Thanks for the quick answer James! I agree that the Ioun Stones should probably make the shards safe for all ... but you haven't meet my PCs. I'm sure they will try to get those Stones out...
Shame the horse can't get cursed, I would love to see a horse affected by the Shard of Greed ... but perhaps not the Shard of Lust. Yikes!
I am curious about what will constitute "carrying" a shard since they have those nasty curses and I'm sure my PCs will do everything they can to "carry" them, but yet at the same time not be affected by the curse (well, without an Ioun Stone). Normally I would just common sense, but with artifacts this powerful it's unknown how these might work exactly in strange situations ... such as the following:
If they carry a shard inside a bag of holding can they still "use" the shard? (and then get the curse as well). Is carrying it inside a multi-dimensional space count as "carrying" it?
What happens if they put the shard inside a saddlebag? I'm sure my PCs will try to store the shard inside a saddlebag and then pull it out when needed, but how would this work? Would the horse get the curse? That could get interesting! :)
What do you guys think as I'm sure this will come up throughout the course of the campaign...
Mathwei ap Niall wrote:
Wow, that is an excellent idea! And it's great that they have those new rules in the game now for how to handle missing limbs ... always need to try out new rules! :)
The only thing that I can think that might drive more fear into a PC than seeing them lose a limb is when I say the words coup de grâce.
That is really great! Personally after that Rogue rolled that 20 ... I would have him encountered some sharks! :)
Before I run this myself I'm having a bit of a "talk" with my players to explain to them that this is not your "normal" adventure where everything the PCs see they can encounter/beat. This ins't a world designed just for them and that if they see a rugged, war-battled pirate crew and they decide to challenge them at 1st level ... expect to die.
I have a feeling that we are going to be reading a lot of similar stories in the next few months where the PCs decide to challenge the crew and end up in Davy Jones' Locker. It's pretty rare to see an adventure like this where the PCs are truly at the mercy of the NPCs and can be killed at will. It's going to be interesting to see how many PC deaths occur over the next few months.
We are a little new to using a Magus in the party and we need some clarification on how/if Spell Combat and Spellstrike can be used at the same time. Here is the example that came up last night:
1) My level 5 Magus first uses his Arcane Pool ability as a swift action to make his +1 Scimitar into a +1 Keen Flaming Scimitar (I believe this is correct).
2) Next, my Magus is going to use Spell Combat to attack with a spell and his Scimitar this round.
3) For the spell attack he chooses Shocking Grasp and then uses his Scimitar to deliver the spell as a free melee touch attack via Spellstrike ability. If he hits he does both the 4d6 damage of the Shocking Grasp and then the additional +1 Keen Flaming Scimitar damage.
4) For the weapon attack he just uses his +1 Keen Flaming Scimitar as usual to attack the creature.
Is this correct? This sounds a bit too insanely powerful that you can use BOTH Spellstrike and Spell Combat at the same time.
As a bonus question how this works:
5) If you miss your Spellstrike attack (#3 above) and then hit with your weapon attack (#4 above) does the Shocking Grasp go off now with your second attack?
Of course it should be mentioned that players shouldn't be reading this thread as it will contain spoilers.
First I have to say that I LOVE the new interactive map tags as it has saved me hours of removing all the little things you don't want your PCs to see on the map.
Which leads me to my question about the Wormwood Mutiny Interactive Map. On the 2nd page when you turn Map Tags Off shouldn't it also hide the "Lake of Hooks" as well? Normally I wouldn't mind, but trying to remove the various Lakes from the map is going to be very tricky in Photoshop.
Not sure if it's too late for Paizo to make an adjustment on the map and republish it as they do from time to time, but it would awesome if something could be done about this...
I have reread these rules a million times and I still can't quite understand how the rules work with Magic Item Creation and accelerating to 4 hours of work per 1,000 gp in the item's base price. Here is my example:
I want to create Belt of Incredible Dexterity +2 which has a base price of 4000gp, so that would take 4 days (32 hours) to create (1000gp per day). Now lets say that I can easily make the DC of 13 to make this item, and even with the acceleration rules I can still easily make the DC of 18 if I take 10 on my roll (which is allowed in my group).
