|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
PRD has these words right in the description of the skill
"Note that some lies are so improbable that it is impossible to convince anyone that they are true (subject to GM discretion)."
So making stuff up that is totally crazy will not work. Also remember bluff only allows you to convince the NPC that something is true...it does not allow you to control what the NPC does with the information.
Example, the PC may bluff the guards into believing that he had nothing to do with the murder. So the guard can not detain him, that does not mean that he would not report him being at scene. If his name is in the report I am sure some one else might look into it.
Seems like the players not really engaged in the dungeon. Why are here? Do they have a reason or is it just a string of fights? Given them a purpose...maybe it is a test, maybe they learn to hate the dungeon keeper as he toys with them. My guess is they are bored and hence want to do something else. Give them a reason they accept then they will be more engaged. Also let them do what they want...so you want to tunnel out...well anyone got profession miner or knowledge engineering? What about tools? Never stop them from doing things...but remember everything comes at cost. :)
Nope if they are just hitting someone it would not cause a change in direction. Remember the space you are in is a 5 by 5 foot square so there is room to move. So thematically it can cause them to change direction but they would be able to recover before moving forward into the next 5 by 5 square. You are considered to be dodging, weaving and ducking already in the space you are not a just standing there.
Fewer rests and more enemies per encounter, smarter encounters forcing the use of tactics. The uses per day is the limiting factor magic, if you do not force magic users to wisely chose wisely then they will own the field. But force the magic users to make choices on when to use their spells, if they go all nova and destroy the first 3 encounters then encounter 4 through 10 will get very hard.
Make sure to keep better time so things like Recent Casting Limit/Rest Interruptions rules come into play. Keep them on the run so there is not a chance to rest a full 8 hours if need be.
I personally do not see the issue with disparity as long as you are not 3 encounters and out. It think things like Pathfinder Society suffer from this issue because the limited amount of time and little carry over between sessions.
In my opinion it is a style of play and a philosophy of play. To me old school was harder on the characters, fighting was out right was tough, healing took a long time and was expensive. So you tried not to get in to a fight because it hurt. There was plenty of fighting but there were also plenty of long rests. Think of the Tolkien books vs the movies, in the books they have a adventure or two and then rest for several weeks, in the movie it was pretty much non-stop.
Balance was not something we worried about because running away was definitely something you need to do. Not every thing was balanced, there were encounters you could not win and standing toe to toe in a fight could be disastrous. It is a different style of play, today there is philosophy that you should be able to win every encounter, people expect to win. That was not always the case
There was min/maxing in the old game but was not built into the system like it is now. You either cheated (faked you die roles) or the GM allowed it with some rules (giving you the 18(00) str). Characters were much simpler and you did not need a stat or feat to a defined class to make you character. The class of fighter could be just about anything you that was a melee character, a viking, a pirate, a gladiator or soldier. You used flavor text and imagination not stats, class, archetypes or feats to define who or what you were. Once again I go way back, that started to change drastically around 2nd edition I believe (I never played second).
I know people say E5 is moving towards the old school gaming style, but I do not see it. They simplified the system but the play is still the same, lots of healing and lots of combats I have played a fair amount of E5 and it is a good gmae but it is much more like today's games in my opinion. If you do not want to hit the old AD&D books or the red box but want current game that captures the old school feel with a simplified system I would recommend "Castles and Crusades".
I may sound a little old and crotchety (Get off my lawn you damn kids!!!) but I like all sorts of games, old school, new school(?), rules light, rules heavy...my philosophy is just play and have fun...in the end that is what games are all about
Talib Aguiye Ironsi wrote:
Agreed...as a player of Paladin's I would never cast or willing accept infernal healing. Never....I would never summon anything but lawful good either.
I think you need to extend the number of encounters between 8 hour rests. Sure if you take a single combat situation then magic is crazy powerful. But take the group give them 9 encounters that they have to deal with and I think the martial would come out ahead...slow and steady vs fast and flashy. Spell casters have the hard limit "number of spells a day" and fighter does not.
Extend the the game between rests, allow for more baddies on the map and make the spell casters pick and choose where and when they use their awesome power. While the fighter just keeps hitting things with his stick every round :).
