I'd love a Numeria AP, or at least more material on the country itself. If people don't like Sci-fi mixed with fantasy, they're playing in the wrong Campaign setting.
I don't know about that...Golarion has lots of places where the fantasy is relatively uncontaminated byt sci-fi. Now, if someone can't handle it being in the world at all, then yeah, they should probably find another world.
I've posted it elsewhere, but count me as another Numeria vote!
Given that Paizo has been pretty hardline about the whole "undead are inherently evil" thing, it seems like this was probably a mistake. Unless I missed something where intelligent undead can be other alignments, in which case we can fall back to the part where he slaughtered a bunch of slaves and bathed in their blood.
I'm calling typo as well.
I was going to say some things, but this pretty much covers it. This is an amazing book in every way. I expect to use every single section, and the art is great from start to end.
You already have your case? I live literally 20 minutes from Paizo and I have nothing. :( Hasn't even shipped yet (and yes, I have it set to ship separately).
Oh well, gives me more time to actually make some space for them.
James Jacobs wrote:
That would be awesome! Scenic art is super useful.
Thanks for the input!
James Jacobs wrote:
Awesome, sounds like a lot of the molds I want will be viable. Are there any particular pieces of art that I could reference as good examples, or should I just take those various styles and mix to taste?
Is there any particular real world architectural style that would best match Thassilonian constructions? Would it vary between the different Runelords' domains?
I've just gotten started building some modular dungeons with molds from Hirst Arts. I'm wanting to build a Thassilonian set, and I need to decide which molds to get next!
Rise of the Runelords is pretty awesome. It's fairly classic fantasy, and is probably on the easier side as far as running it. It also has a massive amount of support material at this point (Pawns, Minis, Cards, Maps, Flip-mats).
I still disagree, but I don't feel all that strongly about it and I don't want to continue filling this thread with the discussion. You may very well be right, but for now I'll continue to read it my way unless my players disagree.
I'm not trying to be selective, but I don't see the text you're quoting. The only similar phrasing I see in any of the spells I've checked is what I quoted above. The only place I see the word "negate" is in the Daylight spell description, where it says:
Daylight brought into an area of magical darkness (or vice versa) is temporarily negated, so that the otherwise prevailing light conditions exist in the overlapping areas of effect.
Which is definitely not dispelling either effect. Despite this, Daylight includes the language about countering or dispelling darkness spells of equal or lower level. By your interpretation, under what circumstances would this temporary negation occur? If one or both spells are always going to be dispelled on contact, what is the point of this part of the spell description?
I may have just missed the text you're quoting, in which case I would appreciate a pointer to where I can find it.
You're trying now to justify the 'casting style' as an excuse for your rules. Unfortunately, that doesn't hold water, either. WHen you cast your darkness spell at the coin of Light, the areas overlap as the spell manifests, and negate one another. mechanically, that's no different then bringing the darkness spell into the radius of the Light spell...they work exactly the same way.
I think I explained what I meant here poorly, but I also don't think it's all that important to my interpretation, so I'll drop that part of my argument for now.
The description of the Darkness spell says:
Magical light sources only increase the light level in an area if they are of a higher spell level than darkness.
So in this situation, the Darkness spell wins in the overlap area, and the Light spell is suppressed in the same area. EDIT: This also implies that there are magical light sources that can increase the light level in an area of Darkness. If the intent was to remove this sort of complexity entirely, wouldn't that be something to avoid?
Daylight (as I quoted above) also has rules for suppressing effects. The rules in general allow for relatively simple interactions between these spells even without automatically dispelling each other.
I certainly don't want to add unwarranted complexity, but I do want to explain my interpretation as well as I can. Again, I make no claims that my rules knowledge is any better than yours, but I definitely read these rules differently.
Also: I just noticed this, and I'm not sure where to put it in my post, so I'm adding it here. You've been claiming that Darkness and Light will negate each other when brought in contact, but Light is a cantrip/orison while Darkness is a level 2 spell. So under your reading of the rules, wouldn't Darkness negate Light without being negated itself?