So my question is as follows ... how long does it take to make this Belt? Does it take 2 days if I use the accelerated rules (he basically works 8 hours per day and get 16 hours of work done per day) or does it still take 4 days even using the accelerated rules (i.e. he can't work more than 8 hours per day, even using the accelerated rules) but he only needs to work 4 hours during those 4 days?
Overall these timing rules seem to be a bit confusing (and I don't even want to get into the rules where you don't have a full day to get your work done and you only get credit for half of the work?)
Need to get a handle on this as there is a lot of magic items that we need to make and we need to know exactly how long it's going to take to make these items as we don't have a ton of time. Any help into this rule would be helpful, thanks.
This is all great, but I see a new interesting rules question within this thread.
According to the incorporeal rules "It has no Strength score, so its Dexterity modifier applies to its melee attacks, ranged attacks, and CMB." So if an incorporeal wizard uses Hand of the Apprentice to attack the PCs it would use it's DEX modifier instead of it's STR modifier when rolling for damage? It does matter in this case as it's STR is "-" but it's DEX is 14.
And just for fun I'll add in one more question! I was reading on some of the boards about Hand of the Apprentice and some people were saying that when using this ability the weapon being used only has a crit range of 20/x2 because the weapon they are using is a "thrown weapon". And the rules for thrown weapon are as follows:
Thrown Weapons: The wielder applies his Strength modifier to damage dealt by thrown weapons (except for splash weapons). Regardless of the type of weapon, such an attack scores a threat only on a natural roll of 20 and deals double damage on a critical hit.
So what happens if the weapon you are using is a +1 Keen Longsword? Does it still have a crit range of just 20 instead of 19-20? And does it still do the +1 damage?
So in the end an incorporeal wizard using Hand of the Apprentice on a +1 Keen Longsword would use it's DEX modifier to hit and do damage and only have a crit range of 20? Is that correct?
Ability scores of "-" are supposed to have an ability modifier of "0" should it come into play, as in the case of an undead barbarian Con's modifer to rage rounds.
Do you know where this is listed in the rules? Otherwise I know my players will argue that the modifier should be -5? (I have looked but can't find it anywhere). Thanks.
So I've never quite understood how to treat a monster which has an ability score of "-". Most of the time the ability never comes into play, but I have a case where there is a evil incorporeal wizard who is going to use Hand of the Apprentice on the PCs. According to the rules the damage dealt from the weapon is still determined by using the STR stat, but an incorporeal creature has a STR of "-".
So what do I do? Is the STR modifier at -5? -6? 0? After years of playing Pathfinder I've never had to finally figure out this quark of the rules.
I tried to look at the skills for a hint and it seems that by skills alone the rules treat a "-" the same as a 0 and not -5 or -6. Does anyone know for sure how to treat this? Thanks.
I think I see something missing from the "Grappler (controller)" and "Attacker -- Grapple initiator" charts.
Time for clarification on every DMs favorite spell! So I have a few questions that I can't seem to get straight answers to.
First, I have heard that on the turn a monster first appears that it can only take a standard action and it then it can only take a full round action only after the 2nd round that it appears. Now I can't find this rule anywhere that says what happens either way. So after a Wizard spends a full-round action casting the spell and then the creature appears does it create get a full-round of actions? Or just a standard action?
Second, it clearly states in the spell that "If you can communicate with the creature, you can direct it not to attack, to attack particular enemies, or to perform other actions". Now my players really don't like this rule to say the least and do everything in their power to try to make their creatures do crazy complex stuff. My question is if you summon something like a Riding Dog, which is semi-smart, and then you give it an order to do something, how do you handle determining if the animal understands you? Is it a Handle Animal check using the "push" command? What do people use for this case?
And finally considering that a summoned creature is an animal that PCs seem to have nearly no control over most times, should the PC even be allowed to control the animal once it appears? I would think that it would almost act like an NPC and that the DM should control the creature, especially if they can't communicate with it. How do other DMs handle this?
I just got mine added to My Downloads. Wow, what a huge improvement from past APs! The interactive map! The clearly labeled table of contents! The detailed advancement track! And the module itself is simply gorgeous!
I can't wait to see this thing in print. Bravo Paizo!
