|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
The PCs in my game were very close to a young cleric acolyte of Callistria who traveled with them. And they really hate the nobleman, even threatening to leave him marooned on the island they're on right now.
When the acolyte died (it was totally unplanned, an unlucky crit in combat, as she was trying to heal the barbarian, who'd been dropped into negatives), it nearly broke one of the PCs.
There are a few more NPCs around, but they don't seem to have really strong feelings towards any of those.
So yes, you can't really plan for something like that. It just happens.
Though I guess there are a few points you can watch out for, to increase the chance:
Those can help, but there's really no sure-fire way to do it
You said it. You see it that way.
I don't. For me, if I treat X as Y in certain situations or for certain things, then it is Y for these things.
I'm still sure a straight up two-handed weapon Fighter or Barbarian using a greatsword with Enlarge and Lead Blades will be FAR MORE terrifying than what the OP is trying to accomplish.
As long as we are on the topic. What about a Bastard sword or Katana with the related Exotic Weapon Proficiency making it into one-handed weapons; can they be used with slashing grace?
The Bastard Sword and Katana are not made into one-handed weapons. They are one-handed exotic weapons.
There is an option to use them as martial weapons, but you're forced to wield them in both hands then. That's a bonus feature these weapons have.
They're not starting out as martial two-handed weapons and with an EWP feat you can use them one-handed. It's the other way around.
TL;DR: Yes, you can use them with Slashing Grace.
I would allow it. "and the like" sound like it was written to support future feats and abilities that weren't available yet when the titan mauler was written.
Greatsword once it looses it's 2-hand properties isn't really much scarier than a bastard sword or Katana or any of the "true one-handed weapons" really, and you're paying with at least two class level for what is essentially a +1.5 to average damage per hit (1d0 = 5.5, 2d6 = 7).
So I see no problem.
I think it's ok for him to help them.
Just ramping up the oposition, I don't know. It feels cheap. Here's why:
THEY asked him to come along. If it makes stuff too easy, they got themselves to blame, not you.
Just make sure he's not taking over the party, like giving commands as to where to go, what to do, etc. Let the party still be in charge. He's just the support.
Alternatively give temporary command of him to one of the players (or multiple players) but with the option that you can veto any action they take (he wouldn't do anything suicidal for example). That way the players decide just how effective he is.
Cold Iron is the weakness of Fey and some other nature-y magical creatures.
It seems feasible to me to say that iron (cold or not) is somehow disrupting the magic.
It's also a common thing in fantasy literature that people accidentally or against their will get saddled with items that weaken them, especially if taken prisoner and the enemy knows how to combat that type of foe.
So I would let it work at my table. Though I might require a Knowledge Religion check to see if the Characters would actually know about this weakness.
Natural Attacks don't get itterative attacks like weapons, that's why the +12/7 is only a +12 for the natural attacks. However as you notice you attack with all of your NA with +12. Not +12/+7/+2 like a weapon user would.
And yes attacking with more than one attack is a full-attack action. So your GM was right there.
Claw x2 just means 2 claws, not 2 claws as one weapon.
I went through the Wizard spell list on the SRD, and went through all Enchantment spells there. 8 (eight) were (charm) spells, I've not counted all the others but it felt at least 10 times that.
Just feels weird to split the whole school into two sub schools and then basically give everything to one.
Am I missing something?
Yes, obviously I need two halves to make a whole creature. I figured the other half to be a human, so the human's contribution was mostly to lowering the stats towards the average, and soften most of the abilities somehow
Yes, I started with a tiefling as base creature, but since I ended up switching pretty much everything out anyway, I figured I could just start from scratch too.
4 RP for Flight is only 30 ft and Clumsy maneuverability (which is a -8 on FLy checks). So you probably don't want to try using it in anything but perfect weather, and maybe not in combat. Even the DC 10 check to avoid falling after getting damaged can be trouble.
I'm trying to build a half-succubus character for an upcoming game, using the ARG rules. I'm not 100% positive yet on how many RP I have to play with, but assume either 10 or 20.
