Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Ebon Acolyti

Urath DM's page

791 posts. Alias of Mark Greene.


RSS

1 to 50 of 791 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Kingmaker with the updated kingdom rules is probably the weakest case.

It was popular, but the rules are *mostly* the same. If Kingmaker needs anything, it would be more direct hints and foreshadowing of what comes at the end.

While I would love to Second Darkness get updated, I agree with Kalindlara that it is because it *needs* more help than Curse of the Crimson Throne.

That said, Ultimate Intrigue, and especially whatever form the Vigilante takes, could become a springboard for a CotCT compilation (as the NPC Blackjack is exactly what the Vigilante is trying to model - a hero with a secret identity).

CotCT is based on 3.5. Its popularity makes it a stronger candidate to sell than Second Darkness or Legacy of Fire, which means it is likely the "best candidate" for a compilation. That it doesn't need as much work as Second Darkness would actually works to its advantage .. trying to do the Rise of the Runelords AE messed with Paizo's schedule significantly. The kind of re-work that Second Darkness would require would make it a larger undertaking than RotRL AE was, or than a CotCT AE wouid be.. and that works against it being a candidate. :(

As I said, I would most like to see Second Darkness, but I suspect that CotCT is more likely to be a viable choice.


Orthos wrote:
Karui Kage wrote:
Has there ever been anything that said their actual class was all wizard? I know that, thematically, they were all implied to be experts in their school, but I didn't see any reason not to take some liberties with that. :)

James Jacobs has said so repeatedly, yes. In 3.5 Karzoug had a prestige class or two, but in PF they're all straight-classed wizards.

But yeah as I said, if you're up for bending or breaking the canon, or don't play in Golarion, absolutely no reason to not retool them to something you consider more appropriate. Speaking completely personally I just think Sorcerer a better fit for her and Sorshen, for example.

Inner Sea Magic has capsule entries for Alaznist, Karzoug, Sorshen, and Xanderghul (each a specialist wizard - evoker, transmuter, enchanter, and illusionist, respectively, of level 20+)

Krune ...

Spoiler:
is statted up in PFS Scenario 4-26. The Waking Rune, and is a Thassilonian Conjurer 17.

As Orthos mentioned, James Jacobs has said in the past that all are Wizards. Karzoug is/was intended to be in the middle, with 3 stronger and 3 weaker Runelords.

There is also an article on the Runelords in Shattered Star vol 6, providing a 2-page history for each of the Runelords, though no stats.


If you are looking to expand, you can "steal" material from pieces of the Shattered Star AP (such as descriptions of Windsong Abbey and the Lady's Light), and some other modules (Seven Swords of Sin, the Godsmouth Heresy).

I especially am looking for ways to use the Rune Guardian from Godsmouth Heresy.


I am seeing it with Chrome, too.


I get what you're saying. I am just careful about terms :)

Depending on how you see Sandpoint's location inside the Kingdom Hex, much of the rest of the hinterlands could be part of the same hex.. in that case, your original mention of adding a new District that counts as part of Sandpoint would work.

If you plan to keep this using the Downtime rules (Teams/Buildings/ Rooms/Organizations) and not at the kingdom level, I would not worry about considering it an expansion to Sandpoint. The employees are not necessarily *new* population.. perhaps some of "Gorvi's Boys" were glad of the chance to become guards or lumberjacks, and similar cases. And the millers could be the owners and employees of the mills that were burned down.

In the end, that's all up to how you want to work it.

Also, you mentioned an adventure on Chopper's Isle... is that from Wayfinder #7, or your own creation? If it is your own, I would suggest getting Wayfinder #7 for the Hook Mountain area set up for the Exploration and Kingdom rules.


I have not tried it yet, but I am thinking allowing the special abilities priced as equivalent to enhancements (Priced as +1, +2, etc.) to be automatically active provided they don't exceed the attunement the character can apply.

So, if the PC has +2 attunement, a +2 blade with up to +2 "worth" of additional powers would be ok, but if the weapon had two +2 or a +1 and +2, the character would need to pick one until his/her attunement available was sufficient.

That's particularly easier than managing paying the costs, especially if the party wants to pass the weapons around among the characters.


I would avoid calling it the players' outpost. So close to Sandpoint, there doesn't seem to be a need for another settlement. An "outpost" of some sort, or even calling it a "manor" in the sense used in feudal fiefdoms, is probably more appropriate.

