Kolyarut

Troubleshooter's page

1,246 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.




I see a recurring theme in our group. Whatever is the most exciting for the GM is not necessarily the most exciting for the players. I am a huge Lovecraft fan, and so I would to have some kind of contact with Carrion Crown -- but none of the group really seems to be fans. One of our players is a huge pirate lover, but he would rather sit in on Skull and Shackles than run it; and one player loves the creatures related to the covers of Legacy of Fire and wants to play that.

We have been making compromises so far choosing games that everybody seems to like well enough,, but I really have to wonder if this is the most successful strategy. Would it be better to simply run games that are directed straight at the players? Is it more important for a GM to run a game they're in love with so the enthusiasm bleeds over? Or is compromise really the best method?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It's my turn to be a player again, and I am hoping for some good advice on creating the characters.

I will be playing alone through an adventure path with two characters, which means that I need to accomplish with two characters what would normally be done with four. I am especially interested in ideas for the second character. The character creation rules follow.

Campaign & character creation rules:

Leniency: The GM is open to making small changes to the AP, but the burden will generally be on my shoulders to design good characters and play smart. When I ran this style of campaign, I minimized the use of save-or-die effects, and allowed the player to add a couple of spells to his class spell list (which were thematically appropriate); few other changes. I will probably receive the same treatment.

Level: Both characters will be two levels higher than a normal character would be. The AP will be started at level 3 for both characters, and it can be expected to end two levels higher.

Class: Core Rulebook classes are allowed. Advanced Player's Guide classes are allowed, except for Summoner.

Ability scores: I have rolled their stats, but they are not with me -- generally, both characters have high ability scores, but no natural 18s.

Hit points: Maximum hit points at first level. Every level after that, if I receive less than half of the die's greatest result, I take half instead. [If a bard rolled a 1, 2, or 3 on his hit points, he would instead take 4, then add his normal bonuses.]

Favored class: Both characters will have two favored classes.

Traits: Characters select two traits, one of which is selected from the AP player's guide.

Wealth: Treasure will be awarded as normal in the AP. Two characters will split the same treasure from the AP rather than four.

Allowed books: Core Rulebook (no Leadership feat), Advanced Player's Guide. The GM may approve certain materials that are in Ultimate Magic or which are Sorceror-specific on a case-by-case basis

I do not want any AP-specific advice (quasi-spoilers), so I am not naming the AP.

First character ideas:

For the first character, I knew that I wanted to take the opportunity to play an enchanter, which is something that usually grates on GMs in a normal game. Usually I prefer wizards, and I always prefer humans; to break the pattern, I am currently thinking of playing a Kitsune Wild-blooded Sorceror (Celestial [Empyreal] and Maestro).

Crunch advantages:
* Maestro looks like a useful bloodline for enchanters, and I like the musical flavor (I have a bad habit of playing bards : P).
* I want a character that can heal (Empyreal grants channeling), but if I can avoid it, I would like to have healing without running a full cleric or oracle.

Development ideas:
* Robes of arcane heritage so I count as a higher-level sorceror for my bloodline powers; periapt of positive channeling to have more-powerful channeling ability
* If allowed, Quicken Channeling
* Possibly Quicken Spell or rod of quicken spell
* Lots of mind-affecting spells (suggestion, dominate, etc.). Some buffing spells to empower the partially-mind controlled team, and then boring ranged damage spells to deal with enemies that are immune to mind-affecting and resistant to normal attacks

Crunch disadvantages:
* I am not crazy about the -2 Will save from wild-blooded. IMO, Will saves are the worst saves as most of them will disable a character -- which is at least half my party. I can accept that though, especially since I become a Wisdom-primary caster.
* I really want both 9th-level bloodline powers -- I have to choose between Channeling from Empyreal, and the Maestro ability that allows me to speak / understand all languages and increases the caster level on my language-dependent spells.
* Kitsune gives +2 Charisma, which is awesome for a sorceror. Unless you switch to Wisdom-casting from Empyreal |:P

Fluff-wise, I am thinking that the character is a descendant of a Vulpinal. She grew up as a Kitsune / Varisian performer, but she has been developing musical and angelic sorcerous powers due to her heritage. I could even take it a step further and say that her ancestor was originally called and bound into service by wizards of Thassilon, and her flourish of magic is due to the weakening of binding spells on her bloodline. I quite like this beginning of a backstory.

