Sepherum's page

I really like Occult Adventures, I think it's one of the best books Paizo has put out. In our regular home game we have disallowed the Kineticist only, mostly because one of our players (who is usually pretty rules savvy) screwed it up and helped win a tough combat in a high level dungeon with a misinterpretation. I didn't catch it until later. Since then any of us who want to just go 'why am I reading 19 pages of rules for this bozo?' and give up. The Occultist seems more tricky than complicated and just needs one careful reading. The core classes have the advantage of long familiarity, using new archetypes and feats just feel like adding/subtracting building blocks we all know by heart.

Now that Starfinder is up and running, I feel the time has come for this. A city hardcover/box set! I hear some rpg writing talent has lately become available....

Oh, that bit. Look at Page 413. The first real opportunity for players to do so comes later in the Adventure Path (but it's clearly noted at the start of the adventure - for the sake of avoiding spoilers, I won't mention which adventure it is).

And there it is. Thanks a mil!

In the setting as a whole, or specifically during the course of the adventure?

Thanks for the reply! Both. The included AP mentions that it is in the Appendix and it's not. I didn't really notice until my third reading. I'm hoping it's a free pdf or...?

Hey real quick-were the rules for becoming a Jarl in Northlands Saga from Frog God Games offered somewhere besides the main KS book? Can't find 'em. Any help would be mucho appreciado-thanx, Sepherum

Someone asked Gary Gygax what D&D was about, if not 'winning'(I myself remember people when I was growing up ask me re: roleplaying games "How do you WIN?"), he replied "Continued, successful participation."

Sepherum wrote:

Aranna wrote:

You realize if buffs are giving you a headache you can simply make debuffing magic common in their encounters. Those overlapping layers of intricate buffs they took minutes casting can be undone in seconds. And if the characters aren't ready for debuffing it could lead to a very one sided battle in the bad guys favor.

You can choose Dispel Magic as a spell to be immune to.

No, no you can't.

Dispel Magic does not allow spell resistance. Spell Immunity clearly states:

Quote:

The warded creature effectively has unbeatable spell resistance regarding the specified spell or spells. Naturally, that immunity doesn't protect a creature from spells for which spell resistance doesn't apply.

Edit: So the very first thing an enemy spellcaster would do is dispel the PCs' spell immunity... and then cast big scary spells at them to his heart's content.

Edit #2: Or, of course, an enemy caster can just use one of the many non-SR-allowing spells out there in the first place, and spell immunity will be of no help there either.

You're right-they did also put on superfluous buffs to soak up Greater Dispel Magic. The more I look thru the hardcovers the more I like this idea-it limits buffs without going too far.

Sepherum wrote:

Spell Immunity, Greater; L8. Once they've identified these spells they choose a suite of high level spells that just don't work. So, Maze, Implosion, etc. were good for an encounter or two. I used Clash of Rocks to great effect on one of the end bosses. I guess I didn't get across that we did have challenging encounters and a lot of fun-it was just a second job to do it because running most published adventures? They'll just walk thru 'em. I had the 'army of minions' encounter, The Teleportation Trap, chases, blindsight, dispelling auras, resource-soaking run up encounters. I didn't say my campaign was a failure; it was great. I hope no one is suggesting that you can set up fights where "oh, this just doesn't work" too often and keep players interested.

Interesting. I counter with Mage's Disjunction. 9th Level Wizard Spell. No spell resistance so You can't be immune to it, and it eliminates all spell immunity buffs. It should start coming into play around 14-15 with bosses, and by the time level 17 comes around for the PCs, Pre-cast buffs should not, in general, be a thing. Thats just a factor in high level play. this is a CRB spell which came from 3.5. Dont repeatedly cast it, but make use of it to prevent the players from pre-buffing. It nicely handles the absurd number of buffs players can get, without needing a house rule.

a reread of your OP as well as further posts did indicate the problem was with the speed of building challenging encounters rather than the act of building challenging encounters. Which is why i noted my inquiries into the exact nature of your problems is probably moot. I disagree with your buff plan. I dont think it will solve underlying problems related to challenging your players. But if it speeds things up, I guess it couldn't hurt.