For the guards, such an "outpost" or "manor" may not be able to generate gold so far from the settlement (Sandpoint); you could rule that they can only be used to generate Labor or Influence (which will cost them gold to achieve). That might be more believable.

For an interesting treatment of the manorial system in game terms, "A Magical Medieval Society : Western Europe" from Expeditious Retreat Press is very good... it does not mesh with the Downtime or Kingdom rules from Ultimate Campaign, but you may be able to pull some ideas from it.


As I recall, they were invited in to provide security when there was a crisis of confidence in the government some years ago in-world.

Not everyone in Magnimar likes the situation, but there's no easy way to undo the invitation.


I am in a similar situation, as I am running Rise of the Runelords now as a Play-by-Email campaign. My players are nearing the end of Burnt Offerings at the moment.. and are deep in Thistletop. I used the Chopper's Isle adventure from Wayfinder #7, and they have begun to pay for the island.

So... remember that Sandpoint was started as a colony by Magnimar. It is really Magnimar that calls the shots, so I set up Sandpoint as a vassal "kingdom" to Magnimar for my uses. Of the four big families in Sandpoint, only the Kaijitsu family has no one in Magnimar. Really, the leaders of the families are in Magnimar, so even the nobles of Sandpoint are somewhat under their senior's control in that regard. That can make negotiations easier, or harder, depending on who the characters approach about it.

Making Sandpoint a vassal of Magnimar also allows the players to get more involved in the politics of Magnimar.

On the kindom level, the old locations of the other mills are potentially within the same "Kingdom Hex" as Sandpoint, and at that level Sandpoints' defenses are assumed to handle them as well. It is arguable that some of the locations may be in adjacent kingdom hexes, although given the 12-mile-across size of the Hexes, it seems less likely.. most of the Sandpoint Hinterlands fits in one or two hexes at that scale.

On the more personal Room/Building level, adding defenses is not a bad idea, and can be used to build up support against the expected goblin assaults, etc.

Blackmailing the Scarnettis could backfire, especially if there are Paladins in your group. Simply exposing them may have more long-term benefits in some ways.

If you want to do much with the Kingdom rules, I highly recommend Ultimate Rulership from Legendary Games. It adds some very interesting and flexible options to what is in Ultimate Campaign. If you want to do more with mass combat, as well, then Ultimate Battle, Ultimate War, and Ultimate Commander (all also from Legendary Games) may also be of interest to you.


Quandary wrote:
Urath DM wrote:
Unfortunately, I had a similar experience with Pathfinder Unchained, the Automatic Bonus Progression. In the Blog preview for magic items, there was a system that was not included in the final book (paying costs to enable secondary abilities in addition to the enhancement powered by attunement). When I presented that to the LoneWolf staff, they replied that "it's probably for an older version of the book".

Not clear what you're saying, that Herolab included functionality that was only in a Blog Preview/Beta, but not real book?

I mean, the answer to that is really "Oh, what older version would that be? There is only one printing/edition of the book."
Regardless, unless they are allowing people to optionally select different editions/errata version to use,
I would expect the product should reflect the most recent version/errata, period.

Sorry.. I thought i was clearer. The blog post contained an option that was not included in the book printing. Normally, the HeroLab team accepts Blog Posts as sources for corrections, but in this case it was dismissed as being based on an older, pre-release draft, despite the fact that Mark Seifter pointed me to it as the solution when I raised the problem.

Aside from that, your rant about HeroLab is unjustified. These are 2 incidents out of many. HeroLab is accurate in many cases where people report problems.. because the people mis-read or otherwise failed to "get" the rules text they were reporting.

It is not perfect by any means. There have been bugs, and there will be bugs in future releases. That's life with software. By and large, the HeroLab team at LoneWolf is receptive to reports, investigates them, and corrects them as quickly as they can manage. Some really complex issues have been pending for a long time, but overall they are very good at fixing things when they are reported. There is hardly a need to break out the pitchforks and torches. What is at issue is the expectation of a FAQ or Errata for this kind of problem; that's an unrealistic expectation that needs to be addressed, preferably by both Paizo and LoneWolf working out a better method for responding to such issues.


The Downtime and Kingdom rules are separate things in Ultimate Campaign.. the Teams, Organizations, Rooms, and Buildings are more "personal" scale projects than the Kingdom-level Districts and such. There is some overlap, but they are mostly separate things.

As written in the Rooms, Buildings, Teams, and Organizations section, such mills will come with staff, and if the players add guardrooms to them, basic guards. They can use the Team rules to upgrade and replace the included teams with better guards.

