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

Serum's page

FullStarFullStar Pathfinder Society GM. 920 posts. 1 review. No lists. No wishlists. 8 Pathfinder Society characters.


1 to 50 of 920 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Shadow Lodge

There is no trail for my PCs to follow between the lodge and the portal (it's been snowing for a week), and the PCs straight up killed Rokhar, so the only clues they have to where the portal is the map with the X at the portal, and the X's at the possible ambush sites, and Rokhar's apparent plan to back stab the fey (huge stockpile of alchemist's fire, among some other things).

Upon finding Argentea, they brought her back to town, then since they were in town anyway, they went to check out all of the X's that were along the road (potential ambush sites). They didn't find much other than some more trees decorated with ravens, but the process took enough time that they weren't going to reach the lodge until evening, so I decided to through the full goblin band in.

It worked pretty well in the end. The exhausted goblins performed as expected, performing as distractions while the fatigued goblins went to work on the characters who came close. Ended up with two characters diseased (although they don't know it yet), some scary moments with the goblin dogs charging the wizard who killed their master, but they managed to force the goblins into a panicked escape to their freezing deaths after the party killed both their adept and their leader.

Keeping track of so many characters was a good test of Combat Manager.

Shadow Lodge

Yeah. It's going to be interesting. My largest issue with my party so far is trying for longevity and avoiding forcing a 15 minute adventuring day, while still having interesting encounters. My party consists of: Sorcerer, Wizard, Melee oracle, Caster Wild-Caller Summoner w/ Quad Eidolon. As such, for the first couple levels they are extremely reliant on daily resources to get through even average CR encounters, especially since their bodies are very fragile, except for the oracle. Examples: their first session had them forced to turn around after the tatzlwyrm encounter, and fighting Rokhar's raiders plus the frost skeletons upstairs completely drained them of their resources after only one previous encounter. They had to run away after finding out Rokhar was raising the corpses downstairs. Luckily, they are now level two after killing Rokhar, so they have a bit more resources.

Here's my current scenario:

My party just finished killing Rokhar (who stupidly sent out his reanimated frost skeletons into the snow where the PCs could range kill them all), while Izoze watched. When they went back to Heldren to return the Argentea, she went and reported back to Teb.

1. The bridge fight is interesting enough that I want Teb to tell her to go back to her watch post and then harass them if they try to cross the bridge. (1 encounter, CR 3, +1 CR for bridge fight -1 CR for fleeing at half health). At the same time, this fight can be insanely dangerous if they're not super careful.

2. Next are the ancient invaders, interesting just because it shows a tiny bit of insight as to what Rokhar was doing and/or provides some misdirection (Rokhar's dead! Why are there still frost skeletons wandering about?!). (CR 2, will definitely use up resources, either spending ranged resources, or healing up once in melee)

3. Frost firs are sort of a throwaway encounter. I would like to keep it because their description in the back sets up a nifty random encounter in book 2 with a larger grove + elder fir + pit traps. Maybe I can move it to after the hut? (CR 3, with a near guaranteed surprise round, this will use up resources)

4. Trap! Hit-or-miss. However, I've already given them the seed with the weasel and the hunter, so this is a relatively interesting side story-line. Maybe I should cut the trap and the weasel entirely, or maybe I should just combine them with the hunter into one encounter (otherwise, Dryden should really be mutilated beyond all recognition with the starving and desperate weasel having either eaten him right then and there, or dragged it back to whatever lair it might have found).

5. Maze, no resources expected to be expended, although I'm tempted to add persistent, just because that's the only way I find haunts to be actual encounters as opposed to just a trap. Since it's just scare being cast, the only issue the party should have is getting everyone through.

6. Guardian Doll. Needs to be here. If provoked, fighting to the death is probably preferable to having her run away and come back later, just to reduce resource consumption.

7. Another Trap! Again, hit or miss, but I don't know if this one adds anything at all.

8. The weasel, as I said above, might be turfed as a combat encounter, and they just find it somewhere as having bled out after escaping the bear traps.

9. Ambush! Some sort of final encounter with Izoze is required, as it will give closure to the oracle (who replaced Yuln as the one who escaped Argentea's caravan and personally saw Izoze turn his captain into an icicle), and some satisfaction for everyone else after the bridge. This is probably fine as that encounter, whenever they sleep for the night.