I'm not claiming I know what I'm talking about, but that's not how I read that at all.
Not "Darkness dispels", but "Darkness can be used to dispel". By my reading, this means that if Wizard 1 cast Light on a coin, Wizard 2 could cast Darkness specifically to dispel the ongoing light effect (targeting the coin or the effect itself). If Wizard 2 instead cast Darkness on his own coin, then he has chosen to use the spell to create an area of darkness rather than use it to counter or dispel a light spell.
Basically my interpretation is that dispelling a magical effect is an explicit action that the caster takes when casting the appropriate spell (Dispel Magic generally, or Darkness in this example). It is not an ongoing effect after the spell has been cast.
Since Aboleths have been brought up, I want to add a couple questions to the topic.
1) I was about to ask if you had read the D&D Lords of Madness book and what you thought of it, but I had a sudden compulsion to go look at the cover of that book and saw your name written there.... So instead I will ask what your favorite part of that book was.
2) Since my favorite part was by far the Aboleths... are there any plans for significant Aboleth related content in Pathfinder's future? Perhaps Abberations Revisited or an Aboleth AP?
3) What is the coolest thing about Aboleths, in your mind?
Chris Davies 721 wrote:
You mean this one?
F. Wesley Schneider wrote:
If there's no 2 at the end, it's fair game, right?
The answer to this appears to be yes.
Karzoug's stat block specifically calls out that, being immortal and older than venerable, he gets the mental stat boosts without the physical penalties.
Ever seen a police dog in action (our modern equivalent of combat trained)? Yeah, those things can flank. In combat tactics are not the same as out of combat strategies. Flanking and defending oneself by avoiding enemy attacks aren't done out of intelligence. Flanking is basic combat instinct for any pack animal, and staying out of the way is just basic survival instinct. Int only goes so far in an actual combat. You have to trust your observations and your gut. There's a reason animals generally have decent Wisdom. True melee combat is fast and brutal, with little to no time for most people to really think. Reflexes are instinctive. It's why you train how you fight. Your body does what it knows in a fight, and that is not always quite what you think you're telling it to. You don't need a high Int to understand having someone on both sides of the enemy is good.
This is actually a fair point. Just as you can't command a wolf not to trip or a python not to constrict, perhaps without a specific command, a wolf (or other pack animal) would instinctively flank. And having seen pack hunters take down large animals, I think they have a decent understanding of threatened squares.
As a GM, I usually allow players full, PC level control of their animal companions. Does this make them more powerful? Absolutely, but it also makes things simpler for me and the players, and no one has yet complained that those characters are too powerful. Of course, the handle animal rules are interesting, so maybe I'll try using them next time and see how it goes.
I hate to say this but this is a failure of possibly both the DM and this AP as a whole. There is a wealth of information provided for this story in sections of the books that only the DM will see. They never give a good way to give that info to players. For every page of encounter there is two pages explaining why that encounter is there. It is up to a DM to read and know that info and give it to players through notes left by bads, NPCs giving info, or information from research. With out this info players can be left lost for motivation.
The good news is that the end of the 4th adventure provides an opportunity for the GM to tell the players a ton of information that was previously hidden. From that point on, things should get a lot less confusing.
Erik Mona wrote:
At the rate we play, and with Kingmaker and Carrion Crown taking up part of our time, there's plenty of time till we reach that point. So I'll just keep my fingers crossed.
James Jacobs wrote:
My hope = that after Shattered Star's out, at least 5 more dungeons will be on this list! (The 6th, Kaer Maga, i already mentioned.)
The Lady's Light makes my top 5 dungeons on the strength of that trap (you know which one) alone. All the other cool stuff is just bonus.
Erik Mona wrote:
Excellent news! I would love to see sets for Carrion Crown or Curse of the Crimson Throne. I just wish we could know farther in advance what was coming, so I could schedule my next APs better. If I had known the incredible amount of RotRL support material that would come out this year, I wouldn't have started the AP two years ago (luckily real life conspired against/for me and we're just about to start book 4).
