Some call me Tim's page

There are two level 10 Rogues in this party.

I have equipped them with Composite str 3 shortbows, +1, shocking, flaming.

According to the book, a 10th level rogue will typically have spent 4,000 gp on magic weapons. So, you're proposing to give gear typically seen on 16th level NPCs to 10th level NPCs. This is definitely gonna make the fight tougher, significantly tougher. So, I wouldn't be surprised to see crazy big damage.

We vote for who can best use an item. Some are obvious, others not so much. This also becomes harder if for example you have two barbarians in the same party. We tried to make sure that no one was getting short changed in the long run.

If an item was awarded out of the party loot, when someone got an item that was better than the one they had, they had to return the item to the party loot, either to give to another player or to be sold for party funds. They didn't get to pocket the money for an item they were given.

This does rely on the players being fairly mature and the GM making sure there is an even distribution of types of magic loot, but that can probably be said of most schemes.

I've seen the dice for first pick. Eventually, this should even out, but try to tell that to the barbarian who just saw his +3 greataxe sold to buy that swishy elf a headband of alluring charisma +3. The party also saw it's total loot decrease by 9000gp, because the the barbarian could have used the axe as is, without having to sell it at half value.

You also have a problem with a large group and people coming and going during the game, those also really complicate matters. You're more likely to have have two people crave, and deserve, a particular item. What if the barbarian isn't around when you find that perfect greataxe. Does that mean he should be denied a useful magic item.

I've tried more complicated methods but no one seems to agree on those either. One thing you could try is to have everyone calculate total wealth occasionally and make sure no one is one or more levels behind. If they are perhaps give them a double share of cash. But even that is problematic because sometime you want to keep obscure but expensive items.

I really wish I could tell you an completely fair method that won't involve a lot of record keeping.

If an adamantine sword doesn't begin with a harness 20, then when it is attacked by a steel sword to sunder and only has a beginning hardness of 10, what is the point of making it out of a stronger metal?

That fact that it ignores hardness when attacking.

I still struggle with creatures like Malfeshne who can greater teleport at-will. It seems the power would naturally allow the creature to teleport and also attack! It seems counter productive for it to teleport into opponents' swinging blades and then just stand there. So, I typically use the standard action in advance of the creature appearing in the first round of initiative, then give it a full round of attacks when it appears. Now, if it leaves on it's turn, maybe that's all it can do? Still, it seems odd. Wouldn't it teleport and also attack? In order to make this make sense---would it then need to teleport away from the creatures such that it wouldn't be mauled by them upon arrival?

It's all part of game balance and turn-based combat. Does it make sense for the 20th-level fighter to attack four times then "just stand there?" No. That is simply an artifact of turn-based combat. Wouldn't it make sense for the 20th-level mage to cast finger of death then teleport away before anyone can counter, sure, but there are limits on what he can do for game balance.

I think you are confusing "at-will" with "as a free action." At-will simply means they can do it every round, not that it doesn't take any effort.

No the whole point with Zerk is that you don't need to take it. as long as you addited you gain the 1d4 str bonus. If you keep taking it every hour you "just" gain a +1 to initiativ

Well that's not the way I read it. I can see what your getting at, the wording could be interpreted that way. However, I'll apply Occam's Cheese Grater to that one. (Occam's Cheese Grater is a little known corollary to Occam's Razor. It states that when there are two possible interpretations to a rule, one that stinks of cheese and one that does not, the correct interpretation is the one that doesn't stink.)

Even if I allowed it. As a GM, I'd certainly force you to roleplay your need to take it as often as you can, after all you are addicted to the stuff.

The same as any other time you multiply. The multipliers add.

"When you are asked to apply more than one multiplier to a roll, the multipliers are not multiplied by one another. Instead, you combine them into a single multiplier, with each extra multiple adding 1 less than its value to the first multiple. For example, if you are asked to apply a ×2 multiplier twice, the result would be ×3, not ×4. (PFRPG 12)"

The write up of Tea Ceremony is frankly underwhelming in trying to answer this.

I'll base everything off of a sentence from the core rulebook: "A bard cannot have more than one bardic performance in effect at one time."

So no, you can't use Bardic Performance in addition to Tea Ceremony. Also, no, to using differing effects on different targets.

