Actually - I see many DM's running it just like that - You get hit, roll the fort save, then wait the onset time before effect hits.
Problem: With long onset times, the disease is easily treated and removed.
Problem: Making the player roll the fort save then and there tells him that he is hit by a disease and/or something else - leads easily to the metagaming of "needing to be treated".
Non-logical: If it has not "set" yet, how the heck do you know you need to be treated?
Think of it this way. If you get sick of flu (ie, symptoms show up) right now, you did not contract it a few seconds ago - No, you caught it a lot (read, a few days) earlier.
If I were DM'ing and I really, really wanted to get something out of the otherwise useless and easily removed diseases, let the PC's catch them, hold out on the roll until the onset perioud has passed, and then have them roll, and take the damage from it at the same time.
BONUS! If the onset period was 1d3 days, it's likely that the PC has been spreading the disease for a day or two, depending on how fast the symptoms manifested.
(An additional Bonus: I'd make a necromancer antagonist use plague zombi cats, perhaps nerf them a bit to take out the disease explosion, and then have the PC's spread zombie rot around ^.^)
Crafting allows... Double... The wealth? Where the heck is that coming from?
Apart from a small percentage of actual gems and coins, most loot than can be found, at least in adventure paths, seem to be items. Items can be sold for half their value. Crafting can make items for half the value.
I see the benefit of crafting in situations where the party finds, say, +1 long sword.
Example one: The party's fighter specializes in longsword, all is well.
Example two: The party's fighter specializes in whips, and the item is useless for the party.
Without crafting feats, the example two party is worse off than party number one - the other got 1000gp worth equipment that they can use, while the other one, after selling the sword, only gets 500 gp worth of loot they can be used. If one member of the party has picked craft magic arms and armour, I think it's only fair that can turn the 500gp into a whip +1 - in the end, both parties got a +1 weapon, and no wealth was doubled in any manner.
In effect, the benefit of crafting feats are that they effectively allow you to choose what kind of magical loot you find, while keeping it's value the same, as opposed to finding only loot that might not be useful because of party choices.
Ah, my mistake, I was wrong as pointed out by Thrall of Orcus:
Quote:
Target or Targets
Some spells have a target or targets. You cast these spells on creatures or objects, as defined by the spell itself. You must be able to see or touch the target, and you must specifically choose that target. You do not have to select your target until you finish casting the spell.
I had missed that part of the magic section. Reading only the entry of line of effect makes it seem like you wouldn't need a line of sight for the target, but that Target or Targets section makes it quite clear, imo.
A line of effect is a straight, unblocked path that indicates what a spell can affect. A line of effect is canceled by a solid barrier. It's like line of sight for ranged weapons, except that it's not blocked by fog, darkness, and other factors that limit normal sight.
You must have a clear line of effect to any target that you cast a spell on or to any space in which you wish to create an effect. You must have a clear line of effect to the point of origin of any spell you cast.
Emphasis is mine.
Quote:
Range medium (100 ft. + 10 ft./level)
Target or Area: one spellcaster, creature, or object
You can also use a targeted dispel to specifically end one spell affecting the target or one spell affecting an area (such as a wall of fire). You must name the specific spell effect to be targeted in this way. If your caster level check is equal to or higher than the DC of that spell, it ends.
.
I'm a caster, and I just saw another caster cast invisiblity, and I recongized the spell through the check. They may, or may not have moved after casting of the spell, but I can safely presume they did not get outside of dispel magic's range, 100ft+.
Is there anything, by RAW, preventing me from naming "invisibility" and "the caster" as my targets, and then attempting to dispel the invisibility?
By RAW, I do not need a line of sight to my target, only line of effect. Line of effect is not blocked by anything affecting vision, only by solid barriers. If the caster did not get behind an solid object, there should not be, by RAW, anything preventing me from dispelling the invisibility.
In effect: I have chosen my target, which by raw I do not need to see, and I have chosen the target spell by naming it, which I do not need to see either.
At this point, I would simply ignore the undead horse, if the GM thought it would be all right. Go ahead, just ask him next time you play if there's any sort of downtime: "I'll ignore the dead horse. Do I loose my powers?"
Buy a phylactery of faithfulness/ use augury / divination / commune, whatever. If you don't get a "You must kill it!" then just ignore it. If you suddenly loose your powers, then try to kill the horse if possible and then just roll a new character. OR, do as I do with a pesky (albeit NPC) character, and just wait until they are in a bad spot and then get rid of them. No need to start an open intra-party combat if you can finish things before anyone can interrupt you.
And after that, consider leaving the group -if all else fails and it doesn't feel fun anymore- OR roll a g@* d+~ned necromancer (or any other character. Have you considered demoniacs or diabolists?). (remember to channel negative to control undead at the first possible fight, and "accidentally" steal the companion from the ranger. Then ride it off a cliff. //just joking).
Seriously - I like to play my characters as I feel they need to be played, BUT, I also like to have fun, and therefore, I myself wouldn't mind letting it the horse live and let it be, unless the PC for some reason really rubs the fact in your face. PC's, even clerics, are still adventurers, and usually have bigger concerns than the color of their companions shirt or their alignment. It doesn't mean that you need to greet them with smile - go ahead and try to talk some sense into them. Just remember that you all have bigger concerns as well. Also... How often do you really need to count gold for feeding a horse? Or how many times in your games have you ridden a horse to exhaustion..? Just curious.
From an IC point of view - Yes, Pharasma would want you to get rid of the horse. Then again, Pharasma would most likely want you to continue on your epic quest to kill a lot worse evils as well. And you can't do that alone. So you need the group. So ignore the lesser evil for the greater good, for now. Even if she does directly say that followers "view putting the undead to rest as a holy duty.", it's still just an archetype, and not all followers are as fanatical as others.
And lastly, if you seek a "mechanical" or "rules view-point" redemption from what appears to be a s***storm brewing, consider discussing with your DM about the http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/cleric/archetypes/paizo---cler ic-archetypes/separatist archetype and converting to it. Perhaps the undead are not so bad after all..?
Try searching the PFS rule section here in the forums. If I recall, there was an (in)official (or something) post from a designer, that you can start the game with a simple human skeleton, and anything you kill is viable for getting turned into a corpse companion, the DM just needs to check it.
That, or then it was "just bestiary 1".
I'm sorry, I'd like to be more helpful, but I don't have time to search and don't remember for sure.
Two particular situations to which I'd want to find 'official' answers or some sort of consensus.
It has been agreed to elsewhere that Undead Lord is a valid cleric archetype, and that the corpse companion is perfectly legal - you may start play with a vanilla skeleton, and may make a companion out of a corpse you 'acquire' during an adventure - such a companion should be recorded down.
Now. What happens when one of your party falls during a quest, and you want to make a corpse companion out of their lifeless body?
Assuming that they agree, I don't think there will be a problem. What if they disagree, though? For example, they want to get raised after the quest? (My guess is that in that case, you shouldn't do it. But what if they don't have the resources/ we know raise dead is impossible to get - after all, they are now just a corpse - can you then make them into an undead minion?).
