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

Quatar's page

Goblin Squad Member. 1,651 posts (2,540 including aliases). No reviews. 1 list. No wishlists. 5 aliases.


1 to 50 of 1,651 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Yes, that's one of the strategies used for witches. Of course it means you can't move.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
ExiledMimic wrote:

This depends on several factors. I've played so many paladins in various campaigns that it's bar - none my favorite class of all time. Firstly check with the paladin player about their code. Some gods are able to give Paladins some wiggle room on how they are allowed to handle a situation like that.

The half orc archetype (Redeemer) is made for situations like this. It allows the Paladin to travel with any evil creature so long as the Paladin can justify their ability to be redeemed.

Secondly to this any Paladin may travel with an evil creature so long as their purpose aligns. If you both want to end an event that could wipe out life on the planet the Paladin is allowed to work with you so long as the common interest exists and the two of you come to terms on behavior.

Now if your GM is more liberal I suggest the 2nd Ed splat of "Ex-Patriot" for the Paladin. Basically the Paladin gives up all caring for the mortal laws of man and follows only his God's law. So the Paladin can ignore laws and church edicts (only the GOD can dictate to the Paladin) that prevent his actions or associates.

You may also want to look into a way to appear lawful neutral on the regular. It helps. Also makes the whole "I use undead to better understand the nature of life" jive sound less tyrant - esque. The Paladin can give MUCH wider space to LN.

Hope that helps!

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".

1 person marked this as a favorite.

"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.

Inlaa wrote:

Every GM and every player goofs up. That's natural. I've been both a problem player and a problem GM at different points in time.

Really, it comes down to whether or not your GM or player is willing to talk and listen. If a person doesn't want to listen to advice (whether because you presented the advice rudely / condescendingly or because s/he is already trying to do that or because s/he is stubborn)... well, then you need to either bear with what's presented to you, try leading by example, or find a new game.

So, yeah. A lot of this comes down to talking it out with the other person.

EDIT: For the record, I've both been a problem player and a problem GM in the past. Rules Lawyer player is what I was (but often ruling AGAINST the party), and as a GM I've been the Unprepared a few times.

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 I notice stuff like that (can sometimes take a few weeks for me to realize I screwed up) I talk to my players about it, and we work it out.

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?

archmagi1 wrote:
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.

wraithstrike wrote:

Quatar in order to avoid losing my notes on my computer I created a filing system.

Example follows:
....Specific gaming system(such as Pathfinder)
........Adventure Modules
........Adventure Paths
...........Carrion Crown
...........Rise of the Runelords
.................Enemies(This will have the herolab file, and the pdf character sheet in the same folder).

Now occasionally I get lazy and put something in a random place, but other than that it is not hard for me to find something.

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 :)

archmagi1 wrote:

Its basically Obsidian Portal on crack. All of the features I've ever used on OP are there (in some form or fashion) in Realmworks. I'm unfamiliar with the player view since I use it solely for GM benefit, but I think that was covered a bit up-thread.

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.
Which kinda does sound similar to what RW can do, doesn't it? Except from what you said, it can't do it in realtime, so I might still be depending on Roll20 for that.

A few more questions:
1) Is there any way to convert it into a HTML document like a Wiki and upload it? I guess that's what you meant with export, and that it's not in yet?

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:
I'm the GM of a PF game that I run via Skype and Roll20.

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.
Is it a fully functional VTT, or can't you actually run encounters on it?

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?
What other things are there where they do not, but complement each other?

Don't just link me to the Website, I read the stuff there, I'm looking for actual first hand experience with this.

Zourin wrote:
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.
Or at least not be able to rely on thieves for return business.

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.
Another thing that's changed is magic items. They're rare. There aren't any "Ye olde magic shoppe" at every corner in a Hamlet. Heck there probably won't be one in a Metropolis.
The only magic things more or less readily available are potions and wands of a few select low level spells.

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.
So how do you come up with those things?

Also any advice on how to play up the rarity of magic items would be great.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

The point is that it hurts the economy as a whole, especially the crafter, to make things personalized like that. You greatly reduce the return factor of customers, as well as the ability to actually be able to sell equipment back to other crafters because of it. In other words, once it's bought, good luck selling it back for any cash, assuming someone would actually want to buy it. But why buy something that's not useful for them?

Although I understand this is homebrew, and if you think it will work for your games, go for it, but I'm telling you that this sort of pathway leads to cheese of all sorts if put at the wrong table. (I would've said right table, but that is to garner the interest of something that can be good.)