As for the last the Bard says "any one of the types of bardic performance that he has mastered, as indicated by his level."

If you aren't high enough level you can't use that bardic performance.

I'd say envision the scene from the side on a normal grid. So, you could glide under someone's reach, since you have full cover when you provoke to move closer. However, when they move out of a square they still provoke normally so, they can't glide down, then move to another opponent because they provoke for leaving the first square unless they 5-foot step.

You're definitely into "ask your DM" territory because all of this is dealing with those little corners of the rules where bad things like to hide.

Personally, I'd say anything made out of "living flames" would give off light, nothing in the rules-as-written specifically address the subject.

Also, I'd think they would tend to damage objects they are in constant contact with. Although I believe this was re-written so they couldn't just go around touching people to set them on fire. The rules seem to support that an extraordinary ability such as burn is something that can be controlled.

I'd probably let this work, until it broke something else.

TwoWolves wrote:

So, being adamantine does nothing for it's hardness?

I beleive Tim is forgetting that Admantine items have a starting Hardness of 20.

I was originally gonna write 20 hardness however, a quick perusal of Table 7-12 show that footnote 4 which states hardness varies by material applies only to armor. Nothing under the adamantine entry states that weapons get increased hardness. A weapon such as a battle axe which still has a wooden handle would still be just as vulnerable to having that part sundered.

Battleaxe is a one-handed hafted weapon. So it has a hardness of 5, and 10 hit points (Table 7-12).

An adamantine weapon has 1/3 more hit points, so hit points increase to 13.

Adding a +1 enhancement bonus adds +2 hardness and 10 hit points, so a +1 adamantine weapon would have hardness 7 and 23 hit points.

I have a Ninja PC in my group that's using poisoned shuriken. After a combat in which she missed with all poisoned shuriken thrown she asked if the shuriken she retrieved (and there were some) still had poison on them? I'm not sure. I did some searching and found lots of rules about applying poison and adjudicating poisons but not much about retrieving poisoned ammo. I guess this question could apply to poisoned arrows and thrown weapons as well?

Just off the top of my head, I'd say it still has the poison on it. Since shuriken is treated as ammo for what happens to them after they're thrown, there is a 50/50 chance it's lost or destroyed anyway.

I read "ambient natural light" to be what would be present without any 'artificial' light sources i.e. torches, sunrods, light spells, etc. So, the normal light level for underground is total darkness.

So, darkness would indeed cancel the light spell and the area would be in total darkness.

But a five foot step between attacks might allow you to set up a flanking position on target 2 (who was adjacant before the step but now you are in better position).

I'd say if both target 1 & 2 were adjacent to each other and both within reach then, yes, you can take a five-foot step during a cleave.

I just question that if only target 1 is within reach when you 'cleave' do you really qualify for the additional attack, it does not seem to meet the requirements in the feat that the foe be "adjacent to the first and also within reach."

Tirq wrote:

Example of not working 2

ss1s
s1ss
sYss
ssss

It should be noted that if you haven't taken a move action so far this turn, you could take a 5-ft step after striking the closer foe and continue the cleave into the further foe, since you can take a 5-ft step at any time including during another action.

I'll be honest, I've never seen anyone allow that. While you can take a 5-foot step during actions, do you really qualify for the extra attack because cleave allows you get the extra attack "against a foe that is adjacent to the first and also within reach." If the second target is not within reach when you use cleave then you wouldn't gain the benefit of a second attack. Simple solution is to take the five-foot step first.

It's really hard to come up with things that will work in all cases as the spell requires a "reasonable" request.

A lot depends on the exact situation.

I don't think suggesting to an enemy that taking off his armor in the middle of battle is "reasonable," but the same suggestion made to a thug sitting a bar would be. While suggesting an archer use a melee weapon might be reasonable if he was within melee range, I don't think that telling the archer on top of the castle wall to come down and fight is necessarily reasonable.

Lay down your arms and surrender is another situational one. If the enemy easily outclasses you that isn't reasonable. If you're about equal it is questionable, a more reasonable one would be run away and fight another day. If you appear to be more capable then it is reasonable.

In 3.5 there was the example of using the spell to urge a red dragon to stop attacking so the party could jointly loot a treasure as reasonable. It didn't say you could ask the red dragon to just surrender and give you his loot.