I know it's been said that the RotRL Anniversary edition was a one time type of thing, but an update/PF conversion alongside a mini set would be pretty cool for any of the other pre-PF APs.
On a related topic, there was some mention (at GenCon?) of a huge White Dragon mini that got cut from the RotRL set but might someday show up in an encounter pack. Are there actually any solid plans for this, or is it a "someday" thing? I would sure love to have that figure before I make it to that point in the AP.
I also just want to let you know that these AP specific minis (along with the pawns) have finally, after long years, convinced me to start collecting/using minis. I love having such a large portion of the appropriate figures assembled in one easy set. I'm not even sure if I'll be running Shattered Star or not (I want to, but my players get a say too), but I'll be pre-ordering this set the moment it's posted.
PS: Make me an Aboleth mini and I will love you forever.
There is also a bridge in Brooklyn, which I would be happy to sell you for the low low price of $100.
EDIT: I accept paypal!
I am intrigued!
Still, I would love to see what Paizo would do with the subject matter.
For one thing, I would love to see an AP of this sort that started on the surface and delved deeper as it went (yes, like Second Darkness). I'm not a huge fan of dwarves or Drow in general.
Aboleths, Aboleths, and more Aboleths.
Ever since I read Lords of Madness, Aboleths have been my favorite villain race. One of my favorite things about Golarion is that Aboleths play a major role in history.
Combine that with Paizo's fondness for Lovecraft, and my only problem would be deciding if I wanted to play it or GM it.
Of course, any other Abberation race of the general flavor of Lords of Madness would also be pretty great.
Also: more Orv please. Darklands are good times.
EDIT: And while I'm at it I'll add another vote for Osirion. Preferably something involving Spawn of Rovagug and some good old fashioned archaeology.
I would have really loved this a couple years ago when my players were scattered all over the place. Now that I've dragged most of them to Seattle with me, I have a lot less need for a VTT. Still, I remember the challenges of online play well enough to be excited that Paizo is building a solution.
What really catches my attention, though, is the mention of full resolution maps from adventure paths. VTT or not, that is something I've wanted for a long tine. Any chance we'll be able to get these maps outside the VTT for printing purposes? I would happily pay money for high-res maps that I could print out for use with miniatures. Of course, I would pay even more money if I could buy them already printed. ;)
Kyle Olson wrote:
That would be awesome, and save me from having to rewrite it myself. :P
If you need testing on that, I'd love to be involved. I'm an Android developer (on tablets specifically) so I know my way around the sdk tools, and I have access to a variety of tablets I could test it on (my personal device is a Fire). I would even be willing to help with development, if you were comfortable letting someone else work with your code.
I've also been considering writing a character manager for Android. Nothing as fancy as PC-Gen or HeroLab, but something that would store all the information a character sheet would, and let you quickly reference things like spells and feats. I would like to include the ability to export characters for your app to use. Would that just be a matter of outputting the data in the right XML form?
Thanks again for this app; it's by far the best RPG tool I've ever used.
Kyle, this tool is amazing. Next game I GM I'm going to hook up my laptop to the tv behind me and awesomeness will ensue.
Now that I can display the initiative list to the players I do have a request (which may or may not be simple). I love the option to hide monster names, but it would be even cooler to be able to hide them individually. If the players are fighting some ogres that are led by a hideous creature they've never seen before, I'd like to show the names of the ogres, but not the creature. I can do this by altering the creature names myself, but a quick way to hide/reveal monster names would be cool.
I also have another request (which is probably more complicated). When I click "Delay" or "Ready" on a creature in the initiative list, it would be cool if I could click again on them and select "take action" which would automatically place them in the correct initiative location. For a readied action it would place them 1 count before the active creature and revert the active tag to them. For a delayed action it would probably place them one count after the active creature and leave the active tag in place. For added awesome, the tool could pop up a reminder at the end of the round that delayed characters must act or lose their action for that round.