* Is there any effect that could change my ability score to Wisdom for the normally-Charisma skills? I want a party face.
* Same question, but Wisdom instead of Charisma for Use Magic Device?
* Alternatively, is there a particularly good class or archetype for a tank-martial combatant that utilizes Charisma, and could be used as the party face and Use Magic Device character?
* Channeling is good -- but it doesn't take care of restoration, heal and breath of life. What might be the best way for my two characters to get access to them without becoming an outright Cleric/Oracle?
* Hypothetically, is there another method to get access to channeling without Empyreal and without taking Cleric/Oracle levels?

For the second character, I am thinking of some kind of high-AC front-line combatant that is capable of dealing decent damage and possibly keeping enemies in one spot. I would prefer not to use a Monk, as I want to be able to use a lot of the equipment that comes my way. I am also not terribly interested in Paladin, as I intend to play these characters with a certain amount of lying and subterfuge (otherwise the AP would be especially difficult to handle).

I look forward to any advice you may have, especially if it can conform to the guidelines of the campaign.


1. When Children of the Night are called forth, is their method of arrival supernatural? For example, can they be called forth inside a room with no door or windows?

2. Children of the Night "serve the vampire up to 1 hour." How do they serve the vampire? Does the vampire have an empathic or telepathic link to Children of the Night? Does the vampire have to use Handle Animal (seems unlikely, since the Bestiary vampire doesn't have it)? Do Children of the Night only attack the vampire's opponent, such as when a spellcaster cannot communicate with creatures summoned by summon monster?


When you are wielding two lances and mounted, how much damage does Power Attack grant each weapon?

[There's an infernal little lawyer inside me that made me post the topic. I apologize for this.]


12 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite.

Can objects and Constructs be affected by positive and negative energy?

And:

Do positive and negative energy count as 'energy attacks' for the purposes of applying to Hardness (i.e., the damage is halved then Hardness is subtracted)?

In my upcoming game session I'll be having a negative-energy charged creature making attacks to break through walls, so the result may be important. Below is the information I've collected for each case.

1. Can objects and Constructs be affected by positive and negative energy?

Constructs and objects themselves don't seem to have any rules dictating that they are unaffected in their own descriptions. Construct traits in the Bestiary, page 307 nor do Smashing An Object in CRB, page 173 list an immunity to these effects. Golems may have Immune to Magic, but there are many other Constructs such as Animated Objects or Soulbound Dolls that have no such immunity and with which the interaction doesn't seem so clear to me.

However, a great deal of positive and negative energy effects seem to have inconsistent targeting regarding non-living creatures:

* Channeling energy causes a burst that affects all creatures of one type (either undead or living) in a 30-foot radius centered on the cleric. It doesn't seem to affect either Constructs or objects, as they are neither living nor dead.

* Seemingly in contradiction to this, the Destruction alternate channeling from Ultimate Magic seems to reinterpret Channeling:

Ultimate Magic, page 29 wrote:


Destruction: Heal—Creatures gain a channel bonus on attack and damage rolls against objects, CMB for sunder attempts, and Strength checks to break objects until the end of your next turn.
Harm—Unattended objects take full channel damage (not half ).

* Spells such as chill touch and cure light wounds have a Target of "creature touched", but have descriptions that begin with "A touch from your hand, which glows with blue energy, disrupts the life force of living creatures" and "When laying your hand upon a living creature, you channel positive energy that cures 1d8 points of damage + 1 point per caster level (maximum +5)" respectively. It seems internally inconsistent.

Enervation has a Target of ray, and works on living creatures. In this case, the paragraph further narrows the effect instead of contradicting it -- there isn't necessarily any internal inconsistency, unless paragraphs in chill touch and cure light wounds are just descriptive text that don't have game functions, in which case enervation would work against any target, not just living creatures (since the same logic would apply to all spells).

Inflict light wounds, Harm, and Heal affect creatures without regard to whether they are living or not. There are no internal inconsistencies with these, but although it seems that the cure and inflict spells are supposed to mirror each other, cure light wounds may work on living creatures only yet inflict light wounds seems to work on any creature.