So, if I keep everything, that's 6 combat encounters, with 3 trap encounters, all with a CR higher than average before they're expected to be able to completely rest, all with a party who needs a minimum of 9 hours straight to get their resources back. Yikes.

I also spent quite a bit of time adding in two custom 'random' encounters that I want to use in some way.

1. A goblin warband of 14 warriors, 1 adept, 1 mounted leader, and 3 goblin dogs have gotten lost in the woods, and are going in circles. They are all suffering from frostbite (all are either fatigued or exhausted) except the adept, who has been casting endure elements on himself. Six warriors and 1 dog have collapsed and most have been left behind (1 or 2 are being taken along as emergency rations). Two of the goblins have been stricken with chillbane shakes. If they spot the PCs they attack immediately to go after potential food, firewood and their warm clothing. Encounter make-up:
3x exhausted goblin warrior 1 (aid the healthier goblins)
2x exhausted & sickened goblin warrior 1 (contagious & aid the healthier goblins)
3x fatigued goblin warrior 1
1x fatigued goblin warrior 2 on goblin dog mount
1x goblin adept 1 with one spell: bless
2x fatigued goblin dog (one mount, one pack animal)
All have taken nonlethal damage (except for the adept), on average by 1/6.
Counting the exhausted & sick goblins as CR 1/8, the fatigued goblins as CR 1/4, the leader and adept as CR 1/3, and the goblin dogs as CR 1/2 gives me an XP of 1220, or a CR 4 encounter. I could also drop 1 dog, 2 fatigued warriors, and 1 sick for a CR 3 encounter.

Probably the most dangerous part of the encounter is if they get the drop on the PCs and open fire with their shortbows from 60ft. Sure, they're firing at serious penalties, but there's still 10 projectiles in the air per turn until the PCs are able to engage them.

Ideally, this encounter would be before they get back to the lodge.

2. An encounter with a bunch of frozen 3 frozen slime molds (1 adult, 2 young). They have gone into "hibernation" under the snow and are only woken when the PCs step on them. Due to being cold, they are staggered, and since they were sleeping, there is no surprise round, and the other two are only woken if they are stepped on.

I think this encounter would be fine once the PCs rest after the ambush (and before the fight with

As both encounters deal with creatures from Taldor unaccustomed to the sudden winter, I would rather they take place on this side of the portal (especially since every single encounter so far has otherwise been against something from Irrisen).

Comments on anything in this post?

Shadow Lodge

Has anyone actually had both the guardian doll and Izoze attack in the same night, or have all the PC parties attacked the doll on sight?

Specifically, the AP assumes that the PCs will have to rest for the night just before they get to the portal area, at which point Izoze and Squald ambush them. However, Thora's strategy also states that she lets the PCs pass her hut, only pursuing them after they leave, and preferably attacks them in the night.

Add in the weasel that may have escaped, and the PCs could be in for a rough night!

Shadow Lodge

Has there been any update to this?

Shadow Lodge

Ascalaphus wrote:

So from the monster's perspective, it's okay that the first one is just going to get killed running in, hoping that the second one can kill the wizard with one hit? Because if you don't, you've just surrounded yourself with PCs about to engage in a full attack.

These tactics smell like a suicide bomber trying to do the most damage, not monsters being smart and caring about their own survival.

What's this about a full attack? If the opponents are actually going through the effort of ignoring the martials to take out a caster, then why wouldn't they follow through and put themselves 10ft away from said martials?

Shadow Lodge

Flawed wrote:
With your other domain you could choose a regular Irori domain or go for some alternate flavor and grab an Inquisition. Spellkiller grants Disruptive and is great for dealing with caster types; Redemption is a quick +2 to diplomacy, perception, and sense motive; Possession grants a +2 vs charm and compulsion subschool; Persistence grants Step-Up and a swift action to increase your land speed by a +10 enhancement; Anger gives a 1/day immediate action to attack someone who just hit you; Black Powder gives Exotic Weapon Proficiency (Firearm).

Clerics of Irori can't have most of those inquisitions, unfortunately.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
thegreenteagamer wrote:
Flutter wrote:
I am taking the trait "Eye for Talent" in lieu of my bonus feat.
Why? There's this feat, Extra Traits, gives you TWO traits. Do that instead. Then you get Eye for Talent AND something else useful.