I could have introduced Mage's Disjunction earlier, especially for bosses. I did use it though, especially at the end. But if that spell was somehow ubiquitous at the end game we don't need to have a 'making high level campaigns tenable' discussion, it's true. The party could just retire.

RDM42 wrote:

How is he being a jerk?

Thanks, but don't sweat it, RDM42. This is pretty much how every thread I'm involved in goes: Someone has a problem or idea, I reply with a suggestion or opinion, someone accuses me of being a jerk, I defend myself, then Chris Lambertz rolls in and deletes all my posts and/or bans me. ;)

But seriously (and back on topic), I'm aware that E6 does not technically "fix" high-level Pathfinder, but it would solve the root problem OP has (which I see happening A LOT on these forums). Yeah, you could comb through the entire product line and try to address each issue with a band-aid fix or errata tweak, but that's a never-ending and quite honestly tedious endeavor.

Trust me on this one. I'm in a 3-year-long E6 campaign and it's awesome. We have epic battles, we fight dragons, visit other planes, and have the same globe-spanning, save-the-world style adventures. The only difference is we do it with less math, fewer game-breaking spells, and a vastly reduced dependency on bookkeeping and accounting.

The thread is about making Pathfinder more tenable at high levels but I like Headfirst's comments. I looked up E6. Maybe not my cup of tea. Maybe some usable ideas.

I hope the villains are using their time to buff the heck out of themselves, and not waiting until after the fight starts to try and get better. XD

Oh, don't worry, my villains ALSO had 20+ buffs by the end. Dios Mio!

One particular issue about monster design is the fact that a Great Wyrm Red Dragon, say, as part of it's increase in power gets 24d10 fire for it's breath weapon. Wow! Of course, the party has been essentially immune to fire since L11. By the time they face a CR22 they are also protected from the most likely energy types of her spells. Under this system you would have to choose one energy protection and could not also have Freedom of Movement. And party actions in combat would be taken up by some damage mitigation during the fight and not just adding to the offensive total.

You realize if buffs are giving you a headache you can simply make debuffing magic common in their encounters. Those overlapping layers of intricate buffs they took minutes casting can be undone in seconds. And if the characters aren't ready for debuffing it could lead to a very one sided battle in the bad guys favor.

You can choose Dispel Magic as a spell to be immune to. I had an encounter where the minions were a group of dispelling casters that was fun. Some high level creatures have dispelling auras or you can give it to them. But a good chance to remove 6 spells is not as powerful at high levels because as a gentleman pointed out earlier, characters will have over 20 buffs.

Sepherum wrote:

Tyinyk wrote:

I'd just add more volume to the encounters. Fighting an army's not going to be a walk in the park.

Alternately, start adding enemies who have strategized around foiling the strategies the party often employs. Have a few dedicated counterspellers and such.

I took your advice several times. As I said, it was a blast and we had some interesting, challenging combats. By the end they were stacking useless buffs to soak up Greater Dispel Magic and were immune tpo the high level spells that had been used against them in prior encounters.

At that level your villians should be using Mage's Disjunction, in conjunction with greater dispel magic. It ends all buffs, and has a chance of supressing any magical items in the area. (except those on the caster). Wall of suppression is also good for this.

What spells are they immune to? How are they immune to Maze? or an Adamantine Rain of Arrows? Clashing Rocks (Touch AC to inflict 20d6)?

though, my questions might be pointless. Your problem isnt in creating a challenge if im reading your responces right, its how to speed up creating challenges. and really, your looking more for the homebrew section than the rules section.

Spell Immunity, Greater; L8. Once they've identified these spells they choose a suite of high level spells that just don't work. So, Maze, Implosion, etc. were good for an encounter or two. I used Clash of Rocks to great effect on one of the end bosses. I guess I didn't get across that we did have challenging encounters and a lot of fun-it was just a second job to do it because running most published adventures? They'll just walk thru 'em. I had the 'army of minions' encounter, The Teleportation Trap, chases, blindsight, dispelling auras, resource-soaking run up encounters. I didn't say my campaign was a failure; it was great. I hope no one is suggesting that you can set up fights where "oh, this just doesn't work" too often and keep players interested.