2. Do positive and negative energy count as 'energy attacks' for the purposes of applying to Hardness (i.e., the damage is halved then Hardness is subtracted)?

The book says this about energy attacks:

Core Rulebook, page 173 wrote:


"Energy Attacks: Energy attacks deal half damage to most objects. Divide the damage by 2 before applying the object’s hardness. Some energy types might be particularly effective against certain objects, subject to GM discretion. For example, fire might do full damage against parchment, cloth, and other objects that burn easily. Sonic might do full damage against glass and crystal objects.

However, 'energy attacks' are not defined in the book. We can see that Fire is an energy. What else?

Resist Energy helps:

Core Rulebook, page 334 wrote:


This abjuration grants a creature limited protection from damage
of whichever one of five energy types you select: acid, cold,
electricity, fire, or sonic.

The simplest (but not necessarily correct) solution is that in the absence of an explicit list, this spell description includes the definition.

However, positive and negative energy do have 'energy' in the name, which is fairly compelling. Perhaps they weren't included in resist energy not because they aren't energy attacks, but because that would be outside the scope of the spell. Effects like death ward already replicate that effect, and are more thematically-suited to divine characters.

Further, perhaps an exhaustive list of what counts as energy types is not preferable or possible for Pathfinder. If a definite list were made in the Core Rulebook, that would tie the hands of future authors and render them less able to write up new energy types such as Hellfire.

Expanding on this question, is Force an energy type? If an object were attacked with Force damage, would the damage be divided before Hardness is applied? Or do Force spells merely signify that it is 'untyped' damage that also works well against incorporeal creatures, and wouldn't be divided any more than a strike with a mace?

I look forward to your input.


I recall one time when our group stumbled upon one of these (Constitution) and the party Fighter was excited at first, until he realized that he had been planning on getting a more powerful one later on. So even though he was the #1 candidate for its use at the time, he didn't really want to use it, since it would have been like burning money without benefit if he used one, then the other -- not even the half-price benefit of selling.

It makes sense to me with, for example, Deflection bonuses. Their value is figured exponentially; if you could combine the effects of two +1 rings (2,000 each) then you'd gain the benefits of an 8,000 gold item for half the price. Yet the Tomes follow a proportional cost, and I fail to see any balance reason for them to overlap if casting wish five times is 2-1/2 times the cost of casting it twice. It doesn't look like you're cheating the system with those.

Of course, I agree that it should still be limited to +5. Reading two +5 Tomes shouldn't get you anything but a +5 bonus and bitter realization of what you've done.

I already know 'it's my game and I can rule it differently if I want to', but I'd like some insight why it is this way.


We've started Serpent's Skull, but I'm becoming a bit unsure about the mechanical development of my character, especially after re-reading some of the rules relevant to it.

Originally we had a group of three characters planned, so the GM allowed us higher stats and a bonus feat. The other players wanted to play a Chaotic Neutral party with a sorceror and a ranger, and I decided to try out a new class, so I picked oracle of battle. Due to movement of players, the party has changed, and now we have the sorceror (mostly tosses out color spray), a melee-stealth rogue, and an inquisitor whose specialty I don't yet know (so far I know 10 Strength, decent Dexterity).

The situation is as follows:
Human Oracle of Battle 2; Clouded Vision curse; Skill At Arms and War Sight revelations
Str 17, Dex 15, Con 16, Int 13, Wis 14, Cha 20
Feats are Extra Revelation (War Sight), Skill Focus (Perception), and Tower Shield Proficiency.
Currently it's outfitted with a longsword, scale mail, tower shield and weapon cord.

The mechanical concept was to be a capable mix of healing and tank. Defense is very important, since we've got d6, d8, d8 and d8 hit dice. And I'd really like to be good at hitting too.

The plan was to go full platemail with a tower shield, take Exotic Weapon Proficiency with a falcata then Weapon Mastery and Surprising Charge. Beyond that I hadn't had too much planned out, but I was considering spending feats on Extra Revelation (particularly Battlefield Clarity, Combat Healer, Iron Skin; maaaaybe a Maneuver Mastery) or the shield feats. I figured I'd put the ability score increases into Charisma with the assumption that the extra spells would probably make up for the opportunity cost of lost Strength bonuses.