What about if you cast create undead on them, returning them back to life in an undead form? Yes, I know, all spells cease funtioning after the module ends, but since a pc casted raise dead is as valid as a npc raise dead, and that doesn't "end" either, should the player be allowed to continue playing the said undead character? (Keep in mind that skeletal champions continue to gain experience and level up, and keep all their class levels with them)
I'd figure that a DM would rule that since "all undead are evil" you'd need to retire - but I'm not sure about that.
What do you think? Also, can one use corpse companion to create a skeletal champion out of a friend? Since these things are intelligent, should the creator, or the original player, play and control that character?
And another session went by. This time, I tried to make things more interesting by starting it all off with a couple of encounters, instead of the usual chat-people-up-and-research.
[spoiler]
Well, We fired up with the characters finishing their researches at the evening, and discussing about what to do next, while a knock was heard from downstairs. Then Kendra's scream. The druid was quick to get up and slice and dice the professor into small bits with his scimitar.
The characters alerted the church, checked out the graveyard, figured out that Professor had risen instead of being dug out, and were ambushed by a few raising skeletons. Somehow, the Ninja Dhampir again took the hits.
Later in the night, they tried the spirit board... With nearly no success whatsoever. The Ninja got possessed by the spirits, but nothing bad happened. Because the spirits really don't know anything useful, and the characters had no idea about how many questions they would, and chose their questions badly, I decided to help them by allowing them a little bit of leeway - the spirit board would answer one question per day, but for each day it remained unused, it would "store" energy for more answers, for a maximum of 3 answers.
The players asked: Who killed Professor Lorrimor? (Spirits did not know).
Who are we talking to? (Since no particular spirit was requested, they talked to a spirit of a villager who's grave they had seen earlier as part of the strange event).
And third, the Dhampir got possessed.
Next morning, town's meeting. The PC's talked themselves into the job, saved all the citizens and managed to prevent the hall from burning, with a few lucky rolls.
And then they rolled a few lucky rolls more, managing to discover everything about Harrowstone's history, and learn about the five prisoners, and discover all the basics about the prisoners, plus Lopper's and Father Charlatan's information. This brought them to just over lvl 2. Luckily, they also learned that the memorial had been smeared with bloody letter, again. Unfortunately, they have missed the second letter, and are a bit lost with it. They decided to visit it each night from here on.
Since the fact that there's no healing available for the dhampir really slows the party down, I decided to allow the alchemist to add "inflict light wounds" into his list of formulae. He didn't pick the infusion discovery, though, so if he wants to get some use out of it, he needs to make potions of inflict... Which will eat some resources.
I'm fairly sure that they'll spend the next day or two researching, before actually heading out.
[/spoilers]
The party sat out with gibs, three of them watching from a nearby barn, and one camping with him as he slept. They basically took him as a prisoner.
Since I didn't know how long they'd camp with him, and I still wanted to incorporate a bit of unnatural every day, I decided to hit them with the imprisonment thingie (locked in a cell). When they changed guards (the ninja came in), the hut slowly transformed into a cell and gibs disappeared. After he "woke up" still staring out of the windown, he called the others inside, questioned Gibs a bit more (he was oblivious), but otherwise took it a bit calmly. They then decided that they would ship Gibs off on the next caravan that passes through, paying for his journey and upkeeping for a month in somewhere else.
I rolled for how often (and when) would the next caravan through the town arrive, and the result was that it would arrive in two or three days (two days, conveniently enough, the townhall meeting is scheluded for tomorrow, as is the next letter. Of course, they don't know this yet).
Other than that, they managed to find the dusty stone and recognized it, but made no move towards it. I don't think they'll be honest about it. They also saw the Flesh Golem Manual, but were acting a bit suspiciously, and didn't yet acquire it.
On other news, the druid player feels a bit left out of the group, ICly, and since she decided that he would be from a small tribe, with negative Cha score, was kinda anti-social person. Also, everybody else in the group sees in darkness/low light, except for him, and since the ratfolk and dhampir characters already know each other from a shared background, she feels even more left out.
We tried to address this problem by reworking the character's background (nomad tribe instead, and he was always the person who wanted to go to the cities to buy necessities and sell furs and leathers), archetype (Mooncaller for getting lowlight vision at next level, and added to Pack Lord for more animal companions. She really enjoys her bear, now that she realized it's full potential (she kept thinking of it as a cub because of it's small size).
I also suggested that she and the Summoner's player should take some time together, perhaps tie their backgrounds a bit together or their characters could get to know each other, in order to tie the group more strongly together as a team. Any other advices? Oh, we also swapped the stats around a bit and got rid of the negative cha mod, just to make her feel like the character was -less- anti-social, and perhaps work up the courage to get up and do stuff with the town's folk.
Mostly, problem is that two of the players (ratfolk and dhampir) are dominating the game quite a bit. They are usually the ones to do things, come up with plans, and handle the talking. How can I encourage the other two get more active as well?
Also, the same two players, more experienced in boardgames, dominate combat as well. I was wondering if I should declare that you can only speak when it's your turn (the free speak action), to give the other two players time to think about what they want to do and make up their own mind about combat, instead of just being pawns for the other two... Or should I just first talk to the dhampir and ratfolk about this problem? What other ways there are to work around it?
A fun combo to try is Knife Master, take Snap shot (During surprise round, take 20 from the initiative roll and attack with a ranged weapon), pick up Surprise Attack (all enemies are always flat-footed during surprise round, even if they have already acted) and take Underhanded (deal max sneak attack dmg during surprise round with a concealed weapon).
Buy a dagger (2 gp) and a spring-loaded wrist-seath (5gp). Throw dagger at anyone, likely to hit because of flat-footedness, and you deal 1d4+8X dmg, where X is 1/2 of your rogue levels.
Voila.
You can also combine this with the Scout archetype (sneak attacks when you charge) to get those sneaks off even after the surprise round. Alternatively, if you use a high point buy or happened to roll high wisdom, pick up "Ki Pool" trick and "Vanishing Trick". And at later levels, combine that Skirmisher's Charge with Charging Hurler to constantly throw sneak daggers ^.^
On a more serious note, though, I personally like Rogue because of the varied flavor, and the Jack-Of-All-Trades mentality. But maybe that's because I like to play well-rounded characters instead of ponies with one or two tricks.
Have you ever played a necromancery-oriented character?
What was that character like?
Did you enjoy it, and did you enjoy the campaing?
Who designed the cleric archetype: undead lord?
If you had to recommend an AP/other ready made campaing for a group and a DM who wants an evil/extremely selfish party conquering the world, what would you recommend?
What's your favorite AP?
Thanks!
I must add that I'm DM'ing Carrion Crown, and play in Serpent's Skull, and I love them both ^.^
Mudra Skeleton: Sometimes known as “whirlwind skeletons,” mudra skeletons are created with four or more arms, each capable of wielding a weapon. A mudra skeleton’s Dexterity increases by +4 (instead of +2), and it gains Multiweapon Fighting and Weapon Finesse as bonus feats.
There's a lot of skeleton templates. Remember that the corpse companion doesn't require onyx, just a ritual, though, so making it bloody is just to save time and get it +2 hp. Also, bleeding skeletons are kinda cool.
Even with mending, it's questionable, and a scimitar weights 4lbs, so you'll need some levels first.