Class is going to be an Enchantress, so a Bard or Sorceress or something along those lines. Spellcaster definitely.
This is mostly to gather options for abilities, feats etc. that are fitting to the idea. Not necessarily make the full race yet. Though if you want to, I won't stop you of course.
For quick reference, full Succubus is here
The Abilities should either mimic those of a Succubus or be somehow related to one they have. They can be the same power level but should not be stronger.
So, what do you think? Any ideas on other abilities that would make sense and I could use?
While most people have some "free feats" somewhere in their progression where they have finished their "must haves" and don't qualify for the next tier of feats yet, players don't always have those at the same time.
So one player would have to take the teamwork feat at level 5, just to then wait till level 7 or even level 9 when his buddy can finally pick it up as well.
Now tell me, would you do this as player 1? I probably wouldn't.
That might not be the main reason TW feats aren't used often, but I figure it certainly contributes.
If you're pinned and still able to use a one handed weapon, then in PF terms you're grappled not pinned, because that's exactly what grappled is. Pinned specifically says you can't do anything but try to escape or cast spells without somatic or material components. Everything else is a no-go.
If tied up is helpless and tied up works like pinned, with the only exception that the bonds don't have to make a grapple check each turn, then pinned is helpless too.
However it takes 2-3 turns to pull off and needs 2 people working together. That's forever in a combat.
I would say pinned would count, because you can't do anything and are at the mercy of whoever is pinning you. But I also don't think the grappler can deliver the CDG, another person would have to. (I'm pretty sure you need to spend a standard action to maintain the grapple. So if you spend a full round action instead on CDG you release the grapple, losing the condition for CDG to work)
So it takes at least two rounds, with multiple grapple rolls, and occupies two people. Guess that's why it's not standard tactics.
I don't know, a lot of your ideas seem to center around "The paladin could...". Honestly, in this case, I don't think the Paladin should have to do anything to accomodate that concept.The cleric player knew there would be a Paladin, and still he made an evil necromancer.
I'm not the hugest fans of Paladins, but in this case, I don't see how the burden of making this work should be on the paladin's shoulders by adjusting his code, picking some weird 2nd ed thing or just playing dumb and never noticing.
Honestly if you got a weird gut feeling already, so that you have to ask "Does this work in the long run?", the answer is probably "No" and you should just say "No".
"Specific trumps general" would be if Bludgeoner said "with any melee or ranged weapon" for example.
The situation in this specific instance the rules make no mention of this restriction one way or another, so the general rule would still apply.
That said, if you'd use your firearm to club someone over the head, I'm pretty sure the feat applies.
I don't think goofing is a problem. As you say everyone goofs up sometimes. It's called being human.
I've had times when I accidently railroaded certain events. There's been at least one instance where I blatantly ignored a PC's Diplomacy result of nearly 40 (!) and had the NPC do what he does anyway.
When a certain "goof" happens all the time, it stops being a simple goof, it becomes a problem.
Ok, so my players are gonna attack an enemy village next turn. Their plan is to throw alchemists fire and other stuff on the houses to set them on fire (they'll burn easily being made out of wood, leaves, etc).
Now, most people will be inside being asleep. We all know fire is a major hazard, not because of fire but because the smoke might kill you before you even wake up.
I'm just not sure how to deal with it in game. Not looking for hard rules, since I don't think they exist (though they might), but more thoughts on how other GMs would deal with it. I don't want to make it too easy on them by saying "wonderful, everyone burns to death" and not deny them their success outright by going "Ha! They all make it out easy enough!" (unless the die say so, but then it's out of my hand).
There are rules for Smoke here, which is good, but for example what would it take for a person to actually wake up from smoke?
Also, said houses/huts, how fast would they burn, how many rounds before the roof crashes in, dealing bludgeoning damage and then fire damage? 1? 5? 10?
If you're looking for place, npc, and event continuity within the world or between campaigns, then yes, it is completely worth it. If you're a minutiae kinda guy, then it is probably worth it. If you're running an AP by the books with no world changing continuity between AP #N and #N+1, then its probably not worth the extra legwork.