I'd just add more volume to the encounters. Fighting an army's not going to be a walk in the park.

Alternately, start adding enemies who have strategized around foiling the strategies the party often employs. Have a few dedicated counterspellers and such.

I took your advice several times. As I said, it was a blast and we had some interesting, challenging combats. By the end they were stacking useless buffs to soak up Greater Dispel Magic and were immune to the high level spells that had been used against them in prior encounters.

My Concern with the limiting buffs approach, is the enemies should have a similar number of appropriate buffs, so while you are lowering the ceiling, you aren't neccisarily making your enemies any more competitive. If your party is next to immune to everything because of buffs, your Villian probably is as well. i think the real problem is the preparedness of your PCs, and capping buffs isn't going to fix that core problem.

You said they fought 2 gods? I'm going to guess seperately in one on one encouters? Gods are stated to be above level 20/mythic 10 characters in power, to such a degree that giving them stats would be meaningless. I can't imagine your party fought two such beings at the same time and won. If they did, you understated your gods.

No they fought them at different times; difficult combats and they lost some party members. Under this system a party could certainly be ready for an Dragon's breath weapon, but not also his Cone of Cold, Chain Lightning, etc.

Mathfinder! Love it. I'm also going to make some simple houserules so Detect Magic doesn't ruin a whole school of magic: Illusion.

I'm not sure that it would work. I've only played to 16th (when most adventure paths end, and I think that level is a fun place to stop) but generally you use a variety of different buff spells with varying durations.

I played a very buffing focused summoner and I really don't think it would have limited me to "only hold one same-duration spell of each school of magic at the same time". It might make things slightly different but it just adds more to keep track of, and you can always just drop the low level spells and keep the really good ones.

Thanks for the response! I think that the players should already be keeping track of everything that is needed for the system to work. Durations, when spells were cast, what school they are. And there should be less bookkeeping because for instance, you couldn't have Haste and Fly at the same time unless one was a class ability that's not spellcasting. You couldn't have Haste, Fly, Bull's Strength and Enlarge person at all, which would be a pretty common 9th L Fighter setup.

My gaming group and I just finished a campaign where I was GM and everybody finished around level 18. We had a blast, but the amount of work I had to do to challenge a party that had such high level resources was sometimes daunting especially since I work full time. I had promised to 'go to L 20' but they honestly conquered every foe both in the published material and the ones I came up with, including two gods. A party with high level non-detection, clever hideouts and the ability to teleport multiple times is a tough nut to crack. When prepared, they're damn near immune or close to it to everything. High ACs, saves, healing output and condition mitigation. Of course we have a number of house rules outlawing certain archetypes, spells, Feats, etc.; too many to list here. I have some time before I'm up
to GM again and I'm toying with an idea-to limit the number of magical buffs on a target. Magic is an unstable, disruptive force that cannot exist in the same spot for any length of time before dissipating. Rules wise it would mean that except for spells and effects that are permanent or instantaneous, a target can only hold one same-duration spell of each school of magic at the same time. Magic items would be unaffected, being permanent; except for potions which would stack once because they make anyone a caster. Scrolls would count as spells. Class abilities that aren't spells would be an exception for players and would stack for the individual only. So your own spell-like and supernatural abilities would stack on you. These rules would not pertain to extraordinary abilities at all. Yes, this means that spells that effect a target would also dispel a similar-duration spell of the same school on a failed save. I'm thinking emanations 'centered on you' would also stack once per school. Hmmm, there is much to ponder.

In comparing the Pathfinder Guide books to the City State of the Invincible Overlord, the only difference between the two is that the CSOTIO has small descriptions for each building and a one line NPC briefing. The Guide to Absalom has just as much backstory, rumors, encounter tables, and economic information as the oversized city state book. It's the next best thing to having a full breakdown of the city. If we really want a detailed Absalom, then someone should start a thread with a link to the map and we can start assigning buildings one by one until its done. Saves Paizo the effort and we're all happy.

I would totally support that sort of thing! Just don't know how much real interest there would be. A lot of work but worth it.