Finally, the initiative window doesn't seem to display creatures with linked initiatives. One of my players has a cohort that I link to his initiative, and we have a hard enough time remembering to take her actions as it is. :P
Thanks again for the best gaming tool I've ever used.
Thanks for the reply Neil, it's nice having an in depth critique. I've got a couple replies to your commentary.
Neil Spicer wrote:
I'm not sure why this matters all that much. The APG created some new combat maneuvers and future rule developments might introduce more. Are you sure you want to eliminate it from doing anything except bull rushes, disarms, trips, and grapples? I'm also uncertain why the strands will stick around on a missed bull rush, disarm, or trip attempt...presumably to keep "attacking"...but they dissipate on a missed grapple check. Why? And, if they do stick around to keep trying trips, disarms, and bull rushes...how long do they last? I can see that a successful grapple can be maintained for 1d4 rounds, so would it be the same? Also, why the variable effect? Any grappled undead will already have a chance to break free of the grapple on each round. Why compound that early ending of the effect by also giving it a random duration? Seems kind of arbitrary.
By "any other combat maneuver," I actually meant any but grapple. The idea was that they would not stick around after a bull rush, disarm, or trip; they would perform the maneuver and then vanish. I guess my phrasing was unclear there. I also should have included maneuvers from the APG, or a provision for further expansions to the ruleset.
I set a maximum duration for the grapple to reduce the power level of the item (clearly it didn't need that reduction) so that it was unlikely to hold a creature for an entire encounter.
Neil Spicer wrote:
At this point, I also notice that you're putting two spaces after each period. You'll want to disabuse yourself of that habit if you're going to write professionally.
Curses! I thought I had taken those out. I've been working on making that change in all my writing since one of the judges pointed it out in December.
Neil Spicer wrote:
Advice: Personally, I think you were pretty close here. You had a Superstar idea, but you couldn't quite express it well enough or keep it focused enough to really win us over. The item was also a little too niche in that it was just going after undead. I would have liked to see it affect all incorporeal creatures. Bottom line: keep practicing. You keep this up and you'll stand a much better chance of reaching the Keep pile.
Thanks! Count on seeing me again next year.
Hey Neil, I was wondering if you could cast your All Seeing Eye on my item. I don't think you've done it already (it was on the first page), but if you did and I missed it, just point me back there.
Aura faint necromancy; CL 5th
Slot --; Price 500 gp; Weight --
This tiny glass vial contains a number of wispy, glowing threads. When the vial is opened or broken (as by being thrown at a hard surface), the strands emerge and elongate, moving rapidly to the nearest undead creature. The strands make a bull rush, disarm, trip, or grapple attempt (chosen by the user) against the undead creature using a CMB of +8. If the strands successfully grapple their target, they will attempt to maintain the grapple for 1d4 rounds before dissolving. Any other combat maneuver, or a failed grapple check, causes the strands to dissolve immediately. The strands are usable against incorporeal undead and do not provoke attacks of opportunity.
Requirements Craft Wondrous Item, halt undead; Cost 250 gp
There are a few obvious issues, like not specifying a range or dealing with concealment. It's also underpowered (CMB should probably be higher).
James Jacobs wrote:
So! If you want sample stats, would you prefer us to stat up the iconics (warts and sub-optimal choices and all) or would you prefer us to just provide sample "good builds" for all the classes?
As someone who likes to build characters around a story, rather than optimizing for a specific purpose (not that the two are always mutually exclusive) I would love to see the iconics statted up as the developers envision them. That said, I wouldn't personally get much use out of those stats, they would just be fun to read.
Sample "good builds," on the other hand, would likely see a fair amount of use when I'm teaching new players or trying to judge the baseline strength of an average party. It would also probably help quell some of the "Paizo sux at optimizing" that I so dislike reading.
So if I had to choose only one, I would request the faceless sample builds. But in a perfect world I would get both.
moon glum wrote:
Or just "Before you put out your light," which preserves the structure and allows for things like lamps and torches.