That feat does not do what you think it does. Race Traits are not Racial Traits.

Shadow Lodge **

BigNorseWolf wrote:

** spoiler omitted **

Veteran's Vault:
It's even worse: being blind causes every square moved to cost two, as it counts as having poor visibility (which stacks with being blind causing you to go half speed or make acrobatics checks for full speed) as per "Hampered movement" in the CRB. On the other hand, if you move half speed, you avoid the caltrops, which is the same half speed that you don't need to make Acrobatics checks for blindness.

This still doesn't disregard the 'effective' 1/4 speed for being blind or the further reduction of speed due to not noticing the caltrops and stepping on one (yuck 1/8 speed reduces everyone to full-round action 5 ft moves, although succeeding at Acrobatics allows you to go back up to 1/4).

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.
Fromper wrote:
DR protects against everything except energy damage, or a specific damage type that overcomes it.
I guess you consider the bolded sentence in the entry as flavor text?
PRD UMR wrote:
Damage Reduction (Ex or Su) A creature with this special quality ignores damage from most weapons and natural attacks. Wounds heal immediately, or the weapon bounces off harmlessly (in either case, the opponent knows the attack was ineffective). The creature takes normal damage from energy attacks (even nonmagical ones), spells, spell-like abilities, and supernatural abilities. A certain kind of weapon can sometimes damage the creature normally, as noted below.

Why does the bolded sentence get ignored in favour of the italicized sentence when they don't contradict each other?

Shadow Lodge

Here's something that may or may not come up:

Damage Reduction only reduces damage from weapons. Energy Resistance only reduces damage from specific energy types.

Hardness reduces damage from all sources. That includes falling, cavern collapses, spell damage as from spiritual weapon, lantern archon attacks, etc

Shadow Lodge

LazarX wrote:
Kudaku wrote:

I wouldn't say the cleric list sucks, but I think it was written by a writer who was very aware of the knowledge that the cleric gets access to every spell on his list automatically. That means there's a lot more room to design "narrow" spells or divide spell effects up between different spells.

Which in turn is kind of frustrating when you're trying to make the Oracle's limited spells known cover everything a cleric is expected to handle.

Just as trying to wizard as a sorcerer is a task asking for trouble, the same is said for oracles trying to do the same thing with clerics. You have to be a focused caster with limited room for flexibility.

Both the sorcerer and oracle need to cherry-pick from their own respective lists, true, but the oracle's choices very quickly boil down to "Which incredibly niche spell do I want to be able to spam?", while the sorcerer still has loads of good multi-purpose or generic spells to choose from.

Shadow Lodge

Fromper wrote:
terraleon wrote:
Along with it? Being told the damage from *falling* was halved by hardness.
Yeah, when I played 6-02, I dropped two robots into a Create Pit spell, and did no damage. But DR would have done the same thing in that case. I was just happy to divide the enemies so we could fight less of them at once, which worked out great for us.

Falling damage isn't considered weapon damage, is it?

Shadow Lodge **

Pirate Rob wrote:

When I played it, our Silver Crusader paladin was wrestling with this exact issue.

After winning the first bid our Magus used his familiar to pickpocket some extra coins from our identified enemy.

We ended up easily winning all 3 slaves, of course he was clever enough to figure out what was going on and jumped us in the alley afterwards

We didn't win a single bid, and the way our GM rolled, there was no way we could've unless we decided we only wanted two. Breaking the rules of the auction isn't exactly one thinks of when you've been told by your faction leader that she'd rather you get them back lawfully.

What also doesn't make much sense is that fighting in the streets over one slave is going to cause the same kind of commotion that fighting over three slaves is. Both are going to cause the same amount of fighting, draw the city watch, and grievances from the trader. Telling the authorities "but we only stole one slave, not three!" or "the one slave we commandeered from that man was a valiant crusader!" isn't going to make the Society or the Crusade look any worse than if you took all three from him.