With the announcement of Starfinder, a project like this will probably never make the schedule; at least not for a number of years. A shame. Wait! Absalom Station Hardcover? That could get me into a space opera game...

Well, at least every single person of more than moderate means in every campaign world will no longer be wearing iron conical caps at all times, in the loo, at the royal ball, etc. Perhaps floppy hats will be the next fashion to sweep the continents! They go so well with nightgowns! Oh, I mean, 1 headband, 1 pair of gloves, 2 rings, 1 necklace, 1 vest, 1 suit of armor, 1 cape...

Hey, my name is Brooks aka Sepherum and I lost my wallet w/everything in it. I have an eticket for paizocon and I'll be there on Friday morning. I do have an expired passport in good condition that the airline is going to accept for the domestic flight(I called to make sure). Is that cool to pick up my badge or should I copy the webpage or something from my home computer?

I'd play at that table, if possible.

Yeah, how should I make the char? PFS legal w/Core rulebook gp gear?

I'm going to be at PaizoCon this year and I'm going to try and gauge the interest of doing a collaborative third party/fan-driven city for Pathfinder.

Huh. An event called "Secret Project Preview" by James Jacobs. I wonder what that's gonna be about.

A City Box Set of Absalom with an included adventure featuring much of the new content of Ultimate Intrigue. Just a guess.

Absalom could have a different author for each district plus the island itself. An included AP that goes to say, 13th L would take about 250 pages. In a 600 page book that would make the level of city detail still greater than Bard's Gate. Or a box set with 9 soft covers + maps!

Now is the Time!!http://paizo.com/products/btpy9j6p?Pathfinder-Roleplaying-Game-Ultima te-Intrigue

Sepherum here-just a bump to say "Check out the Blight Kickstarter by Richard Pett and Frog God Games, it's a detailed city hardcover, includes an adventure and can be ordered in a Pathfinder version."

GM Rednal wrote:

This is probably the closest you'll get for a little while.

Huzzah!!!!!

8 days until the kickstarter ends...

Mr. Pett-your creation may become the quintessential Pathfinder City, as I read it can be placed in any campaign world that needs a little...spooky.

I'm also supporting the Blight - which looks like it's going to have a very in-depth writeup of a city.

...

A horribly squelchy, nasty sort of city, perhaps, but a city all the same. XD Certainly worth considering if you want a city that isn't all sunshine and roses - and let's face it, PCs don't usually spend a lot of time vacationing and sightseeing in bright, trouble-free locations anyway.

Yeah my gaming groups' plan is to finish Sword of Air, then do Iron Gods, then Hell's Rebels, then Hell's Vengeance, then whatever Paizo is putting out re: the two aforementioned parties squaring off; and then I will personally GM a Blight campaign of mindblowing proportions. We're set for like threeish years.

I would throw all of my money at city guidebooks. (Groceries? Pfft. Peanut butter exists for a reason.)

Maybe that's just my own personal love for cities and urban campaigns talking, though.

Burnt sourdough toast with peanut butter and strawberry jam...aahhh. Yeah, I would throw my money at a big Pathfinder city book/box set. If it's never going to happen I wonder if there'd be interest in doing an online contributor city compatible with Pathfinder.

As soon as I get my next paycheck I'll support the Blight Kickstarter by Frog God Games. Can't resist me a cool-sounding city campaign. It's going to have more pages than the Slumbering Tsar even, with a fully detailed city and an adventure to Pathfinder L 10 (on the slow track, with accommodation for medium advancement if the DM wishes). I'm running the Sword of Air right now and it's a lot of fun. Hopefully this book will avoid the editorial errors I'm finding but it's no big deal. No reason Paizo can't do something like this. Spin-off soft covers, fan-generated content on zee interwebs, an AP separate but based in the city, ALSO an included adventure, each district of say, Absalom with a different author maybe. Oh, wait, am I repeating myself? Sorry for the necro thread!

Over 300 pages. At least one large poster map. Adventure to 13th level included. Pound, pound, pound. Who's with me?!?

Each district or two of Absalom would have different authors. That would make the project more manageable. But it seems that what we need is for Mr. Jacobs to start pounding the table for a city hardcover every year in thee schedule. These would be content and interest generating machines, imho.