Scimitar at +2, 1d6+2, and a claw at -3, 1d4+2,
versus
Two claws, both at +2, 1d4+2.
Depends on what AC you need to hit, of course, and the improved critical chance of a scimitar might tip the scales. On a four armed skeleton, though, the scimitar is plainly rubbish, since it doesn't benefit from weapon finesse.
Mechanics aside, I'm running Carrion Crown myself as well, and I kinda agree with Kydeem - then again, I'm running an undead lord who worships Zura in Serpent's Skull AP, and face the same kind of difficulties :P I don't want to get rescued, I want to form my own cult in here! ^.^
Then again, being able to study the secrects of your enemies and gather up knowledge from them works for an evil/borderline PC very well. I mean, perhaps, instead of **** SPOILERS **** and *** SPOILERS ***, he just wants the power/secrets/artifacts/macguffins himself?
It can work, and it can be very entertaining indeed, but just remind the other PC's/players to hit you with a bat if you ever start acting like one of the enemies ^.^
What ever you do, you should talk it through with your DM first, just to make sure he's all right with it. I hope you two will enjoy your undead lords as much as I have enjoyed mine ^_^
EDIT: That is, the template is from Classic Horrors Revisited. I heartily recommend buying it!
Corpse companion is kinda like animal companion, just from the Undead Lord archetype.
You might want to check http://paizo.com/forums/dmtz4y4b?How-can-I-avoid-a-lynch-mob though depending on where you're taking the companion, might be spoilerish.
I recommend a high charisma, good bluff, intimidate, diplomacy, perhaps even disguise, leaving the corpse companion into the woods/out of sight and taking it out for dungeon delving (remember, it doesn't need to breath and will lay completely motionless so you should be safe if you ask it to lay in the bottom of a lake/nearby seashore.
Buy a cart, a coffin, and dress in black works as well.
Gentle repose prevents a corpse from decomposing, not sure if it works on undead. (lvl 2 spell, it works on severed bodyparts so...)
Skeletons don't groan and only rattle, take less room and don't smell as badly.
You could also try to convince your gm that purify food and water should purify the less, preventing it from smelling so badly >.> Just be sure to nom a bit every now and then to make it count as "food" <.<
But seriously, a cart and keeping undead after a pile of stuff works most likely best, unless someone inspects it more closely. Then again, you could just walk in and hope they are intimidated enough to "only consider" forming a lynch mob.
A lvl 20 character, by definition, is so powerful that he is almost godlike.
For spell casters, this means that they can literally do miracles.
For players, this means that the fighter, who appears to be still swinging that sharp bit around, doesn't appear any more epic than before.
However, you should consider that you could, most likely, singlehandedly, wipe out a major city without breaking that much sweat. I think that's "epic" and kinda "godlike". Problem is, you don't have any cool visual effects while you do it - no fireballs, no flying, etc.
Also, crafting is really, really slow and sucky overall. Let's take an alchemist, lvl 1. This guy should be really good in what he does, int 18, so +4. 1 rank in craft alchemy, class skill, +4. total +8. I don't think his class ability actually says so, but le't assume that you get to add his level on the craft roll: +1. Masterwork alchemist lab, +2. Total, +11.
Now, if he takes 10, with a craft score total of 21, he could very well craft masterwork stuff, easily.
Instead, we'll decide that he'll craft something easy. Let's say, poison.
Small Centipede. DC 11, cost 90 gp. (1dex dmg per failed save, kinda sucky poison). That means that the craft score to reach is 900. We can craft it faster (+10 to DC) for a total of DC 21, just enough for a take 10. Total? 21*21= 441. It'll take him more than two weeks (or, if he squeezed an additional +1 point from somewhere, just about 2 weeks) to craft a single vial of simple, crappy poison.
On another thought, he could craft 2 vials of alchemist fire in a week. Alchemists fire has a cost of 20gp, so it'll cost him 6,67gp.
This means that there's a "profit" of 13 gp per vial of alchemists fire. (except that NPC's buy stuff at half the price - so he gets 20 gp for selling two vials. Now, he used about 13gp on making them - profit of roughly 7 gp. Kinda funny how he could had just earned that by making a simply "working" for the week, for a result of 10 gp. This is even more true for the poison - 2 weeks, about 20gp worth of salary. OR, 90gp poison, sell back for 45gp, it cost you 30gp, total profit of 15 gp. In TWO weeks. You could have just raided a random dungeon for a day's profit of -insert fat loot here-).
Then again, we usually houserule crafting to take something like one quarter of the required time (and in case of poisons etc, you can make a bigger batch or multiple batches if you have several kits).
The subject is hard to define. While extreme examples of good and evil are usually clear, it becomes more blurry at the lines.
What's more, it's especially hard to define given the nature of the game. Alignment, and thus "good" and "evil" is objective in dnd. Evil is Evil, nevermind who's watching it happen, and it always registers in Detect Evil. However, "evil" and "good" are really not objective observations - definition of evil and good depend on the subjective experience and observations of the situation.
Example: A man steals from a woman.
From the Woman's perspective: The man (and the act) is evil, plain and simple, given how he breaks the law and steals from her.
From the Man's perspective: He (and the act) is good, since he steals to buy food and shelter for orphans.
From a deity's perspective: The act was most likely very neutral. Someone took of other's. The other act, however - donating to orphans - is a good act, an act of altruism - and the man is likely of good alignment. This does not make the act of stealing, good. If the man stole at a knife-point and took sadistic pleasure and joy from seeing the woman being afraid to die and shaking in panic - It would be evil, most likely. As Cranewings said, a lot depends on your emotions, and I agree.
Another example - you kill a dog.
You killed a dog, because it was wounded, and it is your duty to end it's suffering - it couldn't have been helped. Neutral.
You killed a dog -that- was wounded, and took sadistic satisfaction from watching the poor animal squirm in it's death throes. Evil.
You killed a dog to take pity on it. The animal had been wounded, and nothing could have been done to save it's life. You felt remorse and sadness at the passing of this innocent piece of nature, that had done nothing to deserve the fate that it got. Good.
(Please note that we do not actually care nor observe what had happened to the dog - it does not matter wether it was an innocent piece of nature or a rabid beast that broke it's legs while chasing you and three orphans across thorny bushes. Nope, that doesn't have any effect on -your- actions.)
Likewise, you could substitute the dog with a villain, and end with the same conclusion.
Thus, in my opinion, the motivation behind your act defines wether it is good, or evil. In a way, one could say that instead of our actions defining our alignment, our alignment often defines our motivation, and thus our action's shade of colour.
One could also say that causing unnecessary discomfort, pain, or death to others, is evil, while causing only the necessary amount would be neutral, and avoiding even that would be good. Likewise for good acts - doing unnecessary good things is good, doing the necessary amount but no more is neutral, and doing as little as one can is evil.
Thus, your list:
Killing in General
- Depends on -why- and -how you feel- about it.
Killing an innocent being
- See above. Please do note that if a good character goes around killing innocents without providing any motivation for it, or even saying that he feels remorse and really, really bad about it, then he's just a jerk, and evil to boot (He most likely enjoys killing, but does not admit it).