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.
CL 9 casters (aka 5th level spells) for +3 weapons you'd find in a Large Town already (2000-5000 people). You might not necessarily find a +3 weapon crafter in that town, but you surely will find a few that make +1 or +2 weapons. And that's just a Large Town. Go to a Metropolis with 50k+ people and you probably find all of them.

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.
Do you really think I'll EVER take my return business to CheatYaMaximus again?

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.
And if you mass-produce stuff, then limiting it to "Only females between the ages of 25 and 39, with blue eyes and a LG alignment" won't find as many customers as one without, even if it is more expensive.

Uhm, it's all on teh Animal Companion page:



This lists the animal's total skill ranks. Animal companions can assign skill ranks to any skill listed under Animal Skills. If an animal companion increases its Intelligence to 10 or higher, it gains bonus skill ranks as normal. Animal companions with an Intelligence of 3 or higher can purchase ranks in any skill. An animal companion cannot have more ranks in a skill than it has Hit Dice.

Animal companions can have ranks in any of the following skills:

Acrobatics* (Dex), Climb* (Str), Escape Artist (Dex), Fly* (Dex), Intimidate (Cha), Perception* (Wis), Stealth* (Dex), Survival (Wis), and Swim* (Str).

All of the skills marked with an (*) are class skills for animal companions. Animal companions with an Intelligence of 3 or higher can put ranks into any skill.

You're right everyone, I can see now it's clearly meant to work that way.

Sorry, this is a stupid thread, not sure why I even started it :(

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?

2 people marked this as a favorite.
thecursor wrote:
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.
If these compromises can't be reached, then that's a sign that the playstyles are too different, and it's time to part ways.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
DM_Blake wrote:

Warning: the following is blunt.

I spent an hour typing this up. My opinions are backed up by 4 decades of GMing RPGs since the 70's, but they're still opinions. Nevertheless, I am fairly sure these answers will help the OP find a better balance in his games and resolve his players' issues.

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?
To show that having NPCs that take over parts of what usually is the PCs job is not necessarily a bad idea.
But they should never try to steal the PCs place.

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 ;)

Well it's going to be for a Barbarian or Bloodrager (not sure yet), so not exactly a stealth or sneak attack character.

Was considering if switching out the Half-orc's Darkvision for the LLV from Forest Walker is a good idea.

Yes, I guess I see where you're coming from.

Imbicatus wrote:
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.
- A torch gives 20/40 light and with LLV that's 40/80, so you actually see further than with DV. And lets face it, somebody is always going to use one, because an all-DV-party is pretty rare.
- LLV lets you see in moonlight as if it was day, pretty useful on watches

I'm not saying Darkvision is bad, mind you, but I'm not sure it's unbeatably better than LLV.

Assume you can pick one, which do you like better, and why?

It should be mentioned that he's talking about a single level dip into Wizard.

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.

Duiker wrote:
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)
So honestly I'm caught a little off-guard by you saying almost everyone doesn't use maps, because that's absolutely not how I experienced the game so far.

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.
And if you enter a tavern, you don't need a map. I guess we can agree on that. Unless you want to start a fight, which is when the maps were pulled out, unless it was so ridiculously obvious that it wasn't needed. Like a drunken guy swinging at the half-orc and getting knocked out in the return attack.

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?

1 person marked this as a favorite.

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 ( ) 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.
Whereas when you simply describe the scene, with no map or anything at all, your mind fills in the blanks. It might not be the exact same scene for every player, but it comes more too life and immerses you more into the action. They are also more invested in it maybe, because they're part of shaping the scene, by asking questions about the environment.

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.
So maybe there's something to it, I thought.

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".
Still it brought the scene to life for me, I saw that troll jump out of the car, not a token of a car moving on the street colliding with another parked car token and then a token of a troll moving away from it. But more like a movie or a book, seeing the actual scene.

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?
How well does it work?
What doesn't work the same, and what doesn't work at all?
Do your players like it better? Or if you're a player, do you?
Does it change the way you prepare your sessions? (for GMs)

Let's say a necromancer has a couple of Skeletons and Zombies.
Now some mean adventurers come around and kill most of his undead buddies before leaving again, but leave the remains lying around.

Can he reanimate those again?

I think it was the False Priest archetype that I had seen.

Yes, doesn't help me in my current situation, unfortunately. Might have to come up with something myself then.

Thanks though for the help

I'm almost sure I saw something like that a while ago.

A cleric disguising himself as a different faith. Using (or pretending to use) a holy symbol of that faith, etc.