Mantriel wrote:

I am new to Pathfinder, but I would love a Ptolus type Absalom book.

I loved Ptolus. Erik Mona wrote about the campaign from time to time in the editorial pages, and to me, it was the greatest selling point. I knew I had to have it. And thus, when I did buy it, I devoured it. I enjoyed that campaign so much, I finally had 'my Waterdeep.'

I was waiting to see how many people would mention Ptolus.

My gaming group did an epic Ptolus campaign; that's the kind of product I'd like to see from Paizo. Oh wait, with even MORE! Probably only Absalom could support a sourcebook + AP of that size. But a Sandpoint box set would be a great way to start off.

James Jacobs wrote:

Kadasbrass Loreweaver wrote:

I always like the section of DMG II from DnD 3.5 that detailed Saltmarsh. It might not have been hundreds of pages long but it did a good job of detailing a city with several shadowy elements for you to make a campaign around.

YAY!

As the one who wrote that section, it's always cool to see folks remember it! I quite love how it turned out, and wish more folks knew about it. :-)

I remember that Saltmarsh... need a jog on the noggin to make the connection though. :)

Now that I think about it, I used Saltmarsh as the battleground for a campaign-ending mega encounter a long time ago. I'd forgotten. Good times.

Hey don't joke with stuff like that. Not cool man...

How do you know I'm joking? Oh, you checked my facts. Not cool, man...

Shadow Under Sandpoint AP? is the thread I'm referring to (in General Discussion). So it's been, like, two and a half years he's been feverishly working on it...prolly comin' out any day now...

The Necro thread strikes again...but for good reason! James Jacobs promised to put out a 1-20L Sandpoint urban adventure path in yet another necro thread I just checked out! I mean, he totally swore before the Lady of Graves herself!

I thought that to not have trainers with names and a little lore to impart (alluding to future factional conflicts perhaps) was a mistake. I think that people believed the first 4 classes as part of the 'mvp' would be further along in development and not require a 'university' to understand. The WoT seemed like an immersion-breaking, desperate gimmick to me. There certainly is a chicken-and-egg problem involved with the pure sandbox: You must have a large, engaged, motivated and knowledgeable community to create the world to attract your large, engaged community. And pay for the privilege! I don't know if the organic rise of EVE can be copied on purpose.

I think we need to face that very fact. There's not a ton of Golarion lore incorporated into the game anyway-why wouldn't someone just start over with a new game?

Bluddwolf wrote:

As for the next step for this game, I'm afraid it's probably either a near complete start from scratch or just a shut down. If it's a shut down, I wouldn't expect another Pathfinder based PC game anytime in the distant future.

Not MMO. I don't think it will harm chances for Pathfinder cRPG much - unless it would have to rely on Kickstarter, then it might have problems. On the other hand I think that KS made by Obsidian for Pathfinder cRPG could still work - they have proven their capacity of handling kickstarter quite well. And with the current cooperation between Obsidian and Paizo, the Obsidian is the most realistic pick for Pathfinder cRPG.

I think the product differentiation aspect can be handled skillfully at next years'various cons. I mean that there is a new cRPG on the horizon that has nothing to do with the Pathfinder MMO; which could never shake the "unrestricted ganking" label. Even among my friends. Even after I spoke to them numerous times. Then an alpha test was presented as 'mvp' that people had to pay for and the 'war of towers' (which was what soured me). I think a Golarion-centered cRPG full of adventure and deep character creation will sell a million copies if it is presented from the beginning as having nothing to do with Pathfinder Online.

AvenaOats: I have long thought you had valuable things to say about perspective and playability, even the business model itself. But I think a cooperative game for Pathfinder ought to be based on online modules created by fans for a single player and/or party-based RPG. MMOs have hard sledding right now. I think that world-building features should be designed in conjunction with the peeps who make POS systems for restaurants. I'm serious. I once walked into a fine dining gig in downtown San Francisco and taught myself the Aloha system as I was bartending a busy restaurant. Command sequences that make sense to the average person, redundant screen popups and an intuitive interface so a neanderthal such as myself can make online Pathfinder adventures. Advanced users of course could shut off that stuff and make more refined inputs (outputs?).