Planning my character out further has made me less sure it's going to work. First was learning that tower shields apply a -2 to attack rolls -- all attack rolls. I thought it was just on shield bashes (which I have now learned you can't perform with tower shields, blah). Now applying the penalty, I'm finding it really hard to hit in combat -- our last fight in particular had me missing more than half the attacks when I was already buffed, even when the enemy was Stunned and Prone. I didn't start hitting until I took the shield off. The rest of the combat had me running around the battle field trying to get to injured people or prepare for the next round of attacks, and my crippled movement speed was wasting rounds for me.

Looking over my future options, I'm not seeing that much available. A tower shield can't shield bash, so that tree isn't available to me. The useful shield feats are fighter-only, and I'm not seeing an option to multiclass while holding down my roles. I like the idea of Combat Expertise, but if I follow that route then I might as well forget using a weapon. I really need to figure out a path for distant healing for the party, too.

I'm working under the following constraints:
* CRB and Advanced Player's Guide are generally available. Other books are generally unavailable.
* Item creation feats are banned.
* He is unsure about the direction of the campaign -- whether he will follow the adventure path, or branch off and go elsewhere -- and I cannot depend on simply buying a magic item at a market.
* Although he will temporarily allow the retraining of some abilities, he won't allow the retraining of abilities we've already used, and I've used pretty much every mechanic of my character.
* Although he would allow me to kill my character and just bring in a new one, I don't want to do that. On one hand, I'm stubborn and don't want to just 'give up' like that; on the other, I like the character's personality and background, and would prefer to make this work.

So, is this accomplishable within parameters? Are there character choices under my control that I can use to hold down those roles?


I'm running The Sixfold Trial for a single player, where the player controls two characters at two levels higher than a party of four would expect to be.

I'm not afraid of the combat during this chapter (yet?) but I'm not so sure about the play. Given that all of the roleplaying of the Trials of Larazod will be split between the two of us (instead of perhaps five), I'm wondering if I should expect it to be difficult on our voices (especially mine, since I'm fond of stressful accents and I voice Thesing Umbero like Gaston from Beauty and the Beast) or if all the dialogue between two people would stretch beyond fun into work.

The player doesn't even know there's a play coming up, and I'd prefer not to spoil things by telling them and asking them, or by giving them the script before our session so they can read it. Yet I don't like the idea of handing them the script mid-game and waiting for him to read it silently either.

I'm thinking I might have one or two Children of Westcrown join (temporarily under player control -- especially because the player has no Perform) so we can split dialog more evenly, but do you have any idea of what to expect?


As title. The hand normally appears and then moves to remain between you, but what if you are both next to each other? It seems as if the hand is treated as a creature, and creatures can't end their turns in another creature's space.

This also applies to moving such that other creatures are directly in-between your target and you.


4 people marked this as FAQ candidate.

With Improved Overrun, you do not provoke an attack of opportunity for initiating an Overrun combat maneuver.

The player targeted said that the monster still provokes an attack of opportunity for moving into his space, or through threatened squares afterwards, or somesuch. When I said that would defeat the point of the feat (mostly), the player said that since it wasn't triggered by the action, any AoO damage wouldn't be applied to the combat maneuver check.

So with Improved Overrun, do you not trigger an AoO at all, neither for initiating the movement, nor for entering its square or moving onward? Or is the benefit of the feat that the damage doesn't ruin the attempt?


Fluff:

Our party is very charge-happy. Our Druid and his companion both have Pounce; the fighter and the rogue then decided that their general operating procedure would be to ride the two cats, allow them to act first in initiative so they charge in during the first round, and then receive full attacks because they were adjacent to the enemy. All martial characters got full attacks. Since then ...

We've crudely house-ruled~ that characters riding the Druid and his companion cannot declare a Full Attack in the round following a turn where the mounts have moved. Yet now he's pointing out that lances deal double damage when the rider is on a charging mount, so due to Doublestrike, he could theoretically attack twice with doubled attacks even when the Druid moves in for him.

Now, that worries me a bit -- I'm already juggling with game balance enough. Yet my top concern is, can a Two-Weapon Warrior benefit from Spirited Charge to attack twice with x3 damage when riding a mount that directs itself?