Ok, that sounds really good.
I'm not running an AP, it's a homebrew world based on Golarion (reusing many names of countries, general politics etc, but changing a lot too), so I do have to keep track of a lot of s+&!.
The fact that so far nobody came in yet and said "Nope it's horrible and not worth the money" says quite a bit I think. The worst was something like "you might not get 100% out of it, if you already do this and that another way".
So yes I'm definitely going to give it a try.
Well I tried doing it like that, but I still manage to put stuff soemwhere it doesn't belong. That's totally my fault, but probably means that system doesn't work so well for me :)
So what are your experience using it solely for GM works, would you say it's still worth it?
I'll probably get it next week when I got more time to play with it, I think.
Hmm, had not thought about using the player view window through Skype. That might work, but they'd only "see" it, they couldn't actually click on anything and "use" it, can they? Follow links and such?
The 6 month cloud service is still part of it from what I know.
I really wished there was a demo for it. Could be like the hero lab demo where you can do stuff but can't save it.
Thanks, glad to get some feedback from people using it in a similar situation like me.
What you say sounds very nice. No, I'm not really happy with using sticky notes and word files, because that's a mess and I'm ALWAYS searching for stuff. Every session I'm "Ok wait a second guys... Where did I save that?"
So having it all in one place would definitely be awesome. I tried using software like XMind once to get a Mindmap like plotstructure down, but it didn't work too well, especially since everything was so spread out everywhere.
But I'm also using the Roll20 Handouts and Character feature (especially with the new Folder system on Dev that's quite nice) for showing stuff to my players during the session. Mostly pictures of people they meet and other things like that.
A few more questions:
2) Also, does the GM version include the Player version? (AKA, I'm the GM in my campaign, but can I then use the same program as a player in another?)
3) You mention "player notes" does that mean players can add their own notes to things? For example, they meet and I reveal "Malcom McSuspicious" but they don't really know anything about him yet. They suspect through clue linking that he might be the head of a local gang of cutthroats, but have no proof whatsoever, it's mostly a gut feeling of the players. Can they now add "possible leader of the gang" to it, or would I have to do it? (Because if I do it, it kinda gets an "official" touch, and they might take it as Word of God even if it was totally wrong)
4) To actually use and sync with the Player Edition, I gotta have the Cloud service too?
A few days ago I found out about Realm Works. I looked at their website, watched the video there but I'm still a bit confused as to what it does, and what it doesn't do.
A bit about my situation:
Now, Realm Works seems to have things that overlap with Roll20 features. Like the Fog of War on maps. I've seen actual dungeon maps in the video too.
Also a lot of things like revealing info to players seem to require the players to have the Player Edition, or to be able to see a second screen during actual in-person games. Latter option doesn't work for me since I play online, and I don't think I can get all of my players to get the Player Edition, so I'm wondering, what would be my advantage using this?
What other things are there where Roll20 and Realm Works overlap?
Don't just link me to the Website, I read the stuff there, I'm looking for actual first hand experience with this.
CheatYaMaximus saw you as a sucker and a newcomer, and you bit a 10kgp scam. He's not planning on seeing you again,
I think I might have quoted the wrong post of Darksol the Painbringer, I was refering to the part about him saying that Crafters have a vested interest in not customizing stuff, so it's easier to steal and therefor create return customers.
On top of that, the crafter would rather not have stuff be personalized to a person so that the thieves of the world stealing the items of the things that he crafted would actually give him return customers.
That's the one.
I was mentioning, there are so many crafters out there, that it would practically be enough for a few of them to say "We make stuff cheaper AND harder to steal!", for others to be forced to do the same.
On the other hand with a win margin of 100% it would be enough for a few crafters to say "Pff, 25% is good enough" to basically make the entire system crash in on itself - so trying to think too much about the logic behind the PF economics will just give you headaches and nothing else.
In my homebrew world, which is largely based on Golarion, considering countries and such things, but also changed in large parts. First it's an E6 game, so most NPCs won't be high level at all, most actually will have NPC classes.