Yeah, I was REALLY surprised that all the other criminals had such nice images, but the BBB for the entire adventure had nothing at all. That image on p55 I guess is him, but it's pretty poor quality compared to the other images.
Anything anyone else might have, perhaps even something from a different AP would be appreciated as I love to show my PCs handouts of the monsters as they fight them! :)
I also used similar dreams in my campaign, and I used the fatigued rules, but I didn't have the dreams physically affect them like you are suggesting. I think that might a bit much, especially if you want to repeat them.
Instead I made the dreams a bit more "dreamlike" and way more bloody/horrifying. For example, I had one character walking down the street like it was any other day when suddenly they noticed something was wet on their neck. They looked down and notice there was blood on their neck. And then as they examined their neck they noticed a gash. And then slowly the gash was getting larger and larger. Meanwhile everyone in town is starting to scream and panic, running away from the PC while his head is slowly getting cut right off his head.
In the end his head is completely decapitated, there is blood pouring out of his still-standing body, and people are screaming and crying all around him.
And then he woke up! That one worked quite well. (I have other similar dreams, like Stirges feeding on someone until they exploded in a mess of blood and gore).
Also I told each dream to each person in private and then let them decide what they did or didn't share with the others. That also worked well as they were almost embarrassed by what they saw, and it was interesting to see how they changed their dream in their mind.
Anyhow, just my 2 cents on how to handle this.
So I played this portion with my players last night and I just did it semi straight-up. The Wizard went into the store and after talking to the NPC for awhile and got friendly with the NPC Wizard went through his wares. Eventually he got to the Flesh Golem Manual and he just said that it was for sale at 8,000 gp, but he was "willing to deal" on this particular item (I think I've been watching way too much of Pawn Stars and got totally into haggle mode).
Since the PC had around 10 gp to his name he wasn't really in the market for the Manual, even at a huge discount. So the shop owner put the Manual aside for him at now and told the PC that he would hold it for him for later.
So in the end it should be a nice balance. The PCs knows it's available and that he can probably get it for less than 8k, but yet it's not completely free. Once he starts to get some gold in his pocket we'll see how this plays out.
King of Vrock wrote:
Well a Haunt isn't incorporeal really. In fact, only some DMs say that Holy Water can even damage a Haunt. I just make it do half damage because 2d4 is a ton of damage against most Haunts.
Remember that most Haunts are really just spell effects so there is nothing to really "hit" in most cases. Even if something is attacking you, like a sword or something, it's just a spell effect controlling the sword so attacking the sword won't really do anything (in theory).
Then again, everyone plays/pictures how Haunts work slightly differently so you can do it however you want!
That can actually be easily handled by making Holy Water do damage to Haunts. There is a ton of Holy Water in the treasure drops and they can easily buy more.
Normally I wouldn't allow Holy Water to damage Haunts since they are more like spell effects rather than true "monsters", but in this case you might want to bend the rules.
I would also make it that the Holy Water strikes the Haunt as incorporeal and only does half damage, otherwise Holy Water is way OP.
Alex Draconis wrote:
These are all good ideas. I will probably sell it for 4000gp and have on the first page a note that says something like "Property of Montagnie Crowl of Lepidstadt. Reward if found and returned."
Something as inciting as a "reward if found" note should be more than enough to make my PCs sacrifice 4000gp just to find out what their reward might be.
Also you shouldn't remove the trust system completely as the PCs get a reward at the end of the adventure based upon their trust score, so you need to keep it intact in some form.
So PCs ... stay out! Lots and lots of spoilers here...
So we all know that the Unfurling Scroll they are selling a flesh golem manual which belongs Montagnie Crowl of Lepidstadt whom the PCs will encounter in the next adventure.
The problem I see is that the manual costs 8000 gp new if you use standard pricing, and even if the PCs get the highest trust level possible, the cost will still be 6400 gp, both of which are nearly impossible for a 1st-4th level party to get. That's a massive amount of money for the party to gather together.
So at best they could then sell the manual back for 4000 gp or 6000 gp if they sell it back to Montagnie Crowl of Lepidstadt. So no matter what they do there is no way for the PCs to make any money on the manual, and according to the next adventure there is no real "reward" for getting manual to Montagnie Crowl (other than cash).