Torture
- This is difficilt. I can't figure out any situation where torture would be good. But if you don't find pleasure in it, it could be neutral - and if you balance it with good intetions (torturing someone to get the password to stop the nuke, and save the world) then the forth-coming good actions will most likely balance it out. (thus, not necessarily forbidden for good characters, but they definately should avoid it).
Selfishness
- If you do something out of selfishness, you are neutral, or evil, depending on wether or not it hurts others, and how much it does hurt them, and do you enjoy it?
Stealing / Looting
- See the example above about stealing.
Poison
- Again, enjoyment and intentions. If you use poison to prolong someones suffering, that's evil. It's no more nor less evil than sticking a sword through gut, unless you plan it to be slow and painful etc.
Dishonesty
- See Selfishness. Not evil in and off itself.
Controlling Someone Else (ie. authority or geas)
- Putting Geas on the evil dude to make sure he does go and save the world? A necessary evil, ie, good or neutral. Forcing others to do your will, and enjoying it? Evil.
Slavery
- I think slavery goes very dark on the gray scale. Basically, you enjoy through the misery of others is evil.
Threats / Intimidation
- My thoughts? Not evil inheritantly, but then again, depends on the -why-.
Worshiping an evil deity
- Now this is interesting. Deities represent concepts and things - portfolio and domains. Do you worship him because as a spy, you'll need his blessings of stealth, guile and trickery (and murder), or because you enjoy the ideal of being able to elevate oneself above other through dark rituals that require human sacrifices?
Undead
- I'll cover undead below
Demons / Devils
- These beings are inheritently evil. Often, their power at corruption is such that even meddling with them can cause one get closer to becoming "evil". One could also argue that by helping them, you willingly bring more evil into the world. There's also the bit that since they are inheritantly evil, nearly all good, and most neutral beings, refuse to work with them - since there are always risks. Thus, the fact that you are willing to work with one, means that you most likely do not care about such things as good or evil - and might even enjoy a little bit of cruelty every now and then. That is: Working with them is not evil per say, unless you specifically agree to a contract or something, in which case you might have given them more than what you thought (even if you think you didn't step on the "evil" side just yet). It's just that you might not realize the consequences.
Summoning / Creating "evil" entities to work for you
- See above.
Undead. My favorite subject.
I haven't so far found out Pathfinder's policy about undead, but there's usually two different views regarding undead.
Fact: Undead and negative energy are closely tied together.
Question: Is negative energy (the animating force) - inheritently evil, or not? Because undead certainly are "mindless". If they are evil, they must get their evil incentives from somewhere, and the force that makes them move is the most likely answer.
Case 1
Assumption: Negative energy is inheritently evil.
Consequence: Undead are inheritently evil.
This is the usual "default" asumption. This means that even the mindless undead are driven to acts of cruelty and slaughter. Uncontrolled zombies and skeletons wander the land in search of victims. Creating something that enjoys destroying life is certainly evil.
However, what if undead aren't evil?
Case 2
Assumption: Negative energy isn't evil
Indirect consequence: Undead aren't necessarily "evil".
This isn't as common, but let's stop for a moment. While we'll ponder that undead might not be totally evil, we can keep in mind that they are abominations to life, and their alignment could still be reflected as Evil, and thus keep the paladins happy if you really want to.
Now, undead are most commonly encountered in crypts. What do they do there? Attack adventurers. Why? Because they are evil? Nope. They could just as well be simply guarding the crypt against intruders. If we believe that undead are not necessarily evil, then most likely effect is that when a necromancer looses control of undead, they don't go on a rampage - nope, they stop in their tracks.
Undead, as unintelligent beings, are no different from golems, are they not? They are just bits and pieces of clay (golems) or bones (skeletons) animated by a force, and follow their creators commands. Technically, in this setting, undead should probably be neutral, as animals are.
There are also other reasons why creating undead could be considered evil. Perhaps it prevents the soul from finding rest? Perhaps the energy needs to come from somewhere, and a kitten dies every time you raise a minion?
In any case, it always depends on the setting. If one wanted, one could create a setting (or run any game) where the intention has no weigh, but the consequences do. Personally, I feel that the motivation has the strongest impact on the evilness or goodness of an act. Slaughtering non-combatant orcs is always evil - if you try to convince yourself that it's a good and necessary thing to do, you're just lying to yourself. A good example of such a system are animals in dnd/PF. True Neutral. Killed an evil warlord? The animal is still neutral. Killed a dozen orphans? Still neutral. No motivation except basic needs.
I'd also like to add that I -do not- consider that ends justify means. I mean, the ends -could balance out- the means used, if you reach said ends.
(One could argue that cats are inheritantly evil, playing with their food and 100% enjoying it!)
I think it party depends on what is being used/done once per day.
For example, demonic obsession (or whatever it is called) requires to be performed daily, and the effects last for a whole day. Depends on the DM of course, but I think a more accurate reading is that "as long as you do this once each day, whatever the time, it's continuous benefit" instead of "if you did this yesterday morning, and plan to do it again this evening, you'll be without the benefits for a whole 12 hours".
Then again, for example, spells work a bit funnily as well...
Example: Endure elements. As far as the character casts it once each day, never mind the actual time, I'd be willing to keep it up 24/7 instead of having "gaps" in the duration
Ah, also - lvl 3. Remember to take the corpse of something relatively powerful you kill (or, alternatively, any coprse can do - Remember, skeletons keep their stats of str and dex with a few modifiers -) and make yourself a corpse companion.
Now, making undead is expensive, especially in the lower levels, and a corpse companion takes full 8 hours. What you want to do, is to make it bloody. And depending on your GM, if the multipliers work as they do
(that is, adding multipliers together instead of multiplying them. You know, how a scythe with a crit x4, when doubled, comes x5 instead of x8), you should be able to stack another template over it.
I recommend making it bloody. Bloody raises it's cha to 14, giving it 2 extra hp. In addition, it is now indestructible unless you face enemies channeling positive energy, holy water, or casting bless.
While flaming is an intresting choice (who could really resist a skeleton that burns eternally, regenerates, explodes on death for 1d6 fire dmg, and then re-assembles itself after an hour?), I'd recommend against it - it burns adjecent people, like your friends. Instead, cold (fluffed as "the death's cold embrace", instead of simply "it's frozen") makes sense and is less powerful (and less annoying. No explosion, no damaging aura effect). Or, if your Gm approves, make it four-armed. Also, always remember to discard any scimitars your skeletons are holding - they are a lot more powerful without them (hit more often, do more damage. Who the hell decided that skeletons should have broken scimitars as default???).
When stacking templates, it's useful to remember that at least the plague and fast variant zombies require a specific spell to be casted on creation. Since no actual rules are given for most templates, talk about it whit your DM - be sure to remind him that the corpse companion is your version of animal companion, but that unlike an animal companion, the only way to upgrade is to add templates, or find something with more racial hit dice. And since most things you find are humanoids with 0 racial hit dice... Besides, 6 hp is not that much.