I think that is the key to balance in this game, understand your party and challenge them accordingly.If you make the melee deal out the same damage as a caster then you would have to put a limit on it...maybe like a daily power [that worked so well last time :)]...lets not do that again.
hmmmm I never thought martial damage was under powered,sure spells are flashy but there is a big limitation "number of uses per day". The issue is we live in 3 combat encounter world, 3 encounters and rest. Change that to 9 and suddenly marital damage falls in line, change it to 12 and the poor wizard is watching and conserving his flashy fireball for the right time.
As for bow damage it is already nuts if you do the right feat progression . Leave it as it is. I would say no "two handed" bow damage. Just too much...
Is it intended for monsters to grab -> constrict -> release -> grab -> constrict in one attack sequence?
I think it is legal but the Grab would take a -20...based on my reading of Grab and Grapple roles..
[url=http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/additionalMonsters/universalMonsterRules.html#grab]Grab PRD [/ur] entry.
Grab (Ex) If a creature with this special attack hits with the indicated attack (usually a claw or bite attack), it deals normal damage and attempts to start a grapple as a free action without provoking an attack of opportunity. The creature has the option to conduct the grapple normally, or simply to use the part of its body it used in the grab to hold the opponent. If it chooses to do the latter, it takes a –20 penalty on its CMB check to make and maintain the grapple, but does not gain the grappled condition itself. A successful hold does not deal any extra damage unless the creature also has the constrict special attack. If the creature does not constrict, each successful grapple check.
If you chose to not take the -20 then the grapple is done normally, which is a standard action not a melee action so they would not get the full round of attacks.
This is how I would rule it but I agree it is sort of grey area
Their initiative order is set after the first round of the combat, only the player can change it using delay or ready after that
If you read the initiative entry it states it pretty clear.
At the start of a battle, each combatant makes an initiative check. An initiative check is a Dexterity check. Each character applies his or her Dexterity modifier to the roll, as well as other modifiers from feats, spells, and other effects. Characters act in order, counting down from the highest result to the lowest. In every round that follows, the characters act in the same order (unless a character takes an action that results in his or her initiative changing; see Special Initiative Actions).
So unless you take a special action it does not change; even if their dex changes or they have a special condition
It seems there are two ways to play this....one everyone knows about but believes it is lost or it is legend and not accept in the established circles of knowledge.
If it is a well known item that is lost there might be books written on or accounts of the last time it was used. It would be an accepted part of the worlds knowledge but it would have a widely accepted destruction story. Meaning there is lots to know but the item is accepted as lost. If this were the case then there might be lots of information, maybe not all of it true but it would be available. But as soon is it was determined to not be lost then all hell would break loose as everyone and their brother was vying to retrieve it. Wars would be fought, countries would fall, empires would be wasted in its pursuit and lots of people would die.
If it is not well known then there is nothing for anyone to find out. The established circles of knowledge (magic schools. churches,...) would consider it superstition and old wives tales. There would be only cursory knowledge in the form of myths and tales but nothing concert. Most people in the establishment would laugh it off considering it fiction not fact. The only information I would allow would be form people out side the established circles, the crack pots and crazies that are not accepted in normal circles. (yes wearing tin foil hats!) The knowledge they would have would also include good dose of myth and legend mixed in. Making the characters determine the fact for them self
Remember a knowledge check does not allow them to know things that are not known. It lets them access the realm of known things, if only 10 people in the world no this exists, they keep it as a closely guarded secret and the PC is not part of that group there is no way they know anything about it.
Breath weapons are Supernatural Abilities, so there is no spell casting or components required it and pinned allows "A pinned creature can take verbal and mental actions" so I would say yes. If the Dragon can roar he can breath. Also remember being pinned is not consider "Helpless". So I would allow it
I think this is the ruling that basically states the -4 applies to Rays since they are "as a ranged weapon", page 214 the core book under "Aiming a Spell" or PRD link
Ray: Some effects are rays. You aim a ray as if using a ranged weapon, though typically you make a ranged touch attack rather than a normal ranged attack. As with a ranged weapon, you can fire into the dark or at an invisible creature and hope you hit something. You don't have to see the creature you're trying to hit, as you do with a targeted spell. Intervening creatures and obstacles, however, can block your line of sight or provide cover for the creature at which you're aiming.
