Considering that if you play strictly by the rules at level 8 or so a super-easy-trivial encounter (CL 6 or so) will totally destroy the caravan, instead of being simply a slight bump in the road as it's supposed to, so yes, I go with "wasn't play-tested enough".
But let me say, I like the caravan rules. They add a new layer of realism to this, but there are some parts where you need to adjust stuff manually a bit.
If the caravan gets brought from 100 to 20 HPs or so it totally makes sense to declare that one of the 5 wagons in the caravan took the most of the damage and is completely destroyed if you think that helps the story.
I just found out about "Under Frozen Stars" and have to say I'm quite impressed and will include that into my game.
Now I found this thread and read about "The Baleful Coven" which is supposed to take place before they cross into the Crown of the World. Since my players are long past that point (entering the Storm Tower next), that's no longer possible.
Lastly, are there any other AP-plug-ins like those for the last 3 books? If so I'd much rather find out about that now when I have time to prepare for it all, than too late again ;)
Ok, so far I've handled treasure pretty much like this:
- Once an enemy NPC is defeated and my players loot it, they get what it was wearing, swinging and what else is noted in it's combat gear section etc.
That's more or less it.
Now some monsters in the PRD have Treasure of "Standard" or something.
So far I pretty much assumed that the treasure they find in the area (like in this case in the lake) accounts for the treasure of those creatures, and completely ignored that line.
But does it, or have I been shorting my players all this time?
Point out the fact where it says that a Succubus can cancel that bonus at any time she gets bored with him and he takes 2d6 un-saveable Cha drain from it. That she can use Suggestion at him at-will.
Mention the intelligent item's Ego modifier. If the weapon is not CE itself then it will most likely have huge problems with the character being under the influence of a succubus and having made that deal in the first place. It will try to win Dominance as often as it can, if simply to keep the Succubus from using Suggestion on the wielder. And if it is in fact CE then he got a whole different bag of problems.
Then ask him if he really still wants all that. If he says yes, point out the other things people mentioned, that it's simply not allowed. :)
Hi, this has probably been talked about before but I couldn't find it.
Anyway, I got into kind of a speechless moment last session, and even after thinking for days now can't really come up with a good explanation.
So in Iqaliat the Caravan learns that the Path of Aganhei is blocked by the "Hungry Storm".
That just seems totally constructed and meant to railroad them into "go north or don't go nowhere". I mean sure there has to be a reason for them to go after the Storm Tower and shut it off, but this one just feels... well railroady.
I fear I really only came up with the explanation "Well the Erutaki don't seem to know why only the Path seems to be blocked, and how far along it's way it is blocked, but they know that it's blocked at least for a part beyond Unaimo. So far none of their hunters has reported anything like that into one of the other directions."
I kinda want to come up with a better explanation here. It would seem right now that Katiyana is specifically targeting the Path of Aganhei, but that seems stupid and weird.
a) It draws attention to her while she doesn't have full control over the storm yet - Yup, the PCs for example.
I mean, I know the answer to most of them could be given as "If that was the case, the AP wouldn't happen/everyone would die/they'd be stuck forever" and that's true, but they seem like rather metagame reasons.
Yes Gunslingers work fine at low levels.
You CAN use a bow I suppose, you're proficient with it and most your feats that you'll take the first few levels (PBS, Rapid Shot, Deadly Aim etc) all work with bows just fine.
And I agree, keep normal powder and bullets on you and use them whenever you have a standard action "free", outside of combat for example, or nobody in range yet and you have to move (and a single move action is enough).
At first I thought that it can't really be for everyone, but thinking about it for a minute, I think it probably should.
On the other hand I think it might also be very overpowered.
And yes, blinding them denies them Dex bonus too, and that is against everyone (actually there's even more tied to it). However Dirty Trick goes against CMD using your CMB and at later level it becomes more and more difficult, especially when facing larger enemies. I had a character that tried to blind enemies and eventually I had to roll 18+ to manage it.
So let's say a room is locked with a really good door. HP 60, Hardness 10, Break DC 30, Disable Device 30.
And boom after one round of smashing his magic greatsword into the door it's usually open, even considering the hardness. At most two rounds. I guess if necessary the Samurai would just go full-attacking it too to get it open faster.
I dunno. It just makes locked doors feel much less... locked.
I mean why even have Break DCs, if just attacking the thing is usually faster and easier?
But upgrading each door to an adamantium door is also not really a solution.
Not really a question or anything, just wanted to get this out of my system, and maybe see how others deal with this :)
a) How often does the Unhallow area try to dispel? Once? Every round they're inside? Each time they leave and reenter the area?