Shadow Lodge **

Dorothy Lindman wrote:
Belafon wrote:

As for the "successful merchants" it all comes down to what the equilibrium condition is (and how much collusion is going on). The minimum bid is 200gp (converted). The scenario doesn't say how the bids are collected, but I would think that the bidders wouldn't have a chance to see how many others are in that round. Presumably Stig loses some money if only one person bids, making it a good transaction for the buyer. If two or three bidders emerge he makes money. On the exotic slaves - like these with three class levels each - he can usually expect multiple bids. This is where his real money is. He has a product that is difficult to find elsewhere, so people are willing to play by his rules.

So a good bidder could "steal" value by placing low bids on slaves he thinks will not draw other bidders. And Stig's "all ties lose" policy encourages someone who made a small profit off an unchallenged auction to place a moderate bid on the really high-value slaves. It's gambling, but with a potential high payoff. Presumably the merchants think a risk of 275 gp is a better deal than getting in an open auction for a slave that may go for more than 500gp.

That was my original question: are the slaves so valuable or rare that people would put up with this set up? Or are they being sold at a high percentage under value? I don't get that sense from the scenario at all, but if we're allowed that much leeway, that's how I would prefer to explain it.

Belafon wrote:
Bear in mind that these merchants MAY have some mathematical prodigies who can spot the edge Stig has (which isn't ridiculously huge or everyone would see it) but applying...

Actually, Stig never loses--he has a minimum bid that he would (presumably) be OK with. He either sells the slaves at his minimum bid and goes home, or he gets at least double his minimum bid. That's a really good return.

I also figured that some smart statistics person could explain to me how this set up could possibly work. Because...

Given that 8 bronze is equivalent to 200gp, and the slaves being sold are relatively powerful classed martials, my party was thinking that the price for them was too low.

Shadow Lodge **

You don't get a generic skeleton, though. You get a skeleton with HD equal to your level. There are no generic human skeletons straight out of the bestiary with 2+ HD.

Shadow Lodge **

Wow, how does a Silver crusade member manage to get her second prestige without bidding 13 coins on two and saying "screw it" on the third? What kind of logic goes into that without having read exactly what said success condition was?

Shadow Lodge

boring7 wrote:
If memory serves, "counter and dispel" is different from "Counter" and "Dispel". It means both spells stop working.

Your memory does not serve.

Shadow Lodge

Major_Blackhart wrote:
He still wants the warhammer, so he'll probably just go for the Adopted by Dwarves racial trait.

Which doesn't get him what he wants, since racial traits are not race traits.

Shadow Lodge **

Charon's Little Helper wrote:
The Fox wrote:
Finlanderboy wrote:
What is so wrong with treating people how they want to be treated...?
Quoted for truth!

Depends somewhat how they want to be treated.

I want to be treated to apple pie and by everyone giving me $50 each time they see me.

So far I am dissapoint.

...are you giving others apple pie and $50 every time you see them?

If not, I think you may not be reading all of the statement!

Shadow Lodge

Spook205 wrote:
And unlike a fiend, he again has the benefit going for him that parties don't tend to load up on axiomatic weaponry any more then they load up with anarchic weaponry. The only part member who defacto hits him at full strength is the monk.

And anyone with a +5 weapon.

Shadow Lodge **

Aelryinth wrote:

Ah, so the paladin acting on his Detect Evil to guide his actions is okay, but the barbarian trusting the paladin and his own instincts to back them up is not.

Mmm, yes. Double logic standards, here.


If the paladin had swung his greatsword at the mayor and split his head open in the middle of the feast...I think we would be saying the exact same thing.

Shadow Lodge

Aelryinth wrote:
Ashiel wrote:

I'm also in agreement that Witchfires are a sick joke. An 8d6 touch attack with a DC 22 save or become vulnerable (+50% damage) to their attack is harsh to begin with (especially combined with their formidable defenses), but if you meet one with the Vital Strike feats, just run for your lives.

The standard witchfire qualifies for vital strike, which allows her to smash someone for 16d6 fire damage as a standard action. Then if you fail a DC 22 Will save after the touch, you're effectively getting smashed for 34d6 fire damage every round thereafter. At CR 9. Yeah...

EDIT: Which is coupled with at-will SLA invisibility, the ability to summon 0-2 will o' whisps, and a +10 Initiative. An invisible incorporeal creature is effectively super-invisible since they don't make sound unless they desire, they have no scent, they don't move objects, and now you can't see them, so they're pretty much certain to get the opening attack, and kill someone on round 1.