The Reach metamagic is a little unclear but I think it would work like a ray and not a spread. Since a Ray works like Range Weapon the -4 applies. I guess no FAQ needed I just needed to read a little more
So here is how I would rule....
Paralysis drops Strength and Dex to 0 (-5) and makes them helpless (as per Paralysis the status). Since they are also Helpless they receive all those penalties also, people get a +4 to melee attacks, they can be sneaked and they can be coup de grace if some one can get to them.
They could continue fly, since it is a spell and requires concentration, but they would still have to make Fly checks. Since the Fly spell still required the Fly Skill, and the Fly Skill uses Dex and has armor check penalties it implies that physical movement is required.
I think that makes sense to me at least :)
This one of my favorites games! The world, the story and the campaign are wonderful, lively and very flexible. I do like the core mechanics, but I find all the character options a little over whelming. Personally I find that taking subsets of characters to form certain genres helps out a lot, but mixing them all up together is cumbersome.
I also love the way Paizo supports the line, all the love, sweat and tears show through in my opinion. They give you options, lots of options the issue is figuring out which ones to use.
I GMed a whole bunch this year so everything I say is from that perspective. It seemed to me that mustering was amazingly quick, tables were seated with in 10 minutes of the starting time even for the specials. I am sure it was chaos out there but from my side it seemed seamless and quick.
All the specials were very well done this year, I particularly liked Siege of the Serpent, well written, great mix of of social and combat encounters and a good story line. My only beef with the scenario was the sheer amount of prep, the number of creatures was a lot for me. Like I said this was my first Gencon special experience. Also the True Dragons of Absalom was a great scenario but we could have used more time. I am thinking that was my fault, I sort of got wrapped up in the awesomeness of Kobolds.
I loved the addition of all the quick games, the 3d Goblin Raid, the quests and even the card game rounded out an amazing Gencon in my opinion. Good Job!
Personally I love the dark and gritty nature of all the classes and content. It is a welcomed departure form the high fantasy magic in most of pathfinder supplements. But I can see it clashing with established classes and magic systems. I am more drawn to flavor of characters then potency, this is in my opinion a welcomed edition.
I particularly like the down sides added, things like Burn for the Kineticist, Taboos for the medium and emotions Spirits for the Spiritualist allow the player to make decisions and not all outcomes are good. Something that in my humble opinion pathfinder needs, force the players to make hard decisions on what and how they use there powers.
I am thinking taking these classes, adding unchained rouge, fighter and gunslinger and starting a 18th century horror campaign. I think it would play out very well :)
If the Cleric wants to threaten then he provides flanking and would take the -20 to his stealth check to remain hidden. Even if the fighter does not pin-point the cleric he knows something is there. The cleric would stay invisible until he attacks. If the cleric decides not to threaten then no -20 but no flanking.
I think this could change round to round, one round threaten take the -20 to hide, the next round he could 5 foot step and not threaten, no -20 to stealth.
I played the game and I like the system, my biggest issue is the company. WOTC/Hasbro are never going to support the game like Paizo supports Pathfinder. Just this week WOTC was discussing their "transmedia" strategy...basically put out a bunch of other products video games, toys and such to drive people to table top game. Sounds like they are really going to milk the name until it is dry.
I always felt that Paizo put a lot more sweat, blood and tears in Pathfinder. But I agree with the amount of character options out there being difficult to get your hands around but the base rules of the game have not changed much.
I was looking for #25: The Bastards of Erebus (Council of Thieves 1 of 6), the PDF is still out there but it seems that there are no more physical copies at Paizo. So I went out to Amazon to see what then had....Holy Cow! It listed starting a $90 going all the way up to $200?
Just wondering if Paizo ever looked at the print on demand. The stuff from RPGNow is good quality. I can settle for the PDF but I would rather buy a physical copy if available. Just a thought
hmmm Martial's do not seem to have an issue. I play at a table with a barbarian with DR well over 10 who rages and dishes out damage much more consistently and then my wizard. Yes I can dish it out to and would do more on a given round but over all I bet his damage output equals or surpasses mine. Plus with the DR he is the tank, the focus. I do not think there is a balance issue, even at high levels. I have played both and never found it an issue.