Well by strict RAW, considering the latest FAQ that has been quoted already, after 24h you become fatigued. After 48 hours that means you become exhausted.
However Exhausted is pretty serious condition, so you'd probably not want to be that for too long.
Also obviously, if you're actually marching for more than 8 hours you make force marched checks as well. And the DC will get crazy soon.
If you're new to a game always have someone else check your sheet. Unless you plan on "oops, really, I'm not allowed to do THAT?" moments, but then I'd consider it cheating already.
That feat/trait seems completely weird. If in doubt have him send you the link to it or show you the book, etc.
My players will probably encounter a White Dragon soon, with the ability to burrow through ice and snow with 30 ft burrow speed.
Now, is it an actual action to vanish into the ice and start burrowing, or is that just part of the move action.
Say the Dragon is sitting on the ice, and wants to burrow. Can it now burrow into the ice, move 30 feet and emerge on the other side in a single action? And then possibly use the standard action to attack someone?
Can it burrow below someone and attack from inside the ground, without leaving and making itself vulnerable?
Or is changing movement modes like this actually an action in itself?
Oh, I totally forgot or missed that Intimidate and Diplomacy take about 1 minute to do, which actually limits that quite a bit.
I think that actually solves most of my issues. If they actually can talk for that long it makes sense that she can do some crazy stuff.
I let them become shaken, that's not a problem, in fact the character is build around causing the shaken condition in as many people as possible (She gets lots of bonuses against shaken targets etc, next level she's gonna take Shatter Defenses too, just to make my life even more miserable :))
I got a slight problem, that I'm absolutely not sure on how to handle.
My party is now 7th level and one of my players has the following scores: Charisma 18, Diplomacy +18, Intimidate +18, Bluff +17
Now... how to I keep her from making all enemies surrender their weapons, or convince them it's a bad idea and they should just leave, or even turn them to their side.
Intimidate DC is 10+HD+Wis to "Influence Attitude".
Diplomacy isn't that much better. DC 25+Cha for Hostile enemies seems like a lot, but she can do that on a Take 10 most of the time, or an average roll if I don't allow to Take 10 in the situation.
I didn't have much problems with Bluff yet. Though I guess convincing the city guard that it was the other group of two humans, a half orc and an elf that just killed everyone in the tavern and then set it on fire and absolutely not them should work equally well. (They haven't actually done that one though)
Saying "Yeah, you rolled a 33 and used your 1/day ability on it for a 37, but they still attack you. Because I say so" feels just like denying that player the benefit of what she specialized in.
I just don't know how to handle it without it seeming unfair to either side
I just noticed something odd...
On d20pfsrd.com the Religion traits aren't tied to deities anymore.
If you look at the URL of that trait it was called "Flame of the Dawnflower (Sarenrae)" till recently. I've no idea when it was changed, hadn't actually looked at those in a while.
Is that just something d20pfsrd did, or is there actually a ruling or change about that matter that I missed? I already checked the FAQ, can't find anything there.
I don't mind some of them, often they replicate traits found in the Combat section or something, same with race traits.
However there are a few that are extremely specific, cool and absolutely unique. And you can't take them because you need to worship a deity that you just can't justify with the background of your character.
I see no problem however to replicate those traits as Combat or Social or whatever traits when needed, but obviously that's Houserule territory.
Make it a habit to roll Sense Motive secretly. Not only do they not know what they rolled then and can guess from the results if it's true or not, they don't even know a Sense Motive was rolled in the first place.
Let's face it, "Roll Sense Motive" usually is just short for "This guy is lying through his teeth, roll to see if you notice it".
Make it a habit to sometimes roll Sense Motive when the other person is honest and give it a DC of 15 or so to recognize that. Anyone who fails it thinks he's lying. That way you prevent situations where "Oh the DM told me he's lying, so must have been a Bluff vs Sense Motive here, so he's lying" is the only logical conclusion.
The comparison with combat is wrong in my opinion, since delaying is actually a conscious decision the player makes. Forgetting to roll Sense Motive isn't. It's forgetting something. Most players don't forget that on their turn in combat they should probably do something.
Also Sense Motive isn't really anything active. It's a passive "gut feeling" or "intuition".
Also if you screw them over like this too often, they'll just start keep rolling Sense Motive on everything. "Good morning sir" - "Oh, is it? I roll Sense Motive!" It really slows the game down.
+2 str, +2 int, -2 wis is good for Magus.
The rest of their abilities doesn't really affect the choice for Magus one way or another really. Telepathy is nice I suppose, but would be nice for any class really.