I worked it out with my DM as the bloody + four-armed (mudra) template requiring the expenditure of a 2nd level spell (inflict moderate wounds), 2 first level spells (inflict light wounds) and a craft: Bones check. If you want a template for a four-armed bloody skeleton (counts as 3 hd, or 4 hd depending on how your gm wants to interpret the multiplier stacking), hit me with a pm ^.^
EDIT: As an after thought, and speaking from experience: NPC's might not take very well a silent fellow who walks around in robes, leaving bloody prints of skeletal feet all over the place, and the additional hands might be hard to hide. But, apart from that, useful fellow.
Undead have to be commanded though, are unintelligent, and generally quite fragile unless you can cough up something good - which means that while they make an excellent addition to the party's guards, they can never truly replace any living partymembers.
Also, while it would seem like a good idea (and it certainly is), I'd avoid sending the poor zombie/skeleton as a forwardscout to traps. It takes away much of challenge, and you'll just gather DM hate for repeatedly using the same solution over and over again.
Instead, if you - know - that there's a trap in there because there are burnmarks on the floor and several burned corpses of different ages... Sure, send the undead in, it's the logical thing to do, and sacrificing one to disarm a simple trap is kinda waste.
I did a quick search, and while it seemed pretty obvious, I just want to make sure: Are half-elves and half-orcs allowed to take feats with "human" or "Elf" or "Orc" as prequisites?
It would seem so, based on http://paizo.com/forums/dmtz4c6j?Half-Elves-and-Archetypes#1
And: http://paizo.com/forums/dmtz20ea?Whats-the-halforcs-subtype#8
But I want to make sure before I make a half-elf, take the Racial Heritage feat and choose Orc, Take Eclectic feat and have 3 favored classes, and then become an arcane archer, and then take the diehard-deathless master line of feats that requires orc as a race.
Or, to simplify: Despite Elven Accuracy ( http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/elven-accuracy-combat ) listing only Elf as prequisite, can Half-Elves also choose it in PFS?
I really, really don't see any problem with Friendly Fire apart from the possibility of griefing others.
Then again, I've played neverwinter nights a lot, on persistent worlds- I'm used to getting critted and loosing 2 levels (on a level range of 1-10). I'm used to getting confused/miscalculating/accidentally killing an ally, and then forking up that 2000gp to raise them (without even owning a single +1 weapon, that's kinda lot). If you're a wizard, you're either supposed to buff your allies with elemental resistance before blasting away, or using spells in such ways as to minimize the damage done to your own party. It takes planning in choosing what to prepare, it takes skill in timing and aiming the said spells, and it takes knowledge of tactics to position yourself/instruct your allies. All more teamwork, and one of the reasons why PF rpg is fun - it challenges you to think creatively and work your way through encounters with what you got.
Instead, I personally find wow style combat boring. Skill? Yeah, you need to know what spells you cast in what order.
A cleric with channel negative energy and without selective channeling (or too low charisma to exclude the whole party)
An alchemist that misses the shot and the bomb scatters to friendlies (or, a friendly is included in the splash from the beginning).
A spellcaster who can't throw that cone/fireball/cloud without hitting a PC or two.
A positive energy channeling character in a party with a dhampir/A PC undead lord with a corpse companion
(Before you go ahead and say that it's completely legal to bust the corpse companion in, I'd want you to consider wether or not it's completely legal to butcher that eidolon/familiar/Animal companion just because your PC is superstitious/hates animals - Now, back on topic):
Obviously, you're not allowed to kill other PCs. I presume that this means you aren't allowed to -deliberately- kill other PCs. Saving your arse by positioning yourself behind the others, leaving a weaker PC in the front and getting killed? I'm fairly sure there's no rule against that (Since it would boil down to intention).
What I'm more interested in, is: Is it completely forbidden to use spells/abilities which would cause harm to a friendly PC? Ie, your wizard won't be able to fire off the fireball because there's not enough room, even if the chance for casualties is small and it could end the fight/Possibly prevent a TPK? Or would you need the players permission to do so? ("Hey, I'll shoot this fireball, you have evasion so you should be all right and make the DC - there's a small chance that if you don't, you're dead. Is that all right with you?")
Or is the no PvP more like a "hardcoded" resolution - Sure, you can shoot the fireball and drop the PC into the negatives, but since you're not allowed to kill him, he won't die?
Also, is the rule against PvP just to prevent open, "till death" conflict, while still allowing something like "Yeah, thanks a lot for leaving me hanging in there. *punches you in the face, 1d3+1 dmg, non-lethal*" style of RP where the goal -isn't- killing the other PC?
In the end I think it all boils down to the most important rule: "Don't be a jerk", but I'd still want to hear your thoughts about this.
(Side note - I'm not saying nor debating that the "no PvP" rule should be lifted, rather, I want to know how much, if at all, it restricts certain AoE-capable classes and RP. For example, a wizard accidentally scorches your animal companion, so you decide to take it out on him by painting the walls red with his familiar.)
One option would be to simply disallow such actions/characters from play, but for example the spellcasters would take quite an unfair penalty if a single character, with bad positioning, negates half of their spells (or rather, prevents them from using their abilities to the fullest).
Heh, nice so far. Don't get tangled into the fluff in the beginning, rather, tell me (and the rest of us) what kind of a character you'd roll ^.^
The problem is, as written, I wouldn't bite at all. I'm not joining a game or group, sight unseen, without more information. What Mark Norfolk posted, definitely goes for me as well.
Put additionally, IMO-- there is no one best character I could make-- it really depends on the game, the group, campaign, play-styles and everything else.
So, let me rephrase the original question:
The group you play with, right now, cancel the next session since most of the people are sick or out of town. DM still wants to throw something together, and asks you to roll up a lvl 1 character. He doesn't know who'll come yet, nor what he'll be throwing at you, and neither do you.
(I specifically wanted to avoid this set up to negate any presumptions you might have about allowed sources and group preferences, etc).
Or, to make it even more simple:
Roll up a lvl 1 character, without knowing what you'll face.
(which I wanted to avoid because it's -too- open in a way, and I wanted to present points you might want to considerate).
Also, it's not a question about wether or not you'd play or not, it's a question of what you'd roll up IF you did play.
The reason behind the topic is that I'm curious about what people would roll up (obviously). Would you go for a solid team player? A flexible survivalist? Would you have a solid build ready, or would you present just a class/race combo?
So you met a guy in a con that happens to live in the same area as you do, and told you that he DM's Pathfinder. You are starved for more games, and manage to convince him that you'd make a good addition to his group (without actually knowing what his group might be like). He agrees, and you exchange numbers.
A few week later, you receive a text, telling you to Roll the best char you can - he wants to test you first. 20 pts point-buy.
Now, you need to roll that character. What would you roll?
You need to keep in mind the following things:
1. You do not know if this is a solo-adventure, or a party.
2. If there is a party (and you don't know if there is), you don't know anything about their composition.
3. You have no knowledge wether this will be a one-shot, or a campaing, or some sort of a melee-tournament (solo or party).