Surprise: Witchfire moves up to the party's Fighter under cover of invisibility with a +39 Stealth (and scent, blindsense, and blindsight do nothing) and smashes said warrior for 16d6 (56 average) damage on round 0.

Round 1: A weak-willed character is probably going to fail a DC 22 save at this level, so on the next round, the warrior gets smashed for an average of 84 damage, for a total of 140 damage, then the witchfire sinks into the ground gaining total cover.

Round 2: The witchfire, while chillin' in the ground, becomes invisible again and using its brilliant intellect decides to screw with the party by letting them buff up and get ready to fight, and then just not fighting them, wasting their resources.

Round ??: The witchfire follows the party and waits until they rest. A 16d6 coup de grace is pretty much 100% foolproof.

I'm pretty sure you can't Vital Strike a touch attack or a ranged touch attack, both attacks the Witchfire has are those. If you can, then Shocking Grasp and Ray-users just got a...

Vital Strike requires the attack action. Abilities that involve touch attacks are their own, separate, standard actions.

Shadow Lodge


Shadow Lodge **

SCPRedMage wrote:
Serum wrote:
Regarding Gods' Market Gamble:** spoiler omitted **

/shrug. She's in a position with cover and a cloak. It's unlikely the witnesses ever see anything except for said cloak.

Anyway, this has all been covered in the Gods' Market Gamble GM thread. I was just pointing out that if a BBEG's entire motivation for being in a fight with the PCs is to kill the PCs, it's probably not in character for him not to kill the PCs.

Frostfur Captives:
Consider the final encounter for this scenario, where their enemies specifically don't care whether the PCs live or die, as long as the goblins die.

Shadow Lodge

Cleave Through is also useful.

Shadow Lodge

Gregory Connolly wrote:
Anything immune to mind effecting is gonna ruin them.

Nothing in the OP's list of tactics is mind affecting.

Things that will work against the current tactics (not so much against Dazing Fireball):
-use more creatures, higher HP characters. The listed daze effects only last one round. It's a lot harder to mop up everything if they can't kill everything while they are dazed.
-start combat from further away. The listed tactics only work at <30 ft.
-Include creatures with high will saves / channel resistance.
-include more combats in a day to stretch their resources.

Shadow Lodge

Neil Spicer's suggestion of giving the arctic Tatzylwyrm a burrow speed in place of his poison breath (I so hope I get to pull the sorcerer beneath the snows).

Like I suggested in the Snows of Summer thread, I would replace the climb speed with the burrow speed, so that the tatzlwyrm can drag the wizard 10 feet and deal strength damage instead of raking (which will quickly kill him outright). Otherwise, you're likely to force a return to home or a player death on the third encounter of the day.

Shadow Lodge **

Mistwalker wrote:
Serum wrote:
Regarding Gods' Market Gamble:** spoiler omitted **
** spoiler omitted **

True, and I believe that's what happened when I ran it as well. The guards take minutes to show up even after the PCs win. After the last PC went down, I decided that I would roll the d4, and if it showed a 1, the guards would show up while she was trying to finish them off and have to run away. It wasn't a 1.
Shadow Lodge **

SCPRedMage wrote:
Finlanderboy wrote:
I have twice had the bad guys defeat the PCs completely and then let them live.

That's pretty much the closest I've ever come to a TPK, myself.

** spoiler omitted **

Regarding Gods' Market Gamble:

This is actually one situation where I would have the BBEG kill everyone after they fall unconscious. If she was just going to skip town with the goods, then she would have done it already. Instead, she's set up this ambush specifically so she can kill everyone who could provide evidence against her. She's not going to let them live after she has won, especially since it takes almost no time at all to fill them with arrows from afar.
Shadow Lodge

Now, if Alice was an Otyugh, it would be a different story!

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

(Raging) Barbarians can do some crazy things with weapon-based combat maneuvers:

+1 Furious Dueling (PSFG) Weapon gives a +9 (combined luck & enhancement) to all combat maneuvers that can be performed with that weapon (excluding bull rush, grapple, overrun, steal and drag) all by itself.

Shadow Lodge

bbangerter wrote:
Samasboy1 wrote:
bbangerter wrote:
Where is this stated in the rules?