Relevant text:

Quote:


Benefit: A lance deals double damage when used from the back of a charging mount. While mounted, you can wield a lance with one hand.
Quote:


Spirited Charge (Combat)
Benefit: When mounted and using the charge action, you deal double damage with a melee weapon (or triple damage with a lance).
Quote:


At 9th level, a Two-Weapon Warrior may, as a standard action, make one attack with both his primary and secondary weapons. The penalties for attacking with two weapons apply normally.

Is this right? The only disadvantage is two feats (and negating an attack on the Druid is NOT a waste), and perhaps the fact that he's wielding both weapons one-handed, and so only gets his full strength bonus (tripled) to damage instead of 1.5x. Is that a valid cost, or is there some additional disadvantage, or reason this isn't legal, that I do not yet see?


2 people marked this as FAQ candidate.

Do I have to make the check against both a mount and its rider?
* If no, do I make the check against the mount, the rider, or the higher CMD?
* If yes, do I make one attack and apply the results to both, or one attack each?

If a check has to be made against the mount, can a rider with Mounted combat then make a Ride check to negate it? This seems quite powerful if a creature already has to beat two CMDs.

If a mounted charger with Greater Overrun and a lance causes its target to become prone from the overrun, will it deal double damage from the lance on the attack of opportunity?


tl;dr - I found something that convinced me further that DMs are not supposed to compensate for lost wealth, and that item creation feats aren't supposed to give you double wealth. If you already know that, this thread is not for you, unless you want to argue with people that still do.

I've been reviewing what the benefits of item creation feats are, and when I did the math, I noticed something I'd missed before.

Wealth By Level does not agree with the Gold Per Encounter chart.

Previously I assumed that a character that adventured from level 1 to 20 would (according to the book) come across the same gold as a character generated at level 20, except that he had to constantly sell his unwanted items at a loss or (unrealistically) try to enchant to improve it.

Because of this, I began to assume that a DM was supposed to compensate for wealth loss. After all, if a character has 10k in equipment as his level assumes, then he sells a lot of it off at half price or loses it due to using potions / wands / paying for resurrections, then he isn't at the effectiveness the CR system is designed for while other characters generated at his level are on-par.

To take it a step further, if the DM compensates for all lost wealth -- even selling a +1 sword to buy a +2 sword -- then that would render item creation feats useless (after all, you already have cherrypicked equipment and full WBL). Unless, of course, their purpose was to increase your total character wealth beyond a character of your level.

Refuting that viewpoint, I recently ran through the Gold Per Encounter table. It resulted in a character that gained much more wealth than that. To demonstrate:

Assume a group of four 3rd level characters. A 3rd level character has a WBL of 3,000 gold, and a 4th level character has a WBL of 6,000. A 3rd-level character has 5,000 experience (Medium progression), while 4th level requires 9,000.

So, a character going from 3rd level to 4th requires a gain of 4,000 experience. Such a character gains 200 xp per on-CR encounter; so it takes 20 on-CR encounters to gain a level. During each of these encounters, a character's share of the treasure is 200 -- so over the course of 20 fights, he gains 4,000 gold, not 3,000.

4th to 5th -- +5,750; not +4,500
5th to 6th -- +7,750; not +5,500
6th to 7th -- +10,000; not +7,000

At this point, I am personally convinced that the system compensates for loss of wealth by giving more in over the course of a level than the next level is assumed to possess.

This is why characters appear to have cherrypicked equipment at the normal wealth by level in Adventure Paths -- without item creation feats. They've been adventuring, selling off the random equipment, and buying cherrypicked at a loss.

This allows a GM to perform his duties without keeping meticulous notes of purchases and sales and later filtering money back in.

This is why a single feat doesn't allow each member of the party to gain the benefits of a Cloak of Resistance +3 with the money saved on their +2 ability score item.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Riddles in the Dark

Trekking among the hillside along the mountains, the PCs find a cave that would a suitable shelter for a night. Deeper inside the cave, the rough surfaces suddenly drop down (made dangerously slick with water and slime) into a large musty cubic room (40 by 40 by 40).

The walls of this room are all written across with large characters; creatures that understand Cyclops may identify them as a series of riddles, but no answers. On the south side of the room, a pile of animal bones, rotten discards and fungi somewhat cushions the fall beneath the drop. Scattered about the room are remnants of shelves large tomes, moldering and and useless. In the middle of the room is a gaunt one-armed Stygira.