So ... why would the PCs get/purchase the manual? Perhaps it costs less than I think it should? Perhaps it's just there for atmosphere? Perhaps the PCs will come back to Ravengro and get it after/during the next adventure? I'm just not quite sure about how to play out this manual during the adventure. It seems like such a waste of such a cool item just sitting there ... out of reach of the PCs...
Sure they can do the entire adventure without learning a thing. But not only will the miss out on the excellent backstory (which I guess they can get from Vesorianna) but the bigger issue is that they will miss out on a ton of XP. The Knowledge XP alone is 3800 XP, which is not a small amount to make up in fighting creatures and the like at this level.
And if the PCs are to get to 4th level by the end of the adventure they're going to need every XP they can get as the entire adventure as by my calculations they can earn 10008 XP total, which is cutting it about as close as you can get to level 4 by the end of the adventure.
But I think through the suggestions above the PCs should be able to both learn the history and earn the necessary XP.
I am having so much fun running the spooky optional events in HoH I wanted to see if we could try to come up with some new ones that other GMs could use when we run out of the 4 listed in the module. My goal is to continue to throw these events to the players and try to ramp them up as they get closer and closer to the ending of the module ... so I'm going to need a lot more!
I love how these effects can really mess with the PCs but without actually doing physical harm to them. Just my players knowing that at any time something horrible and uncontrollable might happen to them and from what I've seen running just two so far as really put them on edge like I have never seen.
I was trying to come up a with a few and I went to one of my favorite video games of all time for inspiration -- Eternal Darkness! For those not familiar with the game you are constantly hit by "insanity effects" throughout the game (the worst one being that at the very end of the game when you try to save your game it instead shows you deleting all your save files!). People still talk about that game being one of the most frightening games of all time as you just never knew when you would be hit with an effect.
Here are few that I could think of that might work well:
I realize that the specific Optional Events in the module are tied directly to Harrowstone so these might need to be slightly adjusted a bit (perhaps the heads of the statues fall off instead of follow the PCs, but that didn't seem quite as scary).
Anyone else have any good ideas?
Jon Kines wrote:
Ah, that might be the best solution of all. The PCs can hire NPCs but be "forced" to help in the research as an "aid another" action to help the NPC in the research. I think that will work perfectly as that way they get the benefit of spending time doing the research (which I want them to do rather than dump all the research onto someone else) and they can get a better roll on the charts. I think that will work out perfectly.
Lots of good ideas here, hopefully when they get to level 2 they start to put some points into other Knowledge skills.
Nobody has History or Local. And one person has diplomacy, so it's not completely hopeless, and they DID use diplomacy to learn more about Harrowstone. But that will only get them so far, they can't get the "hard" stuff with diplomacy.
So it sounds like the best way to handle this is:
For the last option how much do you think the PCs should be charged for research? I know the rules for spellcasting and the like, but I couldn't find the rules for hiring an NPC for skill checks. I'm sure it's somewhere in the rules, I'm just not sure where...
Hum, that is an excellent idea. Although considering how much people from Ravengro hate outsiders I'm not quite sure if that would work. Or even who they could hire and how much that person would cost (haven't done NPC hiring rules in a long time ... probably since 1e!)
I guess they could have Kandra help them out, but I would think she would be busy putting her affairs in order and I don't want the PCs to become too dependent upon her...
So after many false starts we finally got our first session of the Haunting of Harrowstone and it went extremely well.
In the first encounter the Druid used Entangle and stopped the mob cold. They went back to read the will and got all the clues and understood what to do and where to go next. However ... it was only then that the PCs realized that they had no knowledge skills at all.
Other than Knowledge (Nature) not a single PC had any Knowledge skills they could use to research ... which brings me to an interesting dilemma on what to do now. They obviously want to do research on Harrowstone, WW, and the five, but with no skills to do this how should I handle this exactly?
I would guess they could use untrained Knowledge skills, but wouldn't that mean that they couldn't get anything above DC 10? Or should I just let them do research and using untrained rolls be able to get above DC 10?
The good news is that my PCs are really interested in learning more, but they literally don't have the means to do so.