So most Magic Items have a history, and most likely a name.
I just have a hard time coming up with any names or history for them at all, and those that I do sound so cheesy that I can't even repeat them here.
Also any advice on how to play up the rarity of magic items would be great.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Remember that in default Golarion, crafters that can craft certain items are not exactly rare.
It's not every second person you run into on the street, but they're not rare. As an example to make a +1 sword you need a CL3 caster. 2nd Level spellcasting is available in a Hamlet (that's 21-60 population). Granted, not everyone of those might actually craft/enchant items, but it's a rough estimate on how common actual spellcasters are.
So, with all these people available, there is this thing called competition. No single crafter is gonna have a monopoly.
If I pay 10000 gp for a magic sword from the crafter CheatYaMaximus, then get it stolen soon after, and then find out that crafter BuildsItCheaper, could have sold me the same sword for 7,000 gp, but with a build-in anti-theft.
One reason in Golarion that it works this way is that it seems most crafters seem to produce items "blindly" for the various M-Marts out there. Which is an odd business model, but considering how well stocked some of those shops are, I can't think of another way.
Uhm, it's all on teh Animal Companion page: http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/druid/animal-companions
Are you sure the enhancement bonus is a "enhancement bonus to the armor bonus" and not an "enhancement bonus to the armor class" ?
The "armor bonus to armor class" might not stack with others, but that shouldn't mean the "enhancement bonus to armor class" doesn't stack with it, it's a different bonus.
I mean if it's actually a "enhancement bonus to armor bonus", then there's no question that it doesn't work, I just can't find that specified anywhere.
Ok, this is a bit complicated.
Bloodrager Kyton Bloodline gives this ability at level 8:
At 8th level, you gain resistance 5 to cold and the chains covering your body provide a +4 armor bonus to AC with no armor check penalty, maximum Dexterity bonus, or additional weight
Now I know that armor bonus to AC does not stack with normal armor worn, just the highest applies.
But what if I went and wear a Haramaki to it, and enchant it with +3?
Obviously the +1 normal AC of the Haramaki doesn't count, but does the +3 enhancement bonus? AKA do I have 4 AC or 7 AC?
As other posters have pointed out, if you're not making you're player's enjoyment as the number one priority then you are failing.
I actually have to disagree with this.The GM is a person too and he has just as much right to have fun at the gaming table as everyone else. He is in no way obligated to put his own fun behind that of the players. He too dedicates the time to play the game, just like all of his players.
If the players constantly break the game by derailing the plot on purpose, because they enjoy wrecking the GM's work at preparing this stuff, then that's just as much of a dick move. Because now it's the GM that's not having fun. It's not his fault "for being stupid enough to plan ahead".
The problem arises if one side (GM or players) use "their fun" as the only viable measurement for fun and ignore the fact that some other people might think something else fun. As with everything that involves more than one human being, it's a give and take, and sometimes compromises have to be made.
A very long post, but a very good one too and I have to really agree with everything you said there.
In my game the PCs are lacking a healer as well. The closest they have is an alchemist, and that doesn't really count. I'm not even sure at the moment if an alchemist can use spell trigger items without UMD. They also don't have access to CLW wands yet anyway (just level 2) and kinda away from civilization.
So yes, there's a NPC cleric with them, among others. So that's not always a bad idea.
But I'm saying NPC not GMPC, because it's an NPC (non-player character) not a GMPC (GM's Player Character - which honestly is an oxymoron in my mind). I do like the character, but if they'd decide to leave her in the next town, then that's what's happening.
The thing is, they picked her up themselves, as they did all the other NPCs (about 6 at this time - 4 PCs). They're stranded on an island after a shipwreck. One of the PCs went and tried to save the cleric when the ship went down, they swam to shore together as they went overboard. They left signs and clues for other survivors to find them and searched for them specifically so they did find a few more.