This is my favorite proposal of this round. I like almost everything about it (and the things I don't like are minor nitpicks that have been pretty well covered).
The first thing that I really like is the image of a remote village lit up like the sun. I can imagine players reaching the valley at dusk and seeing this little town shining out at them. That to me is a very striking visual. It also gets players curious about the town right from the beginning.
The second thing I like is the Other Manor. There are a lot of really cool environmental obstacles going on there, and as a GM I would have a lot more fun with that than I would with a more straightforward "kill the monsters" encounter.
I think I'll probably be voting for this one. Good luck.
I'm a big fan of Steampunk, as well as a big fan of Horrors From Beyond the Stars. So when I see "gears" and "madness" in the same title, my expectations go pretty high. Perhaps too high, because in this case I came away kind of disappointed. I don't really feel like this proposal delivers on either the gears or the madness. But maybe that's just my expectations tainting my opinion, so I'll do a little more analysis.
Setting aside my own ideas of what the title should mean, I find this adventure does have a lot of things going for it. I really like the sandbox structure (though I'm not a fan of the fair style setting). I like the various groups of creatures the players can deal with. The Watchweirds are cool and creative (and it seems they become 3 dimensional in order to fight). I think an encounter with Watchweirds would go well in The Hall of Captured Light.
You've got some fairly significant problems with canon going on by setting this near Korvosa, but there's nothing significant that requires it to stay there. Some quick backstory changes would solve a lot of issues.
My favorite part of this whole thing is Part 3: Eyes in Darkness. An observatory/planetarium full of otherworldly haunts? Yes, please! I think this section could be expanded into an adventure all by itself.
While I do like this proposal (and I'm a big fan of your work in general), I don't think I'll be able to vote for it. Good luck, and I look forward to seeing you published.
In my Rise of the Runelords game, the half-orc paladin of Sarenrae has developed an interest in Rynshinn Povalli. The Sandpoint article in Burnt Offerings states that "the lonely woman has politely eschewed all
Is there more explanation behind this, or is it meant to be filled in by the GM? How would she be likely to respond to a heroic (and charismatic) half-orc asking her to dinner.
I would also vote for A, with one change. Rather than lasting 24 hours, I would rule that the slots vanish when the Wizard's spell slots would normally replenish (after a rest).
EDIT: Just reread the spell and realized the 24 hours is specified in the description. Therefore my vote is for A, unchanged.
A sorceror with the Arboreal bloodline can't photosynthesize, so you don't get to have tusks.
I know this is totally irrelevant to the discussion, but the Verdant bloodline (I don't think there's actually one called Arboreal) does grant photosynthesis at 3rd level.
I'm assuming it's a copy/paste error that the crossbow rapid reload feat text was pasted into the PDF and not changed to talk about guns?
The feat has been updated to refer to both. This is not a gun only version of the feat, it's a new version to replace the old one now that firearms are in the game.
*We don't have the costs/rules for the advanced weapons just yet. So not sure how to modify this part.
Revolver, rifle, and shotgun are listed as advanced weapons in the PDF.
Other than that, I like your post.
Dark Sasha wrote:
Although I can't decide what the bright orange spot under the number 5 is yet. Perhaps that is in a later encounter you have not detailed for this submission?
According to the key on the map, that's a fire pit.
Dumb Paladin wrote:
There's no reason Ryan can't defend his point of view just like any other commenter. The back and forth helps voters get a clearer idea of what is being said, so they can more easily decide if they agree or not.
His most recent post was actually pretty generic to the entries this round (as well as being quite interesting to me as a GM); it just happened to fit best into this thread.
Ask A RPGSupersuccubus wrote:
There is, of course, a demon-lord known as 'Kostchthckie, The Deathless Frost' with strong ties to Irrisen.