Let's assume your rolls are A and B.

max(A,B) is your attack roll.
min(A,B) is your confirmation roll.

Assume 20 is a crit threat and damage is 2 times.

IF max(A,B)=20 AND min(A,B)>=AC THEN DMG*2
ELSE IF max(A,B)>=AC THEN DMG
ELSE DMG=0

Adjust the pseudocode for whatever language you're using.

I used to have a boss like that. We always had to make sure to leave some obvious sloppy mistake in our plans because he felt he had to change something. If he couldn't find an obvious mistake he would change some of the correct stuff just to exert his influence on the project. It was like living in a Dilbert cartoon.

I think we had the same boss.

He asked me to do a design, when I finished it, he looked it over and proceeded to sketch out a different design and said, "Here do it like this."

I asked naively, "What's wrong with my design?"

"Nothing. It just isn't how I would have done it. So redo it like this."

Question: In combat, what is the "cost" paid to use these in terms of free action, surprise round or move actions or standard actions or full round actions?

All of these abilities are standard actions unless otherwise stated. Only spell-like abilities provoke attacks of opportunity.

Examples:

Trample (EX): Used as part of a move or standard action? Seems like a move, but with damage. (it says its like a CMB in the rules-standard?

"As a full-round action, a creature with the trample ability can attempt to overrun any creature that is at least one size category smaller than itself. (Bestiary p. 305)"

Spell Resistance (EX): Free Action or no action?

"A creature can voluntarily lower its spell resistance. Doing so is a standard action that does not provoke an attack of opportunity. Once a creature lowers its resistance, it remains down until the creature’s next turn. At the beginning of the creature’s next turn, the creature’s spell resistance automatically returns unless the creature intentionally keeps it down (also a standard action that does not provoke an attack of opportunity). (PFRPG 565)"

Spell Like Abilities (SP): reactivating (free action); otherwise standard action. What if the creature makes multiple attacks--can it use an SP and make a CMB and swing once (if it has three attacks)?

Most spell-like abilities are standard actions, so no.

See In Darkness (SU): Are all supernatural abilities free actions?

Activating supernatural abilities is normally a standard action. Although the rules don't specifically mention that this is an exception, you should assume its always activated. Since there is no duration the creature could simply have activated this ability as a standard action years ago.

Grab(EX): Seems like adds a free grapple if hits, so could this work 3 times on a full round action if the creature attaks three times?

"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. (Bestiary 301)"

Frightful Presence(EX): says "usually" as part of an attack or charge, so variable whether its a move or standard.

"Activating this ability is a free action that is usually part of an attack or charge. (Bestiary p. 300)"

Flight (EX, SP, or SU): says its free action if it has wings, otherwise an SP or SU... so does the creature expend a standard to activate, or just use as part of a move action? If so, why distinguish it in the first place?

Spell-like ability to fly can be dispelled and won't work in a field of anti-magic. Supernatural flight is safe from being dispelled but still won't work in an anti-magic field. Flight as an extraordinary ability can't be dispelled and works just fine in a field of anti-magic.

Energy Drain(SU): implies that it just "happens" if opponent is hit with an attack or ranged. So, are all SU essentially free actions then?

"This attack saps a living opponent’s vital energy and happens automatically when a melee or ranged attack hits. (Bestiary p. 299)"

As mentioned above, all supernatural, extraordinary, and spell-like abilities are standard actions unless otherwise noted. This is an exception to the rule.

Breath Weapon(SU): The text will say how many times/how often it can be used, but does the breath weapon special attack happen in addition to a full round action or a move-and-standard action?

"Using a breath weapon is a standard action. (Bestiary p. 90)"

Unless otherwise indicated, a creature’s ability scores represent the baseline of its racial modifiers applied to scores of 10 or 11. Creatures with NPC class levels have stats in the standard array (13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8), while creatures with character class levels have the elite array (15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8); in both cases, the creature’s ability score modifiers are listed at the end of its description. (Bestiary p. 6)

Subtracting 10 or 11 was the way it worked in 3.5, although 3.5 also had level adjustments for some creatures used as PCs. (FYI, no level adjustment for barghest).