4. You have no idea if he wants the best concept, or the best mechanical build you can do, so you aim for both.
5. You don't know about what books are legal for play. It's safe to assume that anything PFS legal is legal as well, but you don't have to confine yourself to that - At most, if you decide to use a strange or outlandish or lesser-well known entry from some book, you might want to think up a replacement feat/thing in case it gets shot down. (For example, you could make a reincarnated druid and decide to revert to the ordinary druid if it gets shot down). (it's quite safe to assume all monster races are illegal). (You can also use the pfsrd as a reference, so don't limit this to books you actually own)
6. You have no idea of the genre, and as mentioned, of the group's size or composition, so you might want to invest a bit in survivability (both in terms of self-sufficiency and in terms of being able to survive non-combat encounters)
7. You weren't told the level, so assume lvl 1. You don't know if you're ever going to level up, so you should be kinda efficient from lvl 1 forward - on the flip side, there's a chance that you get told to level the char up to X immediatly before the game begins. (in short, you should think a bit forward about the build, but not build the character around "it'll work at lvl 5 and forward").
8. Of course, you know nothing, so you might, or might not want to rely on the DM being nice and ruling things in your favor.
9. And as a final rule, you are free to ignore any rule written above (including this one).
So, go ahead and post what kind of a character you would roll up.
EDIT: Just to clarify, this is completely hypothetical question and I'm not making a char along these guideliness, rather, I want to see what kind of character -you- would roll. In effect: "If you had to roll a character and knew nothing about what you'll be rolling it for, what would you do?" ^_^
There are groups (read: players) who are more competitively oriented. Fudging rolls to avoid TPK's or simple deaths is anathema to them, because for them, fun in the game comes from the tactical challenge, the task of building a solid powergamebuild that can lay waste to the mobs. For them, being able to tag team the BBEG with a combined hold person+full attack sneak flurry thingie in one round is an accomplishment, and fumbling that will save that results in TPK is a bitter-sweet defeat that is appreciated as well. (I know, I like to call them powergamers or rollplayers, but I don't mean to offend anyone with this - I know these people exist, and I play with them frequently). I'd think these people would take fudging the dice as cheating, or at least as bad form.
Some people, on the other hand, are in it more for the drama, story, and character development. Sometimes, a character's death is part of it, some times, it's not and kills the fun. This is often called "playing by the rule of greater drama" - Most of the GM's I know prefer this type. Interesting story and it's development is often more important than wether or not the BBEG had too many hitpoints or not.
All in all, cheating depends on the view about the game. Of course, if you establish the context first, it comes quite a bit clearer.
Energy attacks deal half damage to most objects. Divide the damage by 2 before applying the object's hardness
Which means that it's even worse against objects then it is against ghosts? Against a hardness of let's say 5, yuo'd need to deal 12 points of dmg (halved to 6, then reduced by 5) to deal a total of 1 point?
Magnuskn wrote:
If we go by RAW, the Explosive Bomb discovery can set the incorporeal opponent on fire, but that particular fire won't hurt him, because it isn't magical fire ( just his, uh, incorporeability burning or whatever ) and therefore cannot harm an incorporeal creature.
This is what I'm after. But the fire did originate from a supernatural source (the bomb), so it might be magical? Then again, if we assume that the Alchemist threw a bomb in a bush and it thus caught fire, which begins to spread, I'm fairly sure we can agree that it's no longer magical?
I don't think the fire should burn the incorporeal thing... Any other thoughts?
First off: Nice! I'm playing an undead lord in another PA myself at the moment (Serpent's skull), and I'm also running carrion crown for another party.
Keep it stealthy, let the PC's (and possibly, if it is unavoidable, the NPC's, though this might not work due to the heavy presence of Pharasma) slowly learn more of your secrets. First you command an undead creature... Well, not evil in and of itself. I mean, free meatshield? Who (apart from a paladin) wouldn't approve? Later raising a monster? etc etc.
Also, make yourself invaluable to the party. Apart from the Bard/Gunslinger, I don't see much healing in your group.
I suggest that you (ask your DM if it's OK to) pick up the Variant Channeling: Undeath. You loose nothing, and heal undead +50% with channeling. THEN; remeber the Undeath Subdomain's replacement power: Death's Kiss: A creature is affected by negative and positive like it was an undead creature. RAW I think this doesn't come valid before lvl 4, but I discussed it with my DM and agreed that I could cast inflict and hold the charge, then touch a creature, unleashing both Kiss and the charge at the same time, healing the character (he also went further by allowing channeling to be used like that as well. And he later pointed out that I could have the undeath variant channel to heal even more).
Also, remember to play that one out. As a cleric, you receive your power through your faith. It isn't something you are granted for free, it's something precious. Ask the PCs to partake in a rite to "accept the blessing of -insert deity here-". After a tough fight, instead of asking "how many hp you are missing? Ok, I'll use so-and-so many spells and channels", ask them to gather around, have a short speach about the faith&etc, and then ask them to kneel/pray/whatever you want before healing them. This is also a very IC way of weighing which of them are repulsed by the idea of your god.
In any case, it's worth remembering that your powers aren't free, and since they are often very beneficial for the party, it's good to remind them every now and then that if they want your help, they need to respect the source. They might be suspicious of it when all's well, but trust me, in a dungeon, wounded, and with precious few supplies, anyone is willing to say a few words of prayer to get back on their feet.
Also, you -might- encounter undead, as you have already done. Especially in the later levels, the DM might not appreciate if you turn all undead-encounters trivial in a turn or two with command undead, so... Use it sparingly. Especially when/if you can use it to heal others. This is to say - you save DM's time if you regulate yourself instead of forcing him to buff encounters/counter your abilities just to make the encounters interesting and challenging. Not all might agree, though, and this is just a personal opinion (and sometimes it's better to take it slow instead of going all-out at the first sign of danger.
(Also, as a nice touch, Death's Kiss turns you kinda momentarily undead. I find it fun to kneel next to a char who's bleeding to death, touch him, and then describe how he feels air escape his lungs, heart stopping beating, etc, then wounds closing and dmg healing before he gasps for breath. In general - Even if your alignment is neutral, you are walking the edge, and with that, you should try to enjoy every moment of RP that this can bring to you).
I'd love to hear more of how the AP goes for you, so be sure to keep posting your advance!
Meh. I'm familiar with Tomb of Horrors - Ergo, I would have just thrown rocks and sticks and stones in there to see if the trap would have fired. Seems it reacted to movement, so the suggested dancing lights&Staying still combo would have worked.
Or, Throw a rock - half of the party moves for a round. The rest stays behind a corner, and throw another rock - during reset, the other half moves again. Repeat until the door is open, get inside, and repeat for the other party. Or magehand all lightsources.
I personally would have loved this trap, though getting around it did require some out-of-box thinking. If the party isn't used to such, or this was the DM's first time of experimenting with unusual tactics, it might have been... Well... Not nice.
Then again, I love traps of all kinds, both as a DM and as a player, so I might be biased. One of my favorites was a trap that turned a character into a chicken. Setting it off again would turn you back, but you would loose all your equipment. One of the party walked into it. (We circumvented the penalty by killing the polymorphed character, reverting the transformation, and then raising him back from the dead. Didn't have any way to dispel the effect, and had a reason to believe it would have been permanent).
1. How does alchemist's bombs hit incorporeal creatures?
2. How much dmg does it do? 50%?
3. How about splash effect? 50% with a save for another 50% reduction (aka 25%)?
4. How about Explosive Bombs? Can Incorporeal creatures catch fire? Can they take a full-round action to put it out? Could they just move through a solid material to put it out? Could they just drop into the ground to put it out and then come back up, and would this cause AoO's?