Having not heard of this "Kotchthckie" before, I Googled him to see if he was a real part of Pathfinder/D&D mythology. I discovered that not only is he a real demon-lord, but his name was directly inspired by a villain of Russian folklore named...Koschei the Deathless. I'm impressed by Sean's integration/interpretation of a rather cool sounding mythical archetype.
moon glum wrote:
And "Pentagon" is English for a polygon with 5 sides. The name still carries too much mental baggage. No one (as far as I can see) is saying the word is used incorrectly, just that it makes people think of a specific real world thing.
Still, it's easy to see why Sean chose the word for his title, and it's an easy fix.
Mark Moreland wrote:
I just liked it that much.
Actually, it's probably good I messed that up, as I keep wavering back and forth on my last vote.
Tarvin was among my favorite villains of the last round, so you get major points for using him. The foundry setting is inspired (Gunworks would be amazing too). The idea of a chase is excellent, as this is a villain who prefers to run away and let the environment deal with his enemies. These ideas lay a foundation on which you could build the most amazing encounter ever (not "one of the most amazing," THE MOST AMAZING).
Unfortunately, you faltered a bit in the implementation. Your first misstep (in my opinion) was how the PCs encounter Tarvin. Why is he out in the street sabotaging a cart with a hammer? A villain like this should be much more subtle than that. He's got a good thing going with churning out bad parts, he doesn't need to go whacking stuff with a stick to make it fall over. Let the PCs uncover a conspiracy of sabotage that eventually leads them to the foundry. Give them some time to make those knowledge checks. Let them sneak in if they want to, then hit them with so many traps everyone within 5 blocks hears them scream.
The second misstep (which has been pointed out already) was separating the chase from the foundry. The chase as it is feels somewhat contrived (he has a special escape route from the area of the street where he knocks wheels off carts?) and lacks real punch. The encounter in the foundry is much better, and I love the use of traps and molten metal to make the environment alive and threatening. If you were to combine these two elements into a single encounter, it would be fantastic. I'm picturing PCs dodging swinging chains and flying sparks, sliding down ladders, trying not to fall in molten metal, avoiding traps, and fighting forgeworkers, all leading to a final confrontation with the villain and his mighty fire elemental.
Your encounter as written is good. It's plenty good enough to guarantee a vote from me. But it's the idea of what it COULD be that really has my brain running in circles. If the next round included a proposal that ended with a climactic chase through an active foundry, it would be an almost automatic vote. I'm pretty sure I'm going to write up my own version of this encounter, and I'm already trying to find a way to work it into my Rise of the Runelords game (yeah, I have no good ideas there).
Overall, very solid work. Good job and good luck.
Sean, you've done it again. You've taken an entry from the previous round that I didn't get very excited about and made it awesome. My main complaint with Hoarfrost was that his motivations and plot hooks just didn't speak to me. Making him a minion automatically infuses him with all the awesome story elements of the greater villain, which I think made this an excellent interpretation. It does feel a bit like cheating, but I doubt that's going to cost you my vote.
Your writing style is evocative and compelling, and I really like this Koschei character (in a "lets go kill that guy" kind of way).
Good work and good luck.
This is the second villain I've read (I was really excited to see what you had for us), and I'm impressed. I wasn't a fan of the Dreamer as a player archetype, but as a villain I think it works really well.
I liked her backstory and motivation, and I would have a lot of fun playing her as a GM.
I think you've done a solid job with this villain, and I'm pretty sure you'll have one of my votes. Good work and good luck.
I'll close on a thought on the ability to see backwards in time, though. There are far more options to break a game than this: divination spells. From that, adding a simple restriction could stem most of the qualms about this power - though of course would make the class even less exciting...
This is a good point. As a GM, I would much rather have my players ask "what happened here an hour ago" than "what's going to happen here in an hour." If recent events at a location matter, I likely already know what they were. If they don't matter, then it's easy to make up something inane. If it were more than an hour, or if they could target a specific time rather than working backwards, then this would be dangerous and a GM nightmare. As it is, it's a useful tool that's relatively easy to adjudicate.