The District and other Kingdom-level actions would make more sense for the Sandpoint Mercantile League or Town Council to do... acting as the government for Sandpoint. Unless the players are interested taking up offices in the government, it would not be for them to do these kinds of actions - though they could certainly offer to help the Town Council do it.

The mills that were burned down were scattered over the countryside around the farmlands, not in Sandpoint itself.. one at Biston's Pond, another on Cougar Creek, and the third on the Soggy River. These locations were likely chosen to make it easier for the farmers to bring their crops to them instead of taking it all the way to Sandpoint. That is something to consider as well.


Thanks very much, especially for the quick response.. no need to rush on it.. September is fine. :)


Unfortunately, I had a similar experience with Pathfinder Unchained, the Automatic Bonus Progression. In the Blog preview for magic items, there was a system that was not included in the final book (paying costs to enable secondary abilities in addition to the enhancement powered by attunement). When I presented that to the LoneWolf staff, they replied that "it's probably for an older version of the book".

I think what is needed more than getting a FAQ is for the communication between LoneWolf and Paizo to be improved on some of these items. An easier way to get verification for LoneWolf would be best, I think.. and the PDT may need to be more pro-active in responding definitely when an issue with HeroLab is involved. Unless I am mistaken in my understanding that Paizo would like to use it internally, and it would be good for it to work correctly in that case.


I received most of the items in this order appropriately, but the Monster Codex Box (pawns) was not shipped, it appears. I received instead the PACG Wrath of the Righteous Deck 4.


First recommendation: Check out the free Wayfinder fanzine. Issue #7 has some games for the Swallowtail festival that you might want to include or borrow ideas from... as well as potential additional encounters and side-quests.

Second recommendation: Read through the threads in the Rise of the Runelords forum. There's a lot of information about where others have had problems, and solutions they've found, as well as added materials.


Nate Z wrote:
Grumpus wrote:

the download is not going to the correct place.

I found mine under "Paizo Inc.: Cheliax (2) "

Instead of under "Paizo Inc.: Pathfinder Adventure Path #97–102: Hell's Rebels (PFRPG) " (which is where the players guide is located).

Ah-ha! Thanks for posting this. I thought something went wrong with my order.

I find it easiest to sort the list by "Date Added to My Downloads" so that new stuff is always at the top. If you want to do this, click on the titles of the columns to sort by them.


Cort Odekirk wrote:
Pillbug Toenibbler wrote:
Cort Odekirk wrote:
We only implode Goblins.... mostly....
HEY!
Silly Goblin, next time read the consent form.....

Goblin? Read? Uhm...


Ravingdork wrote:
Will these be part of our map subscriptions, or will I need to order them separately?
Product Description wrote:


Note: Flip-Mat Classics are not included in the Pathfinder Maps subscription, but Pathfinder Maps subscribers who preorder them will receive a free PDF version of Pathfinder Flip-Mat Classics: Swamp when their subscription copy ships.


Jericho Graves wrote:
I haven't, but then, I was under the assumption that the date was an estimate and not a hardcoded answer.

It is.. shipping may start today (or not), but any particular person's place in the queue is fairly random. The shipping is spread over the next couple of weeks.


Quote:
conic Heroes Set IV includes seven all-new miniatures featuring legendary characters from the Pathfinder role-playing universe: Seltyiel, Feiya, Quinn, Reiko, Lem, Daji and Hayato! The Iconic Heroes is the latest set release in the award-winning Pathfinder Battles line of miniatures from Paizo Inc. and WizKids

There's an "I" missing from the first word, "Iconic", and this is set VI not IV in Roman Numerals.

Nice that there are 7 miniatures instead of 6 in this set. :)


Lune wrote:

So we are agreed? The PC can "force" his animal companion?

...boy we took the long way around that discussion. ;)

Absolutely, unequivocally, not.

Training does not "force" the creature to do anything. "Force" being measured on the scale of a compulsion magical effect that literally over-rides the normal behavior of the creature.

An animal trained through fear will obey as long as the threat of punishment remains real. As soon as that threat is removed, the animal will flee or turn on its abuser.

If you don't accept that, then we are coming at this from different assumptions, and just need to agree to disagree.


Lune wrote:

I am aware of those passages. Nowhere in them does it say a GM should disregard the Handle Animal skill. In fact, it states quite the opposite. If the animal knows a trick then you refer to the Handle Animal skill. If you pass your Handle Animal DC for a trick (whether pushing or having it complete a trick it knows), it does the trick.