Spells Copied from Another's Spellbook or a Scroll wrote:

In most cases, wizards charge a fee for the privilege of copying spells from their spellbooks. This fee is usually equal to half the cost to write the spell into a spellbook (see Writing a New Spell into a Spellbook). Rare and unique spells might cost significantly more.

The text is on page 219 of the Core rulebook.

Happy to help.

Thanks, there it was 2 paragraphs above where I was reading.

(Wonders if that should include the original scroll cost, as economically it doesn't make sense for a wizard who is a stranger to random PC #3 to say, well it cost me 2000gp to get this spell in my spellbook, and I could make a scroll to sell you for 1600gp, but I'll let you copy straight from my book for a mere 180gp - unless of course the selling wizard expects to get so much volume on renting their spellbook out to make up for that while still having their time free to not spend all their days crafting scrolls).

It takes zero effort on the lender to lend his spellbook. If he's busy with other things, it might be more economical to just lend out the spell book as opposed to spending the time to write a scroll.

Shadow Lodge

wraithstrike wrote:
seebs wrote:

They still have to pay the normal cost for scribing, they just don't have to pay the extra cost to borrow someone else's books, or find someone else who knows them.

Mythic also lets you learn arbitrary spells; take archmage, take wild arcana, use mythic power to cast a spell, scribe a scroll, which requires that you be able to cast the spell to do it. Then you have a scroll and can add it to your spellbook.

It is not so much the money, but that you can learn a lot of spells every day that way, assuming it only takes an hour to scribe one spell into the book. If you can only learn one spell a day then it is not as bad as I thought, but still not something every GM will allow.

(one hour per spell level to write)

Shadow Lodge

The red flag I see with this whole DC 10 to catch yourself on the slope while adjacent to it, is still the fact that, a normal pit without the slope has an adjacent flat surface, which should be even easier to catch oneself.

I haven't seen anyone state that they should be allowed a DC 10- Climb check when they fail the reflex save to avoid a pit trap.

Shadow Lodge

The bloodline class ability explicitly states that you cannot.

Shadow Lodge

Kolokotroni wrote:
The summoner in my mind supports the eidolon. He buffs, heals or uses control spells to cover its back. If resources are tight he might take a pot shot with a ranged weapon. But mostly i'd get him a wand of enlarge person/another useful buff(s). And use his spells for battlefield control and healing the eidolon.

Just a note, wands of enlarge person/shield/etc won't work on the eidolon, as wands aren't affected by the share spells class feature.

Shadow Lodge

So, a large portion of the summoner's power is his eidolon. However, post of this advantage is the increase in the player's action economy, which means ideally the summoner should be doing something while the eidolon does whatever.

Obviously, he has spells, but, just like all of the other 3/4 casters, he doesn't exactly have enough spells to be using them in every round.

What else do you have your summoner do in combat?

Shadow Lodge

Mathwei ap Niall wrote:

]Where does it say in Pathfinder that a creature cannot fly if they are restricted by heavy/medium armor (Barding and its restrictions only applies to mounts)?

What spell failure chance does a medium load create?

Under the lifting and carrying rules.

Lifting & Carrying wrote:
A character can lift as much as double his maximum load off the ground, but he or she can only stagger around with it. While overloaded in this way, the character loses any Dexterity bonus to AC and can move only 5 feet per round (as a full-round action).

Added to this rule under the fly skill

fly skill wrote:
a flying creature can remain flying at the end of its turn so long as it moves a distance greater than half its speed.

A creature who's strength is dropped enough (especially a flyer who isn't known for having high strength to begin with) is suddenly completely over-loaded with 1 casting of the OP's ray of enfeeblement (minimum 7 points max 12 or 15 if empowered).

Per the encumbrance rules not only does that target all but +1 from his dexterity bonus (which is what Fly is based on) they also suffer a -6 to all fly checks and that's just if they are carrying less then twice their new maximum load.
Now for any character other then the strength based martial the OP's will drop their strength to a 1 or 2 meaning 21 lbs keeps them from moving at all.
With the sheer number of str 8 casters out there this drops them below 0 and invokes this rule

Hovering is a DC 15 check. The fly spell gives +4+1/2 CL (minimum +2 at level 5). At level 12 that the OP is talking about, this is +10 from the spell, +1 from Dex, -6 from encumbrance, +4 (minimum) from the fly skill that the wizard probably put at least a single point in; this is a total modifier of +9, or a 75% chance to stay aloft, at double maximum load.