On a side note none of them speak Varisian which is also going to be problematic throughout this adventure. My players build their PCs for hardcore combat ... which might come in handy later but I have a feeling they are going to have rough going for their first few levels...
Any feedback/suggestions would be welcome, thanks!
Brandon Hodge wrote:
Stonesnake, you're going to love Shadows of Gallowspire! The land turning against the adventurers is a very pervasive theme in the finale. =-)
Damn that is awesome. I forgot that you are writing that chapter! Can't wait to see what you come up with.
It's so rare to see weather and outside elements besides creatures fighting against the PC that whenever those elements are added to an adventure it's always so memorable for all involved. I really wished more authors used this type of element in their adventures, anything to force PCs to think outside the box and battle with their environment and not just the creatures in front of them.
Richard Pett does this really well, and I can't wait to see what he comes up with next month, and now I can't wait to read yours!
I've been reading most of these threads about ways to increase the horror factor and the like and one thing that hasn't been mentioned before is the inclusion of something as simple as weather to really bring up the horror factor.
For my adventure I'm going to start off the funeral in the middle of a rainstorm -- yeah it might be clichéd but I find that rain (or any weather which hinders combat and Perception) always ups the fear factor for PCs, no matter the setting. And after the funeral I will probably have the weather get worse and worse until there is a full-on storm by the end of the adventure. (Here are the rules on weather in Pathfinder just as an FYI.)
I'm hoping that the rain will probably not only add to the mood of the adventure but it will help with some of the DM elements and hide things right in front of the PCs, even in the middle of day. So in essence by adding rain it will not only help set the feeling of hopelessness and terror it will make daytime adventuring almost like night adventuring with the restricted visibility.
Of course it will have to be balanced as it can't always rain, but even then I expect the weather to be be overcast and cloudy. Basically the mood will always be one of depressing and confining, almost like the world itself is against them.
I would be curious as to anyone else's ideas on this topic as something as simple as weather can add so much to an overall feel to an adventure.
James Jacobs wrote:
Even knowing this small background on the core philosophy behind this AP and this (and future) adventures is really helpful. You should always release this sort information for all of your AP so that both the DM and the players have a idea of what to expect for each adventure and the future. It's easy to know this information once the entire AP is released and you can see the entire adventure, but at this point with just one adventure out it's hard to know what to expect down the road.
Personally I'm sort of seeing this similar to the Age of Worms AP which had a TON of terror/horror ... and a massive amount of combat! Actually I really hope Carrion Crown is a lot like AoW as that was, by far, the best AP of them all.
Bring on the horror!
This is an excellent episode (as usual). I really like the interviews with the guys from Hero Lab and D20Pro. Our group has been using Hero Lab for over a year now and don't know how to run Pathfinder without it. It's really interesting to hear how they are going to expand and modify it over the next year and the future of the product.
And I've always wanted to try using the D20Pro system. It sounds like they are just about to get the Pathfinder license for D20Pro which would be awesome.
Of course the interview with Monte Cook is as interesting as anyone might expect. That guy is a machine, he seems to be everywhere and doing everything in the world of RPGs. Any interview with Monte is always a gem to hear how his mind works and how they came up with a lot of the mechanics of the 3.0 system.
Great job guys as usual!
Brandon Hodge wrote:
Actually that description you wrote up was quite helpful. I kept thinking of the cold spot as physical spot on floor, sort of like a spot that never changes or moves. But changing it (and all the other haunts) into a free roaming vapor that can move around and change suddenly I can better picture this in my mind and how to handle them.
I will use your rules and see how it plays out with my players. I actually spoke to them ahead of time and explained to them that there will be haunts in this adventure and that they will need to roleplay to figure out how to destroy them and that it won't be just simple dicerolls and that seemed to help quite a bit. Of course once they start taking damage we'll see if they keep their promise of being open minded about them, but as long as I have some rules to use on a consistent basis that will go a long way.
Personally I think they will be awesome and fun to play. But I also know my players and there is one in particular that HATES vague rules. He wants every single thing spelled out, accounted for, with zero room for interpretation. I'm just trying to plan ahead of time for him as if there isn't a roll involved that corresponds to a written rule ... he's going to cause a ton of trouble for me. I'll try to use your suggestions and see how it goes.