The Stygira is attached to the west, east and south wall with a 30-foot chain -- one each affixed to the neck, arm, and one leg (the result of a trap that animated the chains long enough to ensnare ignorant intruders). A chain attached to the floor is open. The chain attached to the north wall dangles limply, still holding a withered severed arm. Each chain is associated with a particular riddle on the wall, and if the answer is spoken aloud, that shackle will unlock.

The Stygira speaks Cyclops, Giant, and Terran; however, due to more than a year of entrapment and isolation, it has gone fairly mad and can no longer communicate except in riddles. Consider the Stygira fluent in any riddles the PCs ask of moderate difficulty; if they attempt to speak to it plainly in a language it understands, roll Intelligence checks with DCs appropriate to the complexity of the statement to see if it understands (no retry for any given statement). Failing that, it can understand basic physical pantomime.

The Stygira is desperate to escape and wants assistance from any creature that it encounters, but while it tries to act nonthreatening, it looks menacing and is a little too insane to behave perfectly inoffensive. It is also hungry, as too few animals wander in to keep it well-fed. Among whatever riddles it asks for the purposes of communication, it also asks the riddles on the wall, hoping the PCs will know the answers and free its remaining limbs.

When it first becomes aware of a PC, it states surprisedly "It dies in the dark." After a moment, it continues, "It cackles and dances around the fire. It dies in the dark." It will wait, and cycle through the languages it knows until it is clear it cannot communicate. If the PCs attempt to leave for whatever reason (even if they establish communication and promise to return), the Stygira will either try to charm them or lunge and grab them with its surprising reach.

Sample riddles:

Spoiler:

It cackles and dances around the fire. It dies in the dark.
- Shadow

You cannot feel me but I can be broken.
- Promise, or silence

We live in the waves but see no fish. Mourn for us, for the riders cut us down by the hundreds.
- Grain

This drop comes with the greatest harm, even if you never fell.
- Teardrop

You see more than they see, yet they see more than you see
- Cyclops. Alternately, potatoes.

I have a mouth but no stomach. I have teeth but no tongue. I yawn without sound.
- Cave

I run but never escape. I have a bed but don't sleep. I do not speak yet I babble.
- River / brook

Stygira modification: Advance by two hit dice. Add Lunge. Remove one Claw attack, and replace with Grab. If the PCs free the Stygira, award them experience as if they defeated it in combat. Additionally, the Stygira will Stoneshape a section of the floor away to reveal a hidden Painite gem. The Stygira will gift the PCs all of its gems except for one (their choice).


Some questions have come up in my game, and I was wondering about what the community thinks.

1) If a character has a Lance (Reach, can't attack adjacent) and he is mounted, does he threaten squares adjacent to the mount?

If he 'shares the mount's space', then the answer is no. Yet if he effectively chooses the square he is attacking from (the way a Large creature determines whether it is affected by Cover), then the answer is yes, because he can attack from the far side of the mount.

2) Assume the following, where Es are Enemies and Xs are the space of a mount and mounted character:

E
XX
XXE

Can enemies attack the mounted character (not the mount), by determining his 'defending space' to be on the corner, and thus flanking him?

If the mounted character is always considered to 'share the mount's space', then the answer is no -- he could only be flanked in the same configurations that a mount could.

If instead enemies are able to attack the character from any square on the mount, the way that characters can attack any square of a creature for the purposes of determining whether it gains Cover, then the answer could be yes.


I've been planning an encounter with a Cleric and her corrupted cultists for some weeks, but now the day before the game, I realized that the effect I wanted -- for the cultists to be healed by the Cleric's negative energy channeling -- wasn't what the feat I selected did. Sadly, Necromantic Affinity's benefit only applies to Inflict spells.

Does the effect I've described exist in Pathfinder at all?


my guess os ot would go to 20 reach but it likely would depend on how you got a 15 foot reach.


I brought this up last game and people seemed to be puzzled at the idea.

I recall that, in 3.5, the text pointed out that a person could cast the same spell twice -- such as Owl's Wisdom -- and that while the spell's effects wouldn't stack, both effects would be remain active. The point of this would be, if a spell were Dispelled, then a second Owl's Wisdom would remain in place and the character would continue benefiting from it.