Not bad for a single 3-5 level spell (depending on the metamagic).

Shadow Lodge

Mathwei ap Niall wrote:

Load up on a few Rays of Enfeeblement in those little used 1st level slots.

Remember a flyer cannot fly if their encumbrance is at a heavy load and they get terrible penalties if they are at or over medium.
(A medium or heavy load counts as medium or heavy armor for the purpose of abilities or skills that are restricted by armor.)
Hit a wizard/sorcerer with this spell and you can actually strip them of their ability to cast spells (impose an arcane spell failure check on every attempt to cast a spell).

A metamagic'ed (empowered or persistent or quickened are best) can take a flyer completely out of the fight in 1 round.

Where does it say in Pathfinder that a creature cannot fly if they are restricted by heavy/medium armor (Barding and its restrictions only applies to mounts)?

What spell failure chance does a medium load create?

Shadow Lodge

Snorter wrote:
The Morphling wrote:

While the code discussion is outside my understanding, Nefreet's diagram does illustrate a problem I have with cones; namely that according to RAW, a caster can't stand against a wall, and fire along the length of the wall, unless they forfeit a large portion of the spell area.

I'd like to be able to do this:


Why can't you do this? You can choose the intersection which is the origin point - what is stopping you from doing exactly what you described?

Because the cone is now pointed towards one of your other vertices.

Shadow Lodge

Neil Spicer wrote:
Phillip0614 wrote:
I have a question about the fight with the arctic tatzlwyrm....Under "Tactics" in the tatzlwyrm's stat block, it states that it pounces and rakes before grappling. Pouncing requires charging, which requires at least ten feet of movement. However, this fight takes place in a deep snowdrift, which counts as difficult terrain....Nimble Moves doesn't let the tatzlwyrm ignore more than 5 feet of difficult terrain, though, so what allows it to charge in this situation when normally you can't charge through difficult terrain?

That was an oversight on my part. For some reason, I was imagining Nimble Moves allowed enough movement to charge through difficult terrain. In actuality, it's only the gateway feat to Acrobatic Steps (which would allow that tactic to be carried out). Personally, I think the best way to salvage the integrity of that encounter is to reinterpret the arctic tatzlwyrm as a variant of its kind. My suggestion would be to drop the poison breath attack and give it Acrobatic Steps as a bonus feat with an assumed burrow movement rate in deep snow only. That would give it the ability to pounce from the snow and grab a victim. Then, with opposed combat maneuvers, it could drag someone under the snow via its burrow ability.

My two cents,

Having run this encounter with this suggestion, I instead recommend just replacing the climb speed with a burrow speed (in snow only). It doesn't get to pounce, but the party instead gets a perception check when it pokes its head out of the snow as it waits for the party to go into the deep gullies. If they don't notice it, combat isn't started until it actually makes it adjacent to its target anyway.

The reason why I suggest this is that losing the poison gasp means that the tatzlwyrm really has no reason not to include its automatic rake attacks after it successfully maintains its grapple (and since it attacks the least armored character, the rake damage is going to frequently hit, and even more so when the character falls unconscious).

I had to essentially decide that the tatzlwyrm stopped using its rake attacks after its target fell unconscious (and under the snow), because continuing to do so would kill the target without much chance of retaliation from the rest of the party. Even after I decided this, the tatzlwyrm did so much damage that the party had to head back home after this encounter, as they were out of healing resources once they got the sorcerer back to 0 hp, while the wizard was still at -12.

Instead, keeping poison gasp allows the tatzlwyrm to replace its rake attacks with the strength damage fort save. It ends up doing smaller amounts of hp damage, but the strength damage there sticks around. They can continue the adventure (or be forced to wait several days waiting for their ability damage to recover) without risking falling over from a stiff, needle-pointy breeze.

Shadow Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

using blink as a defensive buff spell actually becomes completely usable, since magic missile is unaffected by the blinking.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Lincoln Hills wrote:

Slightly related notion - I always thought it would be intriguing if most 'simple' weapons had an 'upgrade' that only kicked in if you had them as martial (or exotic) proficiencies as well; things like:

Dagger (simple): The dagger is melee only.
Dagger (martial): The dagger is throwable.
Dagger (exotic): The dagger provides +2 to Feint checks.