It doesn't have an alternate favorite class bonus, so other races might have the advantage there (don't really know).
In other words: There are many far worse choices for a magus than that, but maybe a few better ones as well (though I doubt it will be much superior).
I think it's not a full Protection from Evil, just the part about possession and mental controls, which I suppose means you're immune to that. ("While under the effects of this spell, the target is immune to any new attempts to possess or exercise mental control over the target.")
It does not give you the +2 AC or keeps summoned creatures from harming you.
Duxx Allard wrote:
The Scout ability (level 8) says:
At 8th level, whenever a scout moves more than 10 feet in a round and makes an attack action, the attack deals sneak attack damage as if the target was flat-footed. If the scout makes more than one attack this turn, this ability only applies to the first attack. Foes with uncanny dodge are immune to this ability.
The "attack action" is a special kind of Standard Action.
Now Spring attack says:
As a full-round action, you can move up to your speed and make a single melee attack without provoking any attacks of opportunity from the target of your attack. You can move both before and after the attack, but you must move at least 10 feet before the attack and the total distance that you move cannot be greater than your speed. You cannot use this ability to attack a foe that is adjacent to you at the start of your turn.
Spring Attack is a full round action, and you can't take a Standard action in the same turn. The attack as part of SA is a melee attack, but it is not an "attack action".
The same logic is used to disallow Vital Strike and Charging from being used in combination with Spring Attack: FAQ entry
That falls a bit south of the neutral equator though, and is definitely not something you should do if you want to keep that Good alignment.
Being good means to take the right way even if it's inconvinient, not the easy way.
If you manage to get two enemies into flanking position around the Gunslinger, he now can't 5 ft step away anymore, he will always be in at least one threatened area.
Just be careful: Do stuff that specifically foils gunslingers only occationally otherwise the player will feel singled out, and rightfully so.
One way would be to establish that you only resurrect undead for specific tasks that are important, like defending a town, and then let them go back to their eternal rest, and not keep them around forever just so they can do your laundry and stuff.
Maybe have people or soldiers (while they're still alive) agree that their body can be used for a year and a day after their death to defend the town they were sworn to protect. Though that obviously requires some longer term planning.
Use "Speak with Dead" if possible in the presence of a loved one of the deceased to ask for permission, and give those loved ones some closure at the same time.
It can be hard seeing your dead father suddenly walk down the street again, even if you knew about it. So you could give them some armor/clothes that obscure their features so they can't be recognized, or animate skeletons.
You could use the corpses of bandits and convicted criminals that were lawfully executed to "make up for their misdeeds in life" and give something back to the community.
The thing is you need the trust and respect of the townspeople, otherwise they turn against you. Having them fear you and live in terror works of course as well, but that's not what you want to do obviously.
The thing is: Your undead might be neutral, but undead in general aren't. Most are evil. Most necromancers are evil.
Unless you live in a society that has accepted undead as a normal thing (there's a few countries where that's the case, but usually ruled by evil undeads themselves, or probably the original juju tribes), you will have to face those issues and just saying "But they're not evil" will not really get to many people to listen. The negative image of undead is just too strong.
It's the same with some monster races as PCs. Your goblin might be neutral or good, but there will be towns where he has to run from the townsfolk or get lynched.
By strict interpretation of RAW yes, you get 3 FREE combat maneuvers but they're all at a -12. You could do only 2 FREE with -5 or only a single one with -2.
Remember, they're free, in additon to anything else you do.
I suppose most GMs would agree that -2 for the first, -5 for second, -12 for the third is what was intented and makes more sense, best ask your GM.
Well, not an official errata, but James Jacobs posted this here:
James Jacobs wrote:
So depending on how you view JJ's posts and how you wanna have that stuff behave in your game, it can go either way.
Personally I like the idea of non-evil undead in some situations, like these.
In my last session I had an enemy run away, and it took them like 10 rounds of chasing to catch her again (enemy tried to lay an ambush further ahead), and the melee fighter with 20 ft movement fell more and more behind.
It may seem like this, but when you dissect it a bit more it's not that bad. In fact there's barely any difference.
Doing what you say the "normal" way the action economy looks like this:
Now doing it the "cheating" way:
Doesn't really seem that much better to me. You can now say he is done a round earlier, but is he?
I don't really see much difference there to "I cast the spell and then the fighter taps my hand with the sword to get the effect"
The Beneficial Bandolier only works once per round (though its a good thing to have, I guess) then he has to use Alchemical Cartridges again to reload as free.
