AGamer70 could do chief gunner and navigator. But if there are penalties for taking two roles then it would be better to spread things out. Allrianne and thzero could pick up the necessary skills from the skill package. So this is what I'm thinking:

CREW: 3 Minimum 8 Optimal
Peet "Varkha Gzegdoug" Pilot: Responsible for flying the ship
thzero? or MDT "Lodic"? Navigator: Responsible for navigation and computer operations
Allrianne? Engineer: Responsible for engine and drive maintenance
Fnord72 Medic/Steward(Optional): Responsible for crew and passenger maintenance
AGamer70 Chief Gunner(Optional): Responsible for gunnery
drbuzzard "Myro Palk" Gunner(Optional): Responsible for gunnery
(not filled) Gunner(Optional): Responsible for gunnery
(not filled) Small Craft Pilot(Optional): Responsible for all small craft operations

The only thing we are still missing is someone with steward skill. I don't see steward on any of the skill packages.

@GM Darkblade: what is the difference between navigation and astrogation skill?


GM Darkblade wrote:
Of course it is acceptable if the party does not like the Navarro class they can choose a different ship and go with that, perhaps one with lower mortgage costs.

The thing about the Navarro is that it basically forces the party to go on adventures to keep the ship afloat. That's not necessarily a bad thing.

1 to 50 of 1,005 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 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.