The way I read it, it's a supernatural ability, so it should affect the ghost. Then again, even holy water does affect ghosts but since the bottle is non-magical and will pass through the target, to use holy water one needs to pour it over the ghost instead of throwing it - does this mean that throwing a bomb, the bomb would pass through, but the splash would hit? Even if the bomb is a supernatural ability, is the making of the bomb supernatural, but the fire being most likely natural and non-magical, would not affect the incorporeal creature? I don't really see a burning house damage it either.
In any case, the fire should do half the usual damage, I suppose. Following the logic of Holy Water not breaking upon a ghost, perhaps the bomb should only deal splash damage (and half of it) instead?
However, the most problematic part is the Explosive Bomb - Any creature that suffers a direct hit is set aflames, takes a full round action to get a ref save to put it out. This isn't a problem if one rules that incorporeal can't be hit by the bomb, but only by the fire (and thus only splash dmg) - now there's no chance of a direct hit. Even if we rule that as a supernatural ability, the bomb can hit the ghost, does it constitute as a direct hit as the target only takes half damage?
And even if we do suppose that it is a direct hit, should incorporeal creatures really be able to catch fire? Where does the fire cling to, anyway? And if we do conclude that it somehow mystically does catch fire, does moving through solid object put it out? Does such movement (dropping down through the solid floor and immediatly getting back up) give a reason for AoO? The rules do not state that the full-round action to put out the fire would cause AoO's, so it's a bit confusing...
One should also remember that the alchemist has a Force Bomb discovery. Force effects affect incorporeal normally, as far as I know. Does this mean that the fire should not affect them at all?
Also, I'd like to point out that incorporeal undead are immune to precision damage (such as sneak attacks) and critical hits. Bomb's description says:
Quote:
The damage of an alchemist’s bomb increases by 1d6 points at every odd-numbered alchemist level (this bonus damage is not multiplied on a critical hit)
Firstly - I take it that this means that the extra d6's aren't multiplied by a crit, but that the base 1d6+int dmg would be multiplied. Is this correct? Further, since critical hits say that precision based damage isn't multiplied in a crit, and the bomb says they aren't multiplied in a crit, one -could- assume that the extra dmg from bombs is precision based (I know this doesn't hold true in mathematical logics, but it does imply this might might be the case none the less) - Does this mean that incorporeal, since immune to precision dmg, would take 50% of 1d6+int (or depending on the interpretation, perhaps even just 50% of the INT dmg) and ignore the rest of the "bonus dice"? One could also argue that bombs are precision based since the AC to hit is Touch AC, not your regular armor class - more like you need to hit the target and less like you need to get through a shield and a platemail.
I think that, from rules perspective, it's a SU ability so it does hit the ghost and deal 50% dmg and set it on fire, and the ghost must take a full-round action to put it out WITH a ref save.
But, this simply does not make any sense AND there are some rules points that might prevent this from working (see holy water - created by a spell, yet the shell/bottle does not break on impact with a ghost - and direct hit vs doing only 50% dmg)
How does fire cling to something that is incorporeal - literally, insubstantial, that is, without any kind of material? Can you set fire on something that does not exist? What would even burn? Nothingness? Spiritual energy?
I'd also like to point out that despite labeled as a SU ability, creating a bomb and then throwing it sounds more like extra ordinary than supernatural - I mean, anyone can create alchemical fires with a bit of points in craft alchemy, alchemists just do it really really fast and make them more effective?
Even though RAW at first glance would suggest it works at full force (except for the only 50% dmg) and set the target on fire, I think a more RAI approach and a sensible (also from a balance point) would be to say that just like holy water, it passes through, deals half of the splash damage, again halved on save. OR, since this might be -too- weak: Can hit normally, but since it does only half damage, can not be concidered a direct hit, and thus does not set the incorporeal on fire? AND even if it did set the ghost in fire, I think it would be fair to assume that a move action through a solid material chokes the fire automatically (even if you assume that it does not need air to burn, the burning substance isn't incorporeal and shouldn't be able to pass through a wall).
To Recap:
Alchemist bomb vs incorporeal:
Is it possible to score a direct hit?
Is it possible to hit with the splash?
Does fire even do dmg against things that are not quite there?
Can incorporeal be set on fire? Can you even score a direct hit when full damage is impossible to do?
Can they extinguish it by going through ground, and does it provoke AoO's?
Touching a rules subject here (I might want to talk about it in the rules forum, thoug).
They haven't yet encountereted any incorporeal undead, but the alchemist threw me a question I couldn't yet answer. How do the bombs affect ghosts, should they encounter any? What about explosive bombs (that set targets on fire on direct hit)?
I'll post a my thoughts about this in the rules forum.
So far, I've decided to mod the trust system so that they don't loose the default 1 point of trust per day if they spent time during the day interacting with the villagers and generally being good people. I've decided to take a bit softer aproach on the racial problems - they weren't driven out of town simply because how they look, but the more exotic ratfolk and catfolk have had a hard time getting anything out of the townfolk.
Ah, yes. For some reason, after researching stuff and learning that the Whispering Way's members are often undead, the dhampir and the catfolk spent a night creeping around the villagers houses, peeked in, and tried to use "detect undead" to find out who, if any of them, would be an agent. The Dhampir also decided that since they weren't given access to the townhall, he would go inside in the nights to study, picking open the windows...
Of course, this depens a lot on me, the group, and the way I want to do it, but I'd still want to hear some opinions on this: Should I just roll a guard's perception against his stealth to see if he is spotted on the nightly journeys? Should I just allow this (ie, have other people find it too hard for their pc's to legally gain access to the libraries)? Or should I just outright deny this (since usually you don't have the whole night worth of time and you can't leave the books there open for the next night etc)?
Namely, I'm a bit surprised about this - it wasn't something I expected, and I want to know if I should reward the player/character for thinking it up, refuse it because (insert reason here), or simply state that there's a chance of getting caught (perhaps giving a bonus on the check for him since I think the chance of getting caught is quite small).
A quick recap on what's happened so far:
Spoiler:
They disabled all the rioters in the graveyard without killing anyone.
They "remembered" the basic things about the harrowstone and whispering way.
They asked around if people had records about who died in the fire (people promised to look for the records without answering immediatly). (I took this session as if they had simply used "gather information" and the following day asked for a roll - 15 revealed that the warden, the wife, some guards and some prisoners died, and told them about the statue).
They went to the crypt without mentioning about it to anyone, in the night, and looted it.
They saw some card games in the tavern, cheked the cellar for possible torture room, and heard the little girls creepy song.
They went to the Statue, found a V. Decided to camp there, and luckily, gibs came along. They were tardy enough to allow him to write the second letter, though they didn't check what it was, and rain washed the letters away later. They didn't kill him, though, but dragged him back to his house, healed him, slapped him awake, and after determining he knew nothing of what had happened, decided to camp it out with him, waiting for the next night. (One of the players quite soon deducted that he was possessed, others didn't quite believe it, but I allowed detect magic to detect a faint, diminishing aura, though a failed roll didn't reveal the school). Next session will begin with them in his hut, waiting for the dawn and then the following night.