It sounds like what you're attempting could fall under the rules of a called shot. In some sense I totally agree that you *should* be able to sunder natural weapons, but in another sense it's not just a "weapon" you would end up sundering, but a part of the creature's body itself, thus incapacitating it to a larger degree than you would someone who can pull another weapon and continue fighting. Hence I think it would be better handled as a called shot, but it's not my adventure. ;-)

This reminded me of a game I played in where the DM said, "Fine. You can sunder his paw." The player said, "Great. How many hit points does his paw have?" The DM replied, "The same number as the monster has."

The argument came about from a monster attempting to get out of a collapse I caused using a breath weapon. Since there is no condition and it does not specify that they are suffocating, just that they take non-lethal damage from an undefined source, the DM allowed the monster to attempt to escape via BW. Instead of the regular STR check.

Since the damage doesn't use the same rules as suffocation, I'd assume it's not strictly suffocation.

The rules-as-written here are very vague. There seems to be no explicit restriction on a characters actions. Although it should be obvious that movement and other such actions should be prohibited. Although I would hope that casting teleport is a viable option. This is one of those areas that rule 0 is a must.

I wouldn't rule out that a black dragon trapped under a ton of rubble couldn't eventually use his breath weapon to try to dissolve his way out, but I doubt it would be very effective. It surely ain't gonna be: "I'll huff and I'll puff and free myself in one round." Consider energy attacks do half damage, then apply the hardness of the material and every square has literally a ton of stuff on top of it. This might work if we are talking about a red dragon buried in an avalanche.

This is a GM call, but I don't think the monster being able to simply use a breath weapon in lieu of a STR check is really justified.

"You can attempt to sunder an item held or worn by your opponent as part of an attack action in place of a melee attack. (PFRPG 201)"

Sunder is off the table against natural weapons.

To me the advantage of the Ring is that can switch from a one-handed weapon to a two-handed weapon, not just repeatedly in the same round.

At my table, if you have a Ring of Force Shield, you can activate it at the end of one round, then de-activate it at the beginning of the next round. You just can't re-activate it that round, you have to wait until the following round. So essentially, the Ring in 'on' every other round--50% of the time. I think this fairly well simulates the nature of turning it on and off during combat. Again, your mileage my vary.

Face it, D&D wrks with turns, and like any turn based game, have some "intelligent exploits" tath can be used thanks to his turn based combat.

Yes, but the advantage that Pathfinder has over most turn-based games in an intelligent judge that doesn't have to slavishly follow the rules to absurdity.

As for the killing blow analogy, I'm willing to give that initiative has some advantage, besides such a rule would affect the characters much more than the monsters.

Nicos wrote:

I should, it takes even less time and effort than other free actions.

Agreed. I am not up on the specifics of the Crane Style feat, but in general any butthat who ever held a sword can add a hand to it or take one away from it at will.

I'll agree to that statement, but at the same time that butthat doesn't swing his sword with two-hands for six seconds, let go with one hand then stand there while another person swings his sword for six seconds. Which is essentially how many people view combat in Pathfinder.

The classic example is the Ring of Force Shield. Free Action to de-activate. Take all your actions using two hands. Free Action to activate. Then claim the +2 shield bonus against all attacks that round.

It completely ignores that the combat round that is being simulated is supposed to happen simultaneously.

This where I resort to Rule 0, and impose a limit on free actions. It isn't so much the free action takes too long, but rather allowing it to be used as such doesn't reflect the simultaneous nature of combat. I know combat is an abstraction, but it should be so easily subverted by a meta-gaming trick. YMMV.

Interesting. What does the author mean by "in my turnover?"

It a small pastry usually filled with fruit. :-P

I believe what he is talking about: "I gave the editors this beautiful work of art, representing my heart and soul, sweat and tears, and they ripped it from my bosom, stomped on it, sliced it up, removed any semblance of what I wrote and printed the final copy."

In other words, he wrote it to give a bonus when firing from prone. Logical if you ever fired a gun from a prone position. Somewhere in the editing process they removed the bonus and any reason for taking the feat.

Role playing is completely orthogonal to the concepts of "fluff" and "crunch." Role playing is bringing your character to life. Role playing can be done entirely within the mechanics of a character, and it can be done entirely outside the mechanics. It's usually some combination of the two.

You'll never get people to agree on definitions of 'fluff' and 'crunch' or other terms like 'munchkin' and 'power-gaming.' I'm not even going to tilt at those windmills.