Min/Max is never a problem in my opinion. With every max there is min. The character that will dominate combat and crush the enemies before them usually has a glaring weakness somewhere. Look for it and use it to make it interesting. If charisma is a dump stat start draining charisma, it Touch AC is the issue a few ghosts should help. There are lots of GM options along with lots of characters options. That is the great thing about having a bad guy in control....they learn the parties weakness and will exploit them! Muh ha ha ha ha
Plus if you have a balanced game; combats, social encounters, puzzles, riddles and hard decisions then then it will not matter. As a GM let the characters shine when the are suppose too, they are heroes after all. Just make sure everyone gets a chance to shine and every one will ave fun.
I would go with Will saves, terrain, high touch AC and mobile creatures. Force them to make will saves, stop creating open encounters, most high touch attack creatures have the same AC so that puts everyone on the same footing and have the creatures get up in his face. Gunslingers tend to have a low will and poor melee attacks. Remember there are more options in combat then hitting things with a stick. I also have the creatures focus shift to the "super star destroyer", if he is far out pacing everyone else then the baddies should shift focus (like the players). You can have them run away and regroup and respond to the gun slinger.
I will say you have to watch out, sometimes optimized characters will shine in combat and that may be OK with the party. Depending on the group. If the rest of the table is still having fun then it might be fine. Remember you can have traps, puzzles and social encounters where that character will basically be standing guard while the others shine. Personally my characters tend to sub optimal and I am ok with the combat monster ripping up everything as long as there are other things to do. :)
I would play up the madness part of it, creepy random nonsensical statements and actions. Pick a few crazy characters from movies and emulate them. Mix it up, randomly change them but never show any emotion towards anything in the world, remain cold and detached....everything is just a object. Also let your physical appearance go, never bath, change clothes or even comb your hair. Since everything is an object there is no one to impress any more.
Personally madness is more fun to RP then a robot :)
Lord Snow wrote:
1. If read the last line of the entry, it is based on Hit Dice.
On a failed save, the opponent is shaken, or panicked if 4 HD or fewer. Frightful presence is a mind-affecting fear effect.
2. This one is a little more vague, since rogue evasion specifically says "damage" but by the wording this is how I would look at it.
Evasion (Ex): At 2nd level and higher, a rogue can avoid even magical and unusual attacks with great agility. If she makes a successful Reflex saving throw against an attack that normally deals half damage on a successful save, she instead takes no damage. Evasion can be used only if the rogue is wearing light armor or no armor. A helpless rogue does not gain the benefit of evasion.
I would say the rogue is still entangled due to the "Icy Prison" spell not having the "normally deals half damage on a successful save" wording required by evasion. If the spell did have that phrase and some other effect I would rule he would avoid the effect and the damage on a save.
Hope this helps :)
I am thinking nope on both cases, based on the "rule as written" premise.
If you roll a die and you want to spend a"re-roll". Then you must re-roll the die.
If you decided to take ten, then no roll has happened thus there is nothing to "re-roll".
This is not a retry chance, it is a "re-roll" of a dice.
This how I would rule it based on "rules as written".
He is a 5 druid. He carries anything and everything he can get his hands on. Battering Rams, collapsible bathtubs, flasks of oil, a barrel of ale and barrel of mead...basically he is a walking merchant caravan. Last mod he loaded up on grain to give to specific monastery since he thought the society was being pretty stinge.
I think the character concept is interesting but wanted to make sure I was not missing something ruleswise. Since the spell really has does not have a size limit and is permanent one wonders why this would not happen everywhere. A druid would make an awesome merchant
pH unbalanced wrote:
Yep he wastes all his second level spells on the first day to shrink them down. I guess it is really a weird use of spell slots but he is always prepared. I told him to switch the "The Exchange" and take profession(merchant) to complete picture. We also joked about reconstituting buffalo a lot....
It was relatively harmless just seemed really strange to me.
So the other day I ran across an interesting (maybe ingenious) use for the Carry Companion spell. Basically a Druid had several buffalo, he loaded them with gear and then cast the spell on them and dropped them in is back pack. Each has strength 27 so it can carry 1000 pounds of stuff. then he would pull buffalo out bring it back get what he needed and then shrink it again.
By the spell description I could not see why this would not be allow. But it seemed a little strange that basically he could carry 4000 pounds of stuff around with no penalty.