I tried looking it up in Pathfinder and didn't find much to it. I'm wondering if this is no longer the case, especially since Dispel Magic doesn't target all the spells affecting a target anymore.

I also suppose that it would cause problems, such as -- what if a creature has At Will spells, and overlaps each spell like Invisibility five times? Or Dominate Person?


We're running Kingmaker, and one of the PCs is playing a cleric with a charger build. Still, it looks like he isn't going to use a method that would normally grant a beefy animal, such as a subdomain granting animal companion or special mount from Paladin levels.

He has already had his first horse literally torn apart in combat at level two, so this matter is a bit of a concern. It will only become worse as time goes on.

Players stay out:
One option would be presented in Kingmaker itself, but that's not until the third book or so. I'd prefer to have this dealt with by then.

Another option would be allowing the Leadership feat (normally banned in our games) with no followers, but where the cohort is some sort of really-beefy mount.

A third option would be making horses purchaseable, where horses with more hit dice are rarer and more expensive. While I like this option, I'd have to worry about how to properly price these creatures at each level.

Are there any other suggestions? Which seems to be the most balanced and elegant?


I'm puzzled about improving existing magic items. When you improve a magic item, does the crafting take time according to the *difference* in prices from the new item to the old, or does the crafting take time based on the total item?

For example, a wizard is improving a +1 sword to a +2 sword. Does it take 8 days (because the end result is a 8k sword), or 6 days (8k result, minus 2k to begin with, leaving 6k worth if new enchantments)? Logically I'm thinking it's based on the difference, but the Adding New Abilities paragraph seems to be silent.


I know I may just be overlooking something obvious, but I don't see the incentive for adventurers to come and explore the Stolen Lands. The Charter from Restov doesn't mention a reward for completing it, so I have to wonder, how exactly are they advertising to people "Hey! Come map hundreds of square miles for us!"?

Is there some advertised reward that I'm missing, or are people expected to come adventure for adventure's sake?


When Advanced Player's Guide came out, I heard some murmuring of approval for the access to Brass Knuckles that Monks were given -- "They get enchantments like fighters now!" One of many small boosts in their favor that give them more of a 'role' in a group.

However, I was wondering if the community was aware of the idea of combining both the Brass Knuckles and the existing Amulet?

I understand that people are going to try to correct me first thing, so I'll pre-empt that with a snippet from the PFSRD.

Quote:
An amulet of mighty fists does not need to have a +1 enhancement bonus to grant a melee weapon special ability.

As it stands, a +10 weapon costs a character 200,000 gold. However, there are times when enchanting a weapon is more expensive than gaining, or improving, the amulet. And so, your character can actually gain a greater total enchantment by comining the two.

The two best combinations I've found, iirc:
+8 weapon (128k gold) and +3 amulet (45,000 gold) = 173,000 gold.
Compared to a +10 sword, it's an extra +1 enchantment with 27,000 gold left over.
+8 weapon (128k gold) and +4 amulet (80,000 gold) = 208,000 gold.
Compared to a +10 sword, it's an extra +2 enchantment, though you need to overspend by 8,000 gold to get it.

It may not affect the Monk through his whole progression, or necessarily that much, but there's the concept. Any troubleshooting or comments are welcome (including "OLD", hahah).


The question is regarding the following pieces of text:

Stunned: ". . . . takes a -2 penalty to AC, and loses its Dexterity bonus to AC."

. . . .

Pg. 199:
[Last paragraph of Performing A Combat Maneuver] "If your target is Stunned, you receive a +4 bonus on your attack roll against it."

. . . .

"Any penalties to your AC also apply to your CMD. A flat-footed creature does not add its Dexterity bonus to CMD."

. . . .

So the way I'm reading this is, when you Stun an opponent, it loses its Dex bonus to CMD and takes a further -2 penalty, while you get +4 to Combat Maneuvers against it. Is this correct, and if so, is this intentional?

The only way I can see this not totaling out to that is if flat-footed meant *only* creatures that hadn't yet acted in combat. Yet it seems to me that the developers would have intended creatures to be denied their Dex bonus if a hidden creature attempted a combat maneuver on them in the middle of combat ...