However, I will completely back you up on role-playing is breathing life into a bunch of numbers on a piece of paper. It matters not if you use 'fluff' or 'crunch' to describe the character, it's all about telling a story about the character.

Hello all, I've played 3.5 a good amount and my group is taking the shift to PF to try it out. (Not to mention my first post here... hi all! :D )

I haven't GM'd before, but I figure we all have to start somewhere.

First off, welcome.

I'll put my standard first-timer response here. You have to walk before you can run. If you haven't GMed before I would highly recommend you don't do a custom campaign as your first try. You'll have your hands full running the game, let alone doing all the odds and ends of creating and fleshing out a custom campaign. I'd wait until you are comfortable running pre-made stand-alone adventures. Then try a pre-made campaign. Then get comfortable modifying pre-made adventures. Then you'll be ready to create a custom campaign.

Sorry if this whole post is a bit hard to sift through, I'm not the best at organizing my ideas[.]

This is another good reason to let someone else do the heavy lifting to start out. I wish someone had given me that advice when I started (that and having an such an amazing assortment of Adventure Paths to choose from).

OK, let's assume you ignore my advice. Don't worry most people do.

The rest is actually kind of unimportant from here because mainly I just wanted help on thinking of a good hook on what could be a cause of things to go so terrible suddenly.

Famine, pestilence, death--the usual suspects.

Do you have any idea where you (and the players) want to go from here. Is this going to be a game of political intrigue? Perhaps Nation A really did kill Nation B's heir to the throne. Perhaps, Nation B is merely trying to frame Nation A, to get help from C & D.

Or is this a game of high fantasy. Where a powerful wizard in Nation A has an accident and creates some monstrosity that terrorizes Nation B. Is some ancient artifact uncovered that disturbs the balance of power.

Some extra-planar being thinks it would be fun to start a human war. Perhaps any one of the above events triggers the monster humans to invade from another continent.

You need to define what type of game you and your players want to play. It does no good to craft a great story about political machinations if the players only want to buy a ship and become pirates.

I was thinking of adding it to the following:

** spoiler omitted **

Compare the last one with a normal ghoul, both are nominally CR1, but I'm pretty sure which one will do better in combat. The loss of Con doesn't affect the creature and it gets a whole lot of special abilities at a very low CR. I'd call it at least a CR2 and against low-level opponents could be deadly if the players are unlucky. Use with caution. (It could also be one-shot killed by a lucky first level character.)

The first one on the list will lose quite a few hp, but the ability boosts work well with it special abilities. So, its a little more balanced. CR4 base probably a strong CR5, weak CR6 creature. Against a suitable party, I'd be less worried that a couple of bad rolls would doom the party.

Remember CRs are just guidelines. You should always compare the result of any template with other creatures of that CR. It's easy to apply just the right template and create a monster that is overpowered for the mathematical CR result.

CR adjustments should never be used to min-max monsters, it defeats the whole purpose of estimating what kind of challenge you're throwing at the party.

So, here's a link to the dread ghast template, from the Advanced Bestiary.

Is this OK in PF terms (for monsters)?

To be honest it looks a bit overpowered for only a supposed CR1 boost. +4 Natural armor, Str +4, Dex +4, Int +2, Wis +4, Cha +6 plus a host of special goodies for only giving up your Con score.

I'd still considering using it but I'd figure it was closer to a CR+2 bump. Depends on what you add it to.

I guess is it possible to stun lock?

Yes, provided you have enough Stunning Fists attempts to keep it up and the NPC continues to fail his saving throw.

supposed 2 PCs are stunning.

PC1: stuns

NPC: can't act

PC2: tries stuns again (does the NPC get a 2nd fort save?, would it just extend duration). or can he attempt a stun on his turn against an already stunned opponent?

the stun from PC one wear off, but PC2 stun still up so he can whack whack whack?

Yes, PC2 can attempt to stun an already stunned opponent. The NPC would still get a save, but if successful it would not remove the existing stunned condition. Since the penalties don't stack, a second successful stunning fist will essentially just increase the duration, so the NPC's stunned condition ends just prior to PC2's turn.

Moral of the story. Don't stand between two high-level monks.