Hurry up and publish that article as that will go a long way in helping me say, "see? Here is a published article in KQ on how to handle them. Now stop your b~~$*ing!" :)
And like you said above, we have seemed to come full circle. I really love the idea of Haunts, but the implementation is such a strange combination of hard rules (AC 10 for all Haunts? Really?) and incredible vagueness.
First the AC of 10 for all haunts. AC 10 is way too low, especially for high level haunts. But then when it comes to something like a Cold Spot you're telling me that a spot on the floor has an AC of 10? I can tell already my players are going to be up in arms with this rule.
And then when it comes to destroying them permanently. Should we use Knowledge (Religion), or (Local), or perhaps (Dungeoneering), or perhaps (Arcana), or Spellcraft? I can make a case for anything really ... as will my players I'm sure.
I almost wish they took out the positive energy rule altogether and just used the weakness in determining how to damage the haunt. Otherwise every single haunt becomes the same. Find haunt, cast positive energy, stop the haunt (until the next reset).
I love Paizo and all their products, but these haunt rules appear to be incredibly vague/unbalanced.
Just an FYI I reread the module last night and the tactics of TSM are as follows:
"[TSM] then follows that up with magic missiles (working down from maximized to empowered to normal versions of the spell)--he'll generally split up his magic missiles amount different targets rather than focusing fire on one foe, in a cruel attempt to prolong and distribute the suffering."
So if you play him as written and don't concentrate all four magic missiles on a single target, like everyone is assuming in their examples above, and spread the damage out among the party -- viola! He's instantly more balanced. Problem solved.
Douglas Muir 406 wrote:
Personally I always use Shield on my PCs. A +4 to your AC and it protects 100% from Magic Missile? It's one of the best/classic spells in the game. If you have a party with characters who can cast Shield and don't on a regular basis ... then they should die.
But after reading over the other posts I can see how TSM can destroy certain party balances. I think it really comes down to who is going to be going up against TSM in your game?
Personally I would probably just substitute Maximized Magic Missile with something else. Perhaps Confusion or Crushing Despair ... that is something you can determine pretty easily based upon your PCs play style and makeup.
But it seems that post after post the Maximized Magic Missile is the "killer" spell that everyone is fretting about. So replace that one with something else and keep the rest the same. That way he's still a strong BBB but not too difficult for your PCs.
I agree with psionichamster that in the hands of an intelligent party, especially one which has the ability to cast shield, TSM is not that difficult of an encounter. Challenging yes, but casting shield negates a lot of the TSM's core damage-dealing abilities.
But my 30-years of experience DMing wizard fights usually start off very bad for the PCs, then they usually manage to get a hold on their situation, concentrate on surviving and disrupting the wizard, heal up a bit, wait for the wizard to cast off his high level spells, and then kill him no problem. TSM is a very powerful ghost wizard yes, and with a stupid or very weak party from the prior haunt might turn into a TPK.
Perhaps the PCs might -- heaven forbid! -- flee and try to finish TSM another day and come better prepared to fight a ghost wizard. I know it's such a strange concept, but I've seen this odd, strange, tactic of coming back to a monster better prepared once they see it in action to work more times than I can count (hum, TSM loves to use magic missile. Perhaps some shield spells or a Brooch of Shielding would work well here. Poof! Easy encounter.).
Then again I play with a group that regularly bleeds encounters just to make things more "interesting" and has made character min-maxing to an art form. For my group I would, if anything, make TSM more difficult and probably raise his HP up to their maximum level otherwise I think the fight will be over way too fast.
Personally I wouldn't nerf him as he is the big bad boss. Plus if the PCs already made it this far and killed the four other ghosts they should realize that they are going to have a massive fight on their hands by the time they get to him. If they don't prepare for this and expect to fight for their lives then they should die.
Also if a party manages to get his cursed item this fight goes from extremely difficult to cakewalk in 5 seconds.
If you are really concerned about your PCs getting TPKed by him instead of nerfing him I would try to lead them to finding his cursed spellbook and dealing with him that way instead. And if somebody dies ... somebody dies. That's all part of the game.