PCs got the unhealthy notion that whatever encounter the GM sets before them will somehow be level appropriate. So the question of "Can we really do this?" usually never occurs to them, instead it's "How can we best kill them all?"

But what if they stumble into something that is truly beyond them (for the time being at least)?

Just tell them straight "Guys, I don't think you'll survive this, find another way"?

I'm currently building a Summoner for a Wrath of the Rightious game, and I'm pondering if I should give my Eidolon (biped, sorta humanoid) a big twohanded weapon or focus on natural attacks instead.

I know at low level it's pretty amazing to have 3 or 4 attacks at full BAB when everyone else has 1 or maybe 2 attacks.

But how do natural attacks fare at higher levels? I rarely play there so I don't have too much experience with it.

- I suppose NA Eidolon is more dependent on getting full attacks as often as possible, while the Weapon Eidolon can do lots of damage with a single attack. How often (aproximately) would you say you get a full attack, over not (assume I won't get pounce).
- Does DR really mess that badly with you?
- Does the higher attack bonus (6 attacks at full BAB at 14 vs. 3 weapon attacks + a few natural weapons at -5 [possibly more as I won't get a AoMF and magic weapons]) make up for the lower damage per hit?
- Is the difference (one way or the other) actually really noticable in game, or is it mostly a theoretical debate, because both can easily kill level-appropriate enemies? If the enemy has 100 HPs and I do either 150 or 200 per round, it really doesn't matter.

I'm looking at the Eidolon page, and noticed something I just can't picture.

I'm allowed to trade out the default claws for hooves. Since bipeds are the only base form that comes with claws, that obviously means biped eidolons with hooves are ok.
Similarly, it says claws can be put on feet (only one pair, but you can do it). It doesn't give a limitation to "only quadrupeds" as other things do, and considering the hooves I'd say bipeds are viable targets for this evolution.

But... how? With a quadruped it's relatively easy to figure out how they use it, pretty much like any animal would. But a biped? It just says "you get 2 hoof attacks".

By RAW nothing seems to stop me from equiping my Eidolon with a huge two-handed weapon in it's hands, taking hooves and get 2 secondary attacks (doesn't matter, would be secondary anyway since I use a sword) and a bite as well, for 4 attacks right at level 1.

Are there any rules I'm missing about Natural Attacks on feet, or how am I to picture this?

Thank you guys.

The Skeletal Champion and the Juju Zombie seem both quite perfect for what I have in mind.
The Huecuva is a nice one too, but not the right one really. Though it might be nice for another encounter I plan.

I'm searching for a mini-boss kind of creature for my low level party (They're level 1, might be 2 or 3 by the time the encounter this though)
It's supposed to be an undead pirate captain "in command" of a whole bunch of lesser undead. By "in command" I don't necessarily mean it needs the supernatural "control undead" ability. It's just the one organizing the mindless ones.

- Undead
- Made from human
- Intelligent, aka able to work on it's own without constant orders
- Even better if it regains class levels and memories of it's living days
- Doesn't need a lot (or any) super special powers
- Should be created by a necromancer/ritual/etc. (though I can houserule this part if it's not)
- Able to serve as enemy to a party around level 2

I would say that's pretty much exactly what Adapted is for.

The problem is, if you deny the ranger the chance to IC act and stop the rogue, then YOU are OOC denying him that option.
If the ranger stops the rogue, it's all IC.

Just be careful how that develops. If everyone takes it in good fun, no problem, but some players can take this stuff personal.

Anyway, here's how I would do it:
Depending on how it was RPed, I might allow the Rogue a stealth or bluff check, and the Ranger a Perception/Sense Motive to see if the character even realises what the other is doing.
Have them roll initiative. Ranger can then try to grapple the rogue, or take him out with non-lethal or something. If the rogue manages the CdG, well he succeeded. If not, then not.
Remember CdG is a full-round action that provokes AoO, so he can't move to the prisoner and kill him in the same turn.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm sorry, I don't see that math work. At least not till you get ridiculous Charisma scores.

(Sorry, lots of math following)

You need to cast Dispel Magic against a spell of equal of higher caster level than you. Since you cast it yourself, it's your CL. Making the DC for the Dispel Magic 11+(your caster level). It's caster level of the spell, not the spell level!

Your roll for the dispell is 1d20+(your caster level)+(your charisma mod)

You always have to expend one Arcane Point to even try this.
If you fail the role, it's gone.
If you succeed on the dispel, but fail to exceed it by 5 or more, it's gone.
If you succeed on the dispel by 5 or more, then you get your point back. You just get it back, you don't get more.
Only if you succeed by 10 or more, do you actually make a profit in this.