I feel like this -2 strength mod effectively neuters my combat options, making me rely on sneak attacks for anything above neglible damage, especially if the -2 penalty impacts the sling staff and crossbow. So short of leveling up my Str, or investing thousands of gold in attribute boosting items, is there a weapon/ feat that could fill this gap? Thanks for any help, sorry if it's a long post, I have a habit of rambling and have been up a few too many hours.

As already pointed out, an 8 Strength is only a -1 modifier.

As a small rogue, your sneak attack will always be the best damage. You need to work on tactics to ensure you can use it often.

Crossbows don't suffer from a Strength penalty.

Now a minor addction is a –2 penalty to Con. So I take the drug - auto fail my save- if I get a "4" on my alchemical bonus i keep failing the saves and just got +4 str -2 con. Why is this great? Well let's say you wanna buy a +2 str belt - now you just buy a +2 con belt and get +4 str for the price of +2...

Other than you only get +4 to STR 25% of the time, it costs 50 gp a hour to keep this up and your stuck with the -2 to Constitution.

To remove the ability damage, your cleric friend would need to cast remove disease prior to lesser restoration ("Each addiction causes a persistent penalty to ability scores, lasting for as long as the character has the disease.") Hey guess what, you're no longer addicted. So, there goes your bonus to Strength.

No, generally one round means from a particular initiative count to the same initiative count in the next round. So, the NPC is stunned until the beginning of the PC's next turn.

"Effects that last a certain number of rounds end just before the same initiative count that they began on. (PFRPG 178)"

I don't think this was ever intended to give a more or less permanent boost with a trick like this.

Here's how I would rule if I was DM. I'd say it is drinks per hour. With the body able to metabolize one drink per hour. So as long as you never drank more than 3 drinks an hour you wouldn't get sickened.

However, I'd say if you drank once an hour every day, I'd start to have you make rolls to avoid possible addiction as noted under the rules for drunkenness. I might just set the DC to number of drinks you had that day. I'd probably allow 2 * Constitution modifier +1 drinks per day without worry.

So, you could do this for three hours a day with a problem. That sounds about right. If you really needed it more than that you run the risk of addiction.

Weapon gets stuck in nearby wall, floor, etc. Require STR check to remove.

Attacker trips. Put into random adjacent square.

So the magic users don't feel left out:

Mage's spell fails, get Magic Whistle instead of Magic Missile.

Mage mixes up spell, instead of Fireball sets fire to his balls.

It fails to confirm.

"To find out if it’s a critical hit, you immediately make an attempt to “confirm” the critical hit—another attack roll with all the same modifiers as the attack roll you just made. (PFRPG 184)"

"A natural 1 (the d20 comes up 1) on an attack roll is always a miss. (PFRPG 178)"

1) Power Attack. This is an all or nothing "bonus" (meaning that later, you must take the bigger -/+) that works on all attacks during the round, including AoO's during the round, correct?

Correct. You can no longer select the penalty like 3.5.

1A) When calculating the damage bonus when using a weapon with two hands, a -1 to attack gives a +3 to damage, correct?

Correct.

1B) When calculating the damage bonus with an off-hand weapon, a -1 to attack gives a +1 to damage, correct?

Correct.

1C) Is this damage multiplied on Crits? (i.e., is this precision based damage?)

Yes, it is multiplied, since it is not expressed as +xdice of damage.

1D) I see that this does not work with touch attacks, what is the reasoning behind this? I like this but want to understand the reasoning.

Does it matter if I touch you hard or touch you gently. Either way I touched you. The extra damage comes from apply extra power not merely making contact.

1E) What feats build off of Power Attack in Pathfinder?

Core--Cleave, Great Cleave, Improved Bull Rush, Greater Bull Rush, Improved Overrun, Greater Overrun, Improved Sunder, Greater Sunder.

2) Bluff - Will Bluff allow you to influence the action (however minor) of the target? Or is this solely for lying (meaning attitude will not change with a Bluff)?

You could cause someone to do something by bluffing. Example, telling a guard someone is being attacked around the corner may get them to stop their rounds to investigate. Changing attitudes is normally handled by Diplomacy. However, if they believe your bluff and they would treat you differently because of that it's possible, but that is really a GM call. An example, might be guard who you bluff into thinking your nobility might be more polite, but that's about it.