Also 200 ft while technically is 9 or 10 range increments is not a -18 but a -infinity, because Pistols (and all primitive firearms) only have 5 range increments max :)
Enemies can also use Acrobatics to tumble through his threatened area and get in range to whack him in the face. Or heck, they eat an AoO on the way in and then box him in and kill him.
Also one thing to keep in mind: Gunslingers are brutal yes, but their utility outside of combat is severely limited. They do damage and little else.
Vincent The Dark wrote:
Can somebody second that? I don't see that in the text. And people have made many jokes about accidental discharges.
This FAQ entry is probably the closest you get:
On a related topic, the magus touching his held weapon doesn’t count as “touching anything or anyone” when determining if he discharges the spell. A magus could even use the spellstrike ability, miss with his melee attack to deliver the spell, be disarmed by an opponent (or drop the weapon voluntarily, for whatever reason), and still be holding the charge in his hand, just like a normal spellcaster. Furthermore, the weaponless magus could pick up a weapon (even that same weapon) with that hand without automatically discharging the spell, and then attempt to use the weapon to deliver the spell. However, if the magus touches anything other than a weapon with that hand (such as retrieving a potion), that discharges the spell as normal.
That seems to imply that just touching something is enough to discharge a spell and not require any mental command or something.
Yes in rules terms making a touch attack is a standard action. Casting the spell includes a free touch attack in that turn, otherwise you have to spend the standard action.
I might allow the receiving player to spend his standard action to touch your hand and get the charge, but that's probably it. And that's a houserule, not RAW.
You could do this however and that works by RAW:
So that is a no for half- elves and half- orcs? Doesn't that kind of defeat the purpose of those races? Being able to qualify for the benefits of both parent races?
In fact I mostly see that trait as a disadvantage than an advantage.
Most buff spells and so either target "humanoids" in general and don't care one bit if you're an elf, human, orc or dwarf. Or they target "creatures" which makes the target pool even broader, or stuff like animals and work on neither.
Then there's the stuff like "Elf bane" or "favorite enemy: Elf", where this suddenly kicks in and you count as an elf and get hit for the extra damage.
It's the curse of the dual heritage.
Well that's kinda where the interpreting starts.
And what's the logic behind it? Wizards have spellbooks and NEED it too, because they don't know all spells in their head. Why should a spell suddenly give you access to the contents of a spellbook somewhere in his backpack? (not to mention the wizard will most likely steal the spellbook anyway and learn everything he can from it)
So the wizard in my party plans on using that spell and it makes me wonder what spells he gets access to with that.
By consuming 1 pint of blood from a spellcaster killed within the last 24 hours, you can attempt to learn a spell that spellcaster knew. Select one spell available to the dead spellcaster (this must be a spell on your spell list); you gain the knowledge of this spell for 24 hours. During this time, you may write it down (or teach it to your familiar, if you are a witch) using the normal rules for copying a spell from another source. Once you have learned it, you may prepare the spell normally.
Obviously he can only get stuff that's on his spell-list as well, so even if he drinks the blood of a Cleric (he's a wizard himself) that only gives him spells that are on both spell lists.
Does it give access to:
1) spells that were actually prepared that day?
I had ruled in the session where it came up that he gets access to the spellcaster's prepared spells and not the entire spelllist (it was a druid), but that I would inquire more about the spell.
What you say there is completely wrong WrathW1zard.
For potions, scrolls, and wands, the creator can set the caster level of an item at any number high enough to cast the stored spell but not higher than her own caster level. For other magic items, the caster level is determined by the item itself.
While item creation costs are handled in detail below, note that normally the two primary factors are the caster level of the creator and the level of the spell or spells put into the item. A creator can create an item at a lower caster level than her own, but never lower than the minimum level needed to cast the needed spell. Using metamagic feats, a caster can place spells in items at a higher level than normal.
To answer the OP:Since RoE is a 1st level spell, you can set it to CL 1 or 2 (CL 1 is actually the default when you buy it), and get 1d6 strength penalty. However it's duration is also measured in rounds/level, so it only lasts 1 or 2 rounds then
If you use the item you should qualify. If you sell the stone after, you still have the Dervish Dancer feat but can't use it anymore, till you get proficiency again (either with the stone or the feat)
By RAW I would agree that Heirloom Weapon is probably not enough, though if one of my players wanted to do it, I'd allow it.
However I'd allow a similar feat for it, if someone wanted to use it. Again that's houserule obviously.
Also, you can put the Agile enchantment on your weapon to get your Dex as damage, without any feat and works on any Finesse-able weapon. (though that costs 8k at least, unless you have some ability like a Magus or Paladin to simulate weapon abilities)