Staff (simple): The staff is treated as a two-handed weapon.
Staff (martial): The staff may instead be treated as a double weapon.
Staff (exotic): The staff gains the 'trip' quality and may be thrown like a spear (10' increment).

I like that idea as well, although it should of course probably apply to martial weapons; a sword (exotic) might also be usable to do bludgeoning damage via a pommel strike.

This is the exact sort of thing that Kirthfinder does.

Shadow Lodge

A creature with the Rake (Ex) special attack gains two free claw attacks against its target under special conditions (generally pounce & grapple). Looking at grapple in particular, it looks as if it gets these two attacks in addition to anything else the creature wants to do after it successfully maintains the grapple:

eg. The creature who started its turn grappling its target successfully maintains its grapple. It then decides to pin the target, and also gains two rake attacks against it.

Is this correct? If so, it should also be able to instead move itself and the target (as part of its standard action action only), and also use its rake attacks. It would also have a move action to do whatever it wanted.

Shadow Lodge

Jiggy wrote:
Serum wrote:
FuelDrop wrote:
How to 'disable' a pit trap: Lay a plank across it.
Good to know that Disable Device allows the user to pull 11 foot planks out of thin air.

Maybe it allows them to take the materials being used to cover the pit (if it wasn't covered, it wouldn't be a trap) and fashion them together into something to help you get across.

Or, you know, you could continue to deliberately try to concoct the most ludicrous explanation you can think of in an attempt to make someone else's position look bad.

The other side of this is that anyone who actually has said plank should probably be allowed to place it over the pit without being required to make a disable device roll.

Shadow Lodge

FuelDrop wrote:
How to 'disable' a pit trap: Lay a plank across it.

Good to know that Disable Device allows the user to pull 11 foot planks out of thin air.

Shadow Lodge

In my opinion, the difference between neutral and evil is that an evil character thinks nothing of (or even takes pleasure in) harming others to further his selfish goals. A neutral character has some trepidation in doing so, if they plan on doing so at all.

There's of course some inconsistencies here. A thief is commonly regarded as being chaotic neutral, even though he's indirectly harming someone by lowering their quality of life when he steals from her. I think the key word is "suffering". Does a rich person suffer if 20gp is stolen from him? Not especially, while stealing that amount from someone for whom it is their life savings is a much darker path.

I believe the desire for personal power and glory falls outside of alignment. How a character goes about gaining said power and glory is much more important. See Alain, the iconic cavalier who is LN, seeking glory for himself by wandering around the world challenging worthy opponents to duels.

Shadow Lodge

I'm confused as to the purpose of this thread.

Is this where we go to bash the developers about the summoner class? There's not much else to do, since the OP said himself that we all have apparently agreed what the problems are.

Shadow Lodge

Sarrah wrote:

... you read it again
Mark Moreland (Paizo Developer): "Were we to reprint the book, we would change the Glorious Heat feat to grant the fire spell's spell level in healing instead of character level. This keeps unlimited use orisons from being spammed, and 1st level spells from being abused at higher levels. This clarification will appear in the July update to the Pathfinder Society Additional Resources document." Healing#73
Jason Bulmahn (Paizo Developer): "Unlimited healing at the cost of a feat and an orison slot is just too good. This is a fix. It is neither elegant, nor my preferred solution (which would have been to catch this before it went to print, but mistakes do slip through), it is simply a fix for the OP system. This fix will go into official campaign documentation, unless Mark and Hyrum decide that instead a ban is more appropriate."

And then, when they reprinted it in ISG 3 years later... they didn't change to be based on spell level.

Shadow Lodge

James Risner wrote:
James Risner wrote:
seebs wrote:
I've seen plenty where +0 doesn't get you anything, but still procs side-effects
Welcome to extreme table variance then, because this concept was a dinner discussion for us tonight after the game. The whole table felt the concept of getting a benefit from +0 is not going to happen at any table they are GMing. Clearly you differ. So you will see no uniform agreed interpretation for the rules on this matter.

Good to know that barkskin does nothing to anyone who doesn't have at least a +1 natural armor bonus.

1 to 50 of 920 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 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.