I would at least tell them the relative difficulty of the different rolls.

I'm with Tamago on this one. Players don't have a right to know DCs anymore than they have a right to ask the exact AC of a monster, or what are the saving throw modifiers of a particular NPC.

Otherwise it devolves into simply a numbers game, with the players just meta-gaming their way through. The whole point of building the narrative is wasted if you essentially tell the player you either need to roll 15+X or 20+Y.

So, my question is... how would our rogue accomplish this task?

Per the rules-as-written, it's a tough situation. Because you can't ready a coup-de-grace directly as it is a full-round action. Also the victim has to helpless not just grappled.

Here's how it needs to be done per the rules. You can aways rule 0 the situation.

Surprise Round:
Rogue grapples unsuspecting enemy. [standard action]
Other enemies get perception checks to notice rogue. If they succeed the jig is up and combat commences as normal.

First Round
Rogue pins unsuspecting enemy. [standard action]
Hope the others don't hear him.

Second Round
Rogue ties up enemy so they are helpless. [standard action]
Hope the others don't see him.

Third Round
Rogue begins coup de grace action [standard action]
Hope he still isn't seen or heard.

Fourth Round
Rogue readies a standard action to complete a full-round action (coup de grace) [standard action]
Calls out "Don't move or you friend gets it!"

Not exactly the classic knife at the throat scenario, is it.

Gay people range from super nelly to really butch. Our group had some of all. Including a dance major playing a pixie sorcerer with "rainbow lazers."

Forgive me, but all I can think of some lamer saying "That is so gay."

It is, but that is what makes it so wonderful. Sounds like a character (and player) I'd love to game with.

I never did figure out what order to apply multipliers versus resistance. Someone posted an old 3.5 rule of thumb that defenders generally apply in the order most advantageous to them, so in that case it'd be (damage - 10) * 1.5. But I don't know if that has any basis in RAW even for 3.5, much less PF.

The 3.5 FAQ did address this. First make the saving throw for half damage, then apply the resistance by subtracting damage, finally multiply damage for vulnerability.

As a general guideline, whenever the rules don’t stipulate an order of operations for special effects (such as spells or special abilities), you should apply them in the order that’s most beneficial to the creature. In the case of damage, this typically means applying any damage-reducing effects first, before applying any effects that would increase damage. (D&D FAQ v3.5 p. 113)

Anyone ever get themselves in a jam like this before?

Yes. Those are all rookie GM mistakes.

The best method is to be honest with your players and try to address the problems directly. A reboot would probably be best. That might be a tough sell.

However the players aren't gonna like the next option either, which would be to tone down (or eliminate) custom magic items. Limit the amount of wealth for a couple of levels until they approach normalcy. If you can figure out how much extra wealth they got by selling items make them pay back the overage. Don't expect the players to be happy with their newly castrated characters.

It should be obvious to the players that things have gotten out of hand as well. However, it's alway hard to put the genie back in the bottle.

Large parties can generally be handled by increase the number of mooks in a battle and bump the main opponents slightly. You don't want to just pump up the main baddies as it really leads to a precarious balance where a fight can go from tough to TPK is about 6 seconds.

As for min-maxing players there are two schools of thought. Have the min-maxer 'help' the other players to do the same or ask the min-maxers to tone down their characters for the good of the entire table. It is hard to balance fights when you have overpowered characters fighting along side weaker ones.

A little late for you perhaps but for those GMing for the first time, I alway recommend using a pregenerated adventure path, normal character generation, no custom items, and core rules only (as a new GM you will have way too many things to worry about as it is, you don't need all the extra complications). Also at the first sign of imbalance do something about it, out of game if necessary, instead of waiting until the wheels come off.

Most of my experience with PvP was having an evil character embedded in the party (be it by player design or GM i.e. dopplegangered). Those aren't sufficiently different than a regular group with some extra time dedicated to dealing with behind the scenes running of the 'mole.'

I did play one adventure where the GM ran two parties (one good, one evil) who were both after the same McGuffin (one to destroy it, one to use it). It was a lot of extra work for the GM, he ran one party, one week, and the other party the next, that way half of the players weren't just sitting around. We had several sessions like this where we would find that the other (evil) party had beat us to an informant and murdered him so we had to find another way. Then for the final two sessions he had both groups together for the final epic battle for the McGuffin of Power.