Now lets look at the numbers. At level 11 we're looking at the following DCs:

To simply dispel: 22
To actually get your Arcane Point back: 27
To in fact get another Arcane Point on top of that: 32

Opposed to that we have your roll to dispel:
1d20 + 11 + Cha Mod

Say Cha Mod of 5 (bit on the low side for level 11):
Results in a roll of 1d20+16

Need a 6 to hit the DC 22, though that doesn't really help.
Needs a 11 to hit the DC 27 and get your points refunded (50% chance for that happening)
Needs a 16 to actually gain an extra point (25% chance)

So 50% of the time you have a loss of 1 Arcane point.
25% of the time you come out even.
25% of the time you make a profit of 1 point.

Ok, it clearly doesn't work with just Cha of 5.

Each increase in Cha reduces the total failure chance by 5%, and increases the chance for the +2 return by 5%.

The tipping point is a Cha mod of 8 (mathematically 7.5, but you can't have that):

35% for losing 1 point (anything below 8)
25% for just coming out even (8-12)
40% for gaining 1 point (13+)

You now have a tiny average profit of 0.05 points per attempt. That's still pretty bad and fairly unreliable.

At Cha Mod 10 we'd look at a profit of 0.25 points per attempt. That's better already, of course, but still nowhere even close to the 1.6 the OP claimed.
I suppose he meant "I get 1.6 back, but still have to pay the 1" making it a net profit of 0.6.

A Cha Mod 13 is required to get a net return of 0.65, but I'm not sure how realistic a Cha of 36 really is at level 11.

The CL doesn't even matter in this equation at all, since it's the same on both sides (DC and check), it hinges alone on the Cha Mod.

Ok, so we all know about the 15-minute adventuring day and why it's bad.

On the other hand I don't want to chase my party through a dungeon full of monsters and not give them a chance to rest. If they have to go through 20 fights they'll not use any of their resources and just save them for the end. That's stupid too.

So, how many is a good number?

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Also there's no such thing as a "skill crit"

If he'd be using a Bastart Sword as a Martial 2hd weapon, he could then decide to use it one-handed. He would take the -4 non-proficiency penalty on it however, unless he also has the EWP feat for it.

With a Greatsword however? No.
If he wants to use the big weapon with the nasty damage, he gotta accept that there are situations where it's not the ideal one. If he wants more flexibility, then he'll has to pay for it with reduced damage or something else.

Yes and the Lame curse doesn't make me faster at all! It makes me slower! Can you imagine that?!

And the clouded vision will always be clouded! Gaaah!

LazarX wrote:

Your only goalpost when you asked for this thread was on reading PDFs. It would have been helpful if you had bothered to mention that you had other requirements which kind of changed the whole dynamic.

As far as Roll20 goes, I'm not sure how any tablet will work for you. Obviously the Kindle is locked out of Google, but much of the others might not get you beyond getting up a Hangout interface.

True, my appologies. The main focus of this thread was to find out how Paizo PDFs display on an actual b/w Kindle, because I was curious about that. And I got this answered, thank you.

The whole Roll20 thing is a different thing, and I wouldn't even have mentioned it. I've been talking with a few people on the Roll20 board about that issue, and it seems it's not too great for it.

So a Kindle Fire might be an option, I hadn't even considered it before, so thank you :)

Yes, I do. But when I'm considering the Kindle Fire, then I'm not comparing it to eBook Readers anymore (where the Kindle family wins), I'm comparing it to tablets like the Samsung Tab 3 or the iPad.
And those might be better to take notes or fiddle with Roll20 etc.

However the Kindle HD seems to be really cheap compared to them, so that's an option.

Hm, isn't the Kindle Fire just basically a "normal" tablet?

Yes, figured as much, but thanks for confirming it. I'll look into getting myself a "real" tablet then.

I'm pondering getting either a Kindle or a full Tablet PC at the moment, and one of the things I want to do is read some of the Paizo PDFs on them.

I know that most eBook Readers can read PDFs, but they're usually black/white too. So I'm sure a few people tried it out already, how do the Paizo PDFs look on a Kindle or one of the other readers like the Sony or Kobo?

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I just LOVED "We be Goblins" as an introductionary module. It let's them do completely silly stuff and at the same time learn the rules.

It's also a great way to break the ice with a new group.

Here's another one that might make a good first adventure:
Crypt of the Everflame - a small, fairly straightforward dungeon crawl with some RP elements, traps, and still room for some creative thinking

1 to 50 of 1,651 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email 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.