I'm trying to introduce supernatural into the game bit by bit. So far, unexplained things they've seen have been: The text on a grave, the gaming cards, and gibs weird actions. They are quite sure that the professor was, in fact, a necromancer, and thought about trying to use the spirit board to communicate with him - they know what it is (simply through description) - but they don't know the mechanics of it (I'll let them find out by using it, since they really fumbled their rolls).
Thanks for all the comments, I'm more than happy to hear more of your thoughts, ideas and suggestions!
I'm fairly sure that, like all other multipliers, the template's are stacked together instead of adding them one by one.
Ie, two x2 multipliers equal x3 and so on, so the format should be:
1HD human
+2 HD for skeleton champion
= 3 HD,
Burning is x2, so it adds another +3 HD to the the creature (for 6HD)
Bloody is also x2, which means it also adds another +3 HD (for a total of 9HD).
At least, this is how all other multipliers are added together.
Righty, so I've got some experience running world of darkness (vampires, hunters, and vanilla), and have played enough of dnd 3.5 and PF to know the basics, but I've never run PF (nor dnd) before - and thus, I fear I lack the "feel" and "touch" with regards to how dangerous encounters are.
In short, I'm a bit afraid that I might accidentally kill the PCs, especially when 1 of them is a newbie to dnd, another is a rookie, the third is also a newbie to PF&dnd (but has lots of expertise with tactical games and is quite good with odds) while the fourth is quite experienced.
Let's take a look at the party, shall we? 25 point buy
Firstly, a Dhampir Ninja, high dex, cha, then str int. Point-Blank with shurikens and shortbow, Katana for close combat. (Experienced)
Ratfolk Alchemist, Int Dex Con. Not sure what he plans, but he can deal dmg with the bombs. Newbie, but I'm quite confident he can handle the combat tactics. (The guy is an expert at finding loopholes in rules - anything I should be cautious of? Also, who crafts poisons? Nobody I know. Is it too powerful if I let him craft poisons way faster than what the basic crafting rules suggest? For example, two days instead of a week and can create a larger batch (many doses) of a single dose. The poisons didn't look to dangerous (to NPC's) either).
Human Druid, Wis, Dex and some str and con. Not sure what he'll do either, but a newbie - and not too good with tactics. She has a bear, and likes to try and cast entangle to a single giant centipede while in a crypt. >.>
Catfolk Summoner - with a winged snake (does not fly yet) and high Cha and Dex and the master summoner archetype, I think she could wreck quite a lot of things (especially in a few levels)... If she either gets a lot of help from the other players or is given some time. I don't think she's ever played any tactical square based combat games...
1st question: As you can easily read from above, I'm not too confident with some of the players being able to pull their own weight in combat - I'm no master tactician either, and the game is a lot more than just positioning and concentrating fire. But generally speaking, I don't want to do combat through the PCs. I'm highly tempted at giving them advice, but then again, I feel they should learn the ropes by themselves. What do you think? Is dm giving advice on combat a bad thing?
2nd question: The party lacks channeling. And healing, apart from that 1 or 2 cure light wounds the druid has, and the alchemist (who can't yet use it on others). In addition, the Dhampir is a bit challenged when one thinks about how potions use positive energy... I *know* this will be a (mechanical) problem... Or will it be? Are there enough holy waters and stuff lying around? I'm also guessing that the players (especially the newbies) who are also familiar with less mechanical roleplaying, and can surely create crafty solutions (The *Rap Rap* for example). Should I be prepared to let them find an additional potion or two? How many skeletons or zombies are enough of a challenge for a group of this kind? I mean, the alchemist kinda insta-kills everything (throwing a bomb to a square between two opponents, touch AC 5, splash dmg 5, save halves with DC 15 IIRC).
3rd question: Regarding the Alchemist, mostly. The certain skeletons burst into flames at some point - so flaming skeletons. But should they be fire immune even before that? It's not mentioned anywhere. And if yes (I'm thinking yes just to prevent the ratfolk from killing everything with bombs) - does almost totally disabling the strong dps in the team nerf the party too much?
4. The party. Look at it. It's a carnivale). The party doesn't feel particularly strong, either - And just looking at the team, even if two of them have high CHA, it should be a rough journey convincing the villagers that they really are on their side.
Question: Should PC's be given penalties to, say, diplomacy rolls because the townspeople generally hire lowlevel adventurers to kill rats FOR them, instead of talking to rats? Since the party doesn't feel too strong, if I do decide to give them penalties because the town distrusts these freaks - is it too much? I mean, if they are going to have trouble in combat, is it unfair to also make social situations hard? Or are these two completely different things that should not be mixed together? They do receive xp for social things too... And I fear I might give them a bit too hard time if I give them penalties for choosing and creating flavorful party.
5. The party just beat 6 villagers, and then they went to the false crypt, and found loot. Question is - if they should choose to go straight to the ruins, do they have a chance of survival? I personally would find it more interesting if they tried to snoop around the town more - any ideas how I should do this? They don't have any idea about what's really going on ( they know it's a prison, and that it burned). Is it possible/Likely that they just run through the whole complex? The players (3 of 4) aren't exactly clear on the mechanics of skills and stuff and what can be done. The rat tried to find out who all died in the fire by asking around - I later realized that he did, in fact, well play out a session of "gathering information", and rolled for him when they had already left - I was thinking about hinting at the memorial, that should keep them occupied. It's now the eve of their second day in Ravengro, no rain yet...
6. Haunts. I was thinking making them also vulnerable to holy water, maybe even pouring potion of cure light wounds over the area (again, given the lack of channel). Any ideas if this makes things too easy?
7. Journal of Father Charlatan. I can't find it anywhere, is it anywhere to be found? It's mentioned in the book...
8. Encounters. Is there something that I should be especially aware of? I mean, with a new group of players, I'd rather not TPK them - especially I don't want to wipe them using something I had no way of knowing would wipe them. What encounters usually cause trouble for parties? Also, how long did it take for your party to finish the first part (in In Game days? In play sessions)?
9. Any other advices to give for a new dm?
Thanks, and cheers! Waiting to hear your advices and thoughts!
Our party of 4 level 2 PC's had, surprisingly, no trouble. We managed to take care of all of the Lacedon's without alerting the others - Except for the last encounter where we took down all but 1, and the one managed to shout for the Mother before he was killed on the next round. We had in our party:
A Dwarven Monk. Darkvision would have helped, but the spiritual weapon took care of him and kept him drinking potions, he was basically tied for most of the fight.
A Human Fighter TWF with a whip and a sword - I don't think he managed to trip the mother at all, but I think he did deal some damage.
A Gnome Summoner inside an Eidolon, used enlarge person and reach to deal damage to the Mother - I think we rolled pretty good for the miss chances.
And my Cleric (undead lord) - my skeleton, while fragile, was mostly ignored by the mother, and with darkvision and two claws after a 5ft step managed to finish her when she had taken too much beating and retreated into the caves.
I guess we just rolled lucky (like our monk taking out a lacedon in two shurikens before he acted at all)
Tomppa