It worked well for a short campaign (essentially a really long adventure) but I don't think it would be sustainable for a long campaign as there is always a desire to try to confront the other party as soon as possible. The GM was constantly working to prevent us from directly attacking the other party until the finale.

I've played where there have been co-DM's essentially they ran the opposing monsters and NPC while the GM was just a referee. The problem with such an arrangement was that the co-DM was pretty much a meta-gaming jerk. He got new monsters and new NPCs every session, so it was all about how an NPC could hobble the party before we killed them. Every single NPC and monster was a fanatical lunatic that had no instinct for self-preservation.

Again, tactics will be limited by the group of players you choose to fight against. That's probably better than a single GM opponent, but you would probably better served by having the GM explore new tactic/monster combos to try than just adding a couple of different people to run the same old monsters and NPCs.

That is not just the GM's responsibility. The GM provides a world that has many reasons why different people can want to work together. If the player makes a PC (of any alignment) that doesn't get along with others, that is his fault and his problem.

True enough. Ultimately its up to the player to find his motivation, but the GM will have to make sure there are several adventure hooks, one that might appeal to an Evil character. A GM won't be able to simply say "The Good King asks your party to do X.

Gluttony surely give good advice: "...it isn't my job to rewrite the adventure to appeal to an evil PC." There is however, as with any unexpected player choice, some amount of give and take, you don't want to have to resort to railroading.

No, Evil is the guy that "Doesn't play well with others...unless it benefits him to do so."

I agree with this sentiment. The problem is that it is often hard, especially for a novice GM, to continue to provide realistic reasons that such a selfish character will want to work with the party.

Sure you can get an Evil character to play nice with the party--for a while, then what? Campaign-ending derailment? Player vs. player?

You can't simply pretend that all will be right and ignore the conflict. What happens to this Evil character has to included in the campaign story arc. Either he will eventually betray the party or must find salvation (unless the party just says bugger this and become his evil henchmen).

In past gladiator-based events I've run or been part of we've run a lot of fights like you've suggested: one-on-one, pairs, and even the traditional lions.

We have, just like ancient Rome, flooded the arena for mock sea battles (gotta use those balance, climb, and maybe swim skills). Roman battles inspired us to use chariot races/combat.

Real popular, with us at least, was a Grand Melee. Everyone (about 40 combatants) in a last man standing scenario. Preparation is the key here. Have various builds ready to fight. Have players control the enemy as well to speed things along.

King of the Hill battles were also fun. Team needs to hold platform in center of arena from all comers for a set period of time. Capture the flag can be fun too. Make sure with these types you have interesting terrain, so it just doesn't turn into a slugfest.

Another fun type was pit fights where you hide weapons and shields on the battlefield. You have to fight with what you can find, which could be everything from a small-sized dagger to a large greatclub or simply go bare-knuckles on 'em.

It's really hard to give specific advice since we don't know what the story arc of campaign is supposed to be. If the party is to restore the land of rainbows, puppy dogs, and ponies, he might be in for a rough time.

I'm not sure what is in his backstory to make him join this particular group. Also, he either has to behave himself or risk alienating his 'friends.' Neutral Evil is going to be tough. Lawful Evil can be convinced to do Good in order to preserve the Greater Evil.

In the past when I've dealt with this make sure the player knows that if his character tries to derail the party, it may very well result in his character's death or at the least his salvation (conversion to non-evil).

You have two powerful story elements to drive the story--betrayal and/or salvation. If you use them your story will be stronger for it.

Just make sure his character doesn't become the asshat PC, which everyone knows is off limits because he's a PC and the party just has to live with. Don't let his fun ruin the party's fun.

I would have said they are not alive. My reasoning was that there are three types of creatures that don't breathe, eat, or sleep--constructs, undead, and elementals. The first two are undoubtedly non-living, so why would the last be alive.

However, reading the bestiary text of the elementals reveals:

"Air elementals are fast, flying creatures made of living air."
"Earth elementals are plodding, stubborn creatures made of living stone or earth."
"Fire elementals are quick, cruel creatures of living flame."
"Water elementals are patient, relentless creatures made of living fresh or salt water."

Pretty hard to dispute that.