I find the Haunts quite interesting and I can't wait to run them, however I have several questions about their mechanics as my players are very much rules-lawyers and will want to know EXACTLY how they work.
1) I understand that with most haunts only positive energy will damage them ... but I'm still a bit unsure on how that works exactly. For example, Cure Light Wounds is only supposed to work on living creatures and haunts aren't living (or even undead) creatures from what I can tell. However in the description of the haunt itself it mentions that cure spells could in theory work. But even if those spells work, since cure spells are touch spells what would you touch exactly to inflict damage on the haunt?
A good example is The Piper of Illmarsh, his haunt seems quite tricky as he first manifest as a floating flute and then also as ghost. Can you attack and damage both of these items at the same time? Which brings me to the next question...
2) When it comes to combat against a haunt how does it work in terms of AC and hitting it? Again my example above, when the floating flute appears I know my players will try to hit that thing with positive energy. But there are no stats for hitting the floating, moving flute itself. How should this be handled?
3) Would a Cure Light Wounds Potion (or similar positive energy potion) damage a haunt?
4) Finally the most confusing aspect of the haunt is the destruction item. Haunts are described as very similar to traps, but the main difference that I know my players are going to fight me on big time is that with a trap the disarm function is largely done in the abstract. You just need to do a successful roll and the trap is disarmed, you don't need to know EXACTLY how to disarm the trap, that is all done within the roll itself.
However with a haunt that is not the case. You need to learn and understand a specific action on how to destroy the haunt, and some of those methods I don't think I would ever figure out on my own they are so complex.
So how is the best way to handle learning how to destroy a haunt. I know my players will want this to come down to a simple roll like disarming a trap (i.e. the old "I might not know what to do but my PCs would know what to do!"). Although learning how the haunt works and then destroying it would be a lot more fun and better storytelling, I still can't understand how a PC would learn this information.
I understand that this is largely up to the GM, but I also know my players and they always HATE run rules are so generic like that. They want/like very specific rules that they can follow and plan for (or better yet, roll for). So any help on this would be greatly appreciated, thanks!
Eric Tillemans wrote:
I am also interested in the ticket if you still have it available...
Actually I have looked throughout the thread and done a full search and I don't see my item reviewed. If you could just post that I would really appreciate it, thanks.
The only way to improve is to learn from your mistakes. I would welcome any and all feedback of my item:
So how does the Cause Fear spell work exactly if multiple versions of the same spell are cast upon a single target? The exact wording of the spell is:
Cause Fear wrote:
The affected creature becomes frightened. If the subject succeeds on a Will save, it is shaken for 1 round. Creatures with 6 or more HD are immune to this effect. Cause fear counters and dispels remove fear.
So let's say that someone uses a wand to cast Cause Fear on a creature and they succeed in making that creature Frightened for 4 rounds. The next round that same PC uses the same wand to cast Cause Fear once again, but this time the spell fails and only makes the creature Shaken for just 1 round. But does Shaken stack with the Frightened make the creature Panicked?
So what happens exactly? Is the creature now Panicked for 4 rounds? Or is the creature Panicked for 1 round and then Frightened for 3 rounds? Or is the creature Frightened for 3 rounds and then Shaken for 1 round? Or is it something else completely?
It seems completely OP that you can use a successful save to make something Panicked. Otherwise you can just spam this spell forever and eventually make anything (under 5 HD or less) Panicked in time. Any help on this would be greatly appreciated, thanks!
James, two simple questions here:
1) Our group is currently trying to use the Demoralize ability and some are insisting that the shaken condition does indeed stack with other shaken conditions. I realize that this was addressed in the 1st and 2nd edition erratas outlining that shaken does not stack with the Demoralize ability.
The issue is that for some reason this is no longer mentioned in the 3rd edition errata, the 3rd or 4th edition rules, or the online PRD which is supposed to have the most up-to-date rules. They are insisting that since it's not mentioned in the more "up-to-date rules" that original errata is no longer correct and that it does stack.
I argue that it is simply an oversight and that the Demoralize should work as written in the 1st and 2nd edition erratas.