I'd like to thank Goblinworks for the attempt; the vision and the hard work. If a buyer is found there is no guarantee what direction they will go-if not,well there it is. The next obvious step for Paizo is a Pathfinder game along the lines of The Witcher, Dragon Age Origins, and especially Pillars of Eternity. There's no need to rush anything and there is a built-in market for the game and a rich world to exploit. A game whose mechanics are intuitively easy to follow for TT fans is still very possible without violating the OGL. A world building machine, cooperative online play, pvp, etc. I look forward to it. Game companies will be lining up for a shot at this opportunity.

Sepherum wrote:

I've never understood all the arguing over this. It clearly states under Mounted Combat in the Core Rulebook that "If your mount moves more than 5 feet, you can only make a single melee attack." It also seems that the grammar of the entry continually refers to a single attack when charging. I believe it's a homerule to allow the rider to make a pounce at the end of a charge, not the other way around.

It also says immediately after that:

"Essentially, you have to
wait until the mount gets to your enemy before attacking, so
you can’t make a full attack".

Going by the above, it is fairly clear that the basis for the 1 attack only text is that you aren't able to make a full attack because you don't have time to do so after the mount moves. With Pounce this is clearly no longer the case(if the mount has time to make a pounce attack given that it has pounce, the rider should too).

Besides, the Lance pounce FAQ implicitly says mounted pouncing works, so it works. No house ruling involved.

Yeah, I read that too- but the entry is for subjects who are mounted. Clearly there are different rules for making attacks while on a steed. Pounce in the Bestiary doesn't mention riders one way or the other. The FAQ got it wrong on this, imho.

I've never understood all the arguing over this. It clearly states under Mounted Combat in the Core Rulebook that "If your mount moves more than 5 feet, you can only make a single melee attack." It also seems that the grammar of the entry continually refers to a single attack when charging. I believe it's a homerule to allow the rider to make a pounce at the end of a charge, not the other way around.

Steve Geddes wrote:

So.....what's the competition? (And which would you tip as the frontrunner?) :)

Three years ago, the competition was the Rise of the Runelords Anniversary Edition.

Thornkeep was being competition around this point as well.

Two years ago, the competition was the Strategy Guide.

Emerald Spire Superdungeon was being competition around this point as well.

Last year, the competition was Inner Sea Gods.

This year, the competition was Inner Sea Races.

Next year, the competition is something that hasn't yet been announced, along with all the years to come after that.

There's a release schedule for 'all the years to come after that.'? I'm kidding. Perhaps there's a site where fans could do a free cooperative project that doesn't break any business rules?

Just checked out the City of Freeport by Green Ronin. Nice book. No reason Paizo can't do something similiar; using a slightly smaller font size they could add even more of an adventure in the last chapter.

The Advanced Class Guide, by the nature of all of the other classes and archetypes already published, was going to have more niche content that would be less widely accepted. Considering that some people don't like/use parts of the Core Rulebook, having some overlap and/or different options to meet certain concepts, as well as pushing in some new directions, I'd say it was an overall success. There are certain concepts I can now achieve with the ACG that didn't work very well before and there is a broader palette of concepts that are "ready to go" from 1st level. Some things don't suit my tastes, but I'm not about to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Mythic Adventures was always going to be a niche product. One thing that seems to never be mentioned by the detractors is that gaining mythic tiers is 100% in the narrative control of the GM. You can run a "mythic game" where the PCs only gain one or two mythic tiers (at any point in their careers); you don't have to go to 20 levels/10 mythic tiers. Look at Mythic Adventures like a spice rack: using it too much can overwhelm the base product.

Of course any release can be a 'spice rack' for the GM. Nice analogy, by the way. But Paizo put out a hardcover for 40 bucks with 20/10. I don't think they release hardcovers intending to sell at 'niche' numbers. And, as I said, I like the ideas of the ACG (I own it). I intend to check out Occult Adventures myself. Here's hoping the feats and archetypes are fun, balanced and can survive actual play.