The cleric is a complete non-combatant, she's just an apprentice and usually afraid when things get tough. Enough for a few heals after the combat to shorten recovery times, but nothing overpowered. The other NPCs have little to no useful skills. Two were sailors, and now without a ship are kinda lost, one can use a sword, the other can't even do that. Another is a nobleman, so he's trying to order people around most the time, but everyone ignores him. The most useful is probably the NPC they found on the island who's been living there by himself for a few years now, and wants to get off as well. He knows the place so he's their guide now.
So why am I writing all this?
Also everyone should feel useful. The more social rogue character (even though they're in the wilderness, far away from any town) has enough to do to keep the horde of NPCs in check. The barbarian got enough stuff to kill. The alchemist and gunslinger help with that in their own way. Right now those two build a few fire bombs and are planning to set the enemy's stronghold on fire next time ;)
Darkvision. It's no question. Darkvision lets you see in no light. Lowlight only extends the range of dim light.
Well I could see an argument like this:
- Darkvision is only 60 ft, after that you're essentially as blind as anyone else.
I'm not saying Darkvision is bad, mind you, but I'm not sure it's unbeatably better than LLV.
Ok, that sounds like a bad experience with a GM, bookrat. I don't think as a GM I have a "me vs. them" mindset, more of a "I want everyone to have fun". (I mean if I resort to cheating to kill my players... what's the point, I can achieve that without cheating if I wanted)
I'm also a big fan of "What you can do, I can do" and everyone playing by the same rules.
Try running some simple encounters in "theater of the mind" sometime, it makes for a richer view of the battlefield, not less.
Yes, I agree they do. Which is the whole point why I WANT to do it.
I was just not sure if the PF rules really allow for it and if in the end I do myself and my players a disservice by skipping maps.
Seems most people here think it's possible.
Which I'm happy to hear, so thank you all. I'm gonna give it a try.
Cuuniyevo, I'm not sure, maybe you misunderstood me, or maybe I'm misunderstanding your answer right now. Or a little bit of both.
I was talking about using maps during combat encounters. Not other situations, maybe I should have made that clearer.
So far all games I've been in have had some sort of map for the encounters, even if it's just a blank piece of paper with a grid on it. (which I'm counting as a "map" in this context, even if it's only a map of relative positions)
I wouldn't expect anyone to map out every square of a city. That would be ludicrous. Especially because once you did it, the players would decide to either burn the city to the ground or leave it and never come back.
So, that's what I was getting at in my OP. Can you play the game without using maps during combat, without running into tons of problems?
I would say neither grappled or pinned character can stand up. You need to be in control of the grapple and use the "Move" grapple-action ( http://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/combat#TOC-Grapple ) to get yourself AND your opponent up.
Reason: It just doesn't make sense otherwise. How can you be grappled by someone, stand up, and still be grappled by the same guy who's still lying on the floor?
Also it states you can't move. Like you said. And standing up sounds a lot like moving to me.
Is it possible?
I've lately been listening to a lot of Shadowrun podcasts, and in one of them the following theory was brought up:
When using a map and miniatures, this becomes the "reality" in the heads of the players. They watch a battle from a bird's eyes view, with miniatures acting out the combat on a battlemat, or a computer screen. They don't actually "see" the battle.
I've thought about it, and have to admit, when I think about recent PF combat encounters and how I envision and remember them, then I see the map, and tokens moving about, not so much "the characters doing stuff". That too, but not nearly as much as the other.
Earlier this week, I listened to another Shadowrun podcast, this time an Actual Play one, and the GM there was using mapless combat (I wouldn't have been able to see the map anyway, being a podcast, but still). He decribed the scene, he never went into terrible details on anything. Just something like "You follow the van through the dimly lit street in the Barrens (basically the worst part of town) and it crashes into a parked car, just as the troll street samurai jumps out and dives behind a mailbox for cover".
Now, I realize Shadowrun is not Pathfinder, but I was wondering... does it work with Pathfinder as well?
PF seems a lot more focused on combat, a lot more rules on movement, distances, angles of attacks and god knows what else. All those rules assume a battlemap is used.
Has anyone tried playing the game without maps?