2) In the future when something like this occurs and the various editions of errata don't correspond to one another how should we handle this? I would imagine that if something is mentioned in an errata, any errata, even if it's not mentioned in future errata or corrected in future printings of Pathfinder or even the online PRD the rule is still valid and should be used. Is this correct?
Thanks for your feedback! After years of 3.5 we are loving Pathfinder!
Yeah, that ruling from page 8 doesn't really fulfill my question. I know that I CAN make rolls in secret. The question is when a PC tries to use the skill Disable Device, Disguise, or Intimate (when not in combat) who does the roll?
I've seen some people say that the GM does the rolls in secret FOR the player. But nowhere in the rules does it say that the GM will do the rolls in secret. That is what I'm trying to find out.
Who makes those rolls? The PC or the GM in secret?
I am a bit confused about these skills and how they should be handled by the GM in Pathfinder. Nowhere in the rules do I see that these rolls should be made in secret by the GM. Yet at places like http://www.d20pfsrd.com I see that rolls should be made by the GM in secret.
And to make matters worse I believe I remember that these skills are checked in secret in 3.5.
So does anyone know what the "official" word is on how these skill checks should be handled? I can see how all of these should be made in secret. i.e. when using Intimidate it definitely makes more sense that the PC won't know 100% if their roll was successful and if the person is giving them good information or not. However my players will complain that those rolls should not be made in secret if it isn't "in the rules".
Any help either way would be appreciated, thanks!
I agree -- let them win their fights however they want, but play it up by showering them with boos and rotten tomatoes. Ultimately I think they'll just be hurting their wallets, though; potions of gaseous form don't grow on trees!
They will not care. And if their popularity is low they will just make more money betting on themselves from each round.
I am most concerned about the first fight. I really don't want them to summon 1d4+1 10'x10' Apes into the arena round after round, but yet I can't see why they can't. Sure those Apes aren't that hard to kill for the other fighters, but the arena will become mighty crowded with 20-30 of those Apes running around.
But yet the spellcasters should be able to use their spells. And summon monster is a pretty standard core spell. Again, not sure what to do here.
I am about to start the Champion Games with my group next session and they have a few days of game time to prepare for the games. However rather than trying to fight conventionally they are talking about doing rather "questionable" fighting tactics.
For example, they are planning on buying tons of potions of Gaseous Form which they plan to drink and then wait out the other teams until all of their buffs fade before they attack. Or they will all drink their Gaseous Form potions while the Priest casts Invisibility and then starts to spam the arena with Summon Monster spells round after round.
Basically they are trying to figure out ways to win these fights without actually doing much, if any, fighting themselves. I would figure that these sort of tactics would go against the "spirit" of the games, but yet there are no rules preventing this sort of fighting. Plus these guys use these sorts of tactics ALL the time during monster encounters, so it's not as if this was something new for this group.
I am curious to hear from others who ran this adventure how they handled any similar groups.
Off of the top of my head I would say that they can't use summon monster, but nothing in the core rules says that they can't. Same thing with invisibility, but yet my characters live and die by Invisibility, so that would be a huge blow to their "standard" tactics.
Any help on how to handle this would be appreciated, thanks!
I am about to run The Hall of Harsh Reflections and I know my players pretty well and I think that they might not "do" the adventure. Right now they are so geared toward hearing back from Eligos that I have a very strong feeling that they won't do the adventure and try to skip it entirely.
I was thinking about it ... and if they are captured they will simply just break out and leave the place without further exploring it (heck, that is what I would do!). Or if they manage to not get arrested and find the key they will just ignore it and wait to hear back from Eligos.
And even if they do manage to get thrown in jail why should they risk their lives to get to the bottom of their abduction? There really is no reason for them to explore that place once they break out and find all of their stuff.
And if they DON'T get arrested, why should they even bother finding out about the key and doing the adventure? There really isn't any reason for them to do this.
Any ideas on how I should handled these situations would be greatly appreciated (especially the second possibility). Thanks!
I just left the gems as having one ability each: open the door, close the door, and lock the door. Nothing else that requires statistics. Perhaps they can detect as faint Transmutation.
Ah, what I meant was how much are the gems worth? I'm sure my characters will pry those gems out ASAP and will want to sell them. That is what I meant.
And thanks for the other info.