Are you stating that the bit about "You can direct them using the Handle Animal skill, but their specific behavior is up to the GM." means "Disregard what the PC is trying to accomplish via the Handle animal skill and just have the creature do whatever you want because you are the GM and you can fiat anything you want."?

Let me try this again... since you are clearly reading more into what I said than I intended.

Under most circumstances, the animal will do as its master/handler directs, provided the appropriate skill checks are made, actions performed, etc.

Under unusual circumstances, such as when an abused animal has the opportunity to escape (or even to turn on its abuser), it is up the GM whether it does so or not. In such a case, the master can scream "Come" or "Heel" as much as desired... but if the GM judges that the animal has taken the course of escape.. too bad. That's the price of being an abusive master - no loyalty from the animal.


gustavo iglesias wrote:

I know the canon material for a few Runelords, how they survived and where they are trapped.

So, what about the other 3? Is there any canon, or hint, about how they survived, or where they are hidding? It's easy to suppose that Azlanist might be hidding below the Hollow Mountain, but that's not sure as far as I know. Also, I have no clue about how did she attain inmortality or survived the 10.000 years since the Earthfall.

Dungeons of Golarion describes Hollow Mountain (briefly.. like all the entries, it is more overview and 1 level than a complete level-by-level thing) and indeed puts Alaznist's refuge there... somewhere.


Lune wrote:
Yeah, I know where he is coming from too. I just have never been for punishing a player's character concept just because I do not personally like it. If it is within the rules I try to make sure they have a fun game, not remove class abilities because they do not jive with the iconic idealized concept trope that is cliched by the book, pop culture or anyone's personal opinions.

I think you're misreading me. I did not say that the abused animal would constantly refuse to obey, for example. What I said was that an abused animal is much more likely to flee from its master if it sees a chance. A well-treated Animal Companion (or animal in general) is likely to be more loyal and less eager to escape at the first chance.

In the case where an abused animal has a chance to escape, it will THEN ignore commands to "Come" or "Heel" in favor of escaping the abusive master.


Lune wrote:
Urath DM: And what rules would you be using to justify this? The AC would be ignoring it's master's commands ... because you say so? Even when the Handle Animal skill specifically contradicts this?
PRD, Ultimage Campaign, Campaign Subsystems, Companions, Aspects of Control wrote:
Nonsentient Companions: A nonsentient companion (one with animal-level intelligence) is loyal to you in the way a well-trained dog is—the creature is conditioned to obey your commands, but its behavior is limited by its intelligence and it can't make altruistic moral decisions—such as nobly sacrificing itself to save another. Animal companions, cavalier mounts, and purchased creatures (such as common horses and guard dogs) fall into this category. In general they're GM-controlled companions. You can direct them using the Handle Animal skill, but their specific behavior is up to the GM.

Note especially the last two sentences.

PRD, Ultimate Campaign, Campaign Subsystems, Companions, Issues of Control wrote:
Game Balance: Even a simple change like allowing players to directly control companions has repercussions in the game mechanics. For example, if a druid has complete control over an animal companion, there's no reason for her to put ranks in Handle Animal, freeing up those ranks for other valuable skills like Perception. If a wizard with a guard dog doesn't have to use a move action to make a Handle Animal check to have the dog attack, he has a full set of actions each round and a minion creature that doesn't require investing any extra time to "summon" it. If companion animals don't have to know specific tricks, the PC can use any animal like an ally and plan strategies (like flanking) as if the animal were much smarter than it actually is.

Note especially the last sentence.

These are two small parts of a larger section on Companions of all types... Eidolons, Animal Companions, Cohorts, etc.


Lune wrote:


Urath DM wrote:
I would not use "force" because the GM still runs the Animal Companion has a NPC. The GM may defer most control over to the Player, but still has the right (and duty) to say "no, the animal won't do something so suicidal"... so the AC will not ignore being frightened or panicked, for example, in order to obey a command. It is not "forced" to obey; it is "trained" to obey. If the master acts so egregiously against the animal companion, no amount of training will "force" it to come back if it gains its freedom. Training is not a magical compulsion.

Whether the compulsion is magical or not it works the same. You have to overcome a DC. The only difference is that the player rolls this rather than the defending creature. They, in fact, do not get a resistance to this. Whether you call it "forcing" or "training" them to obey it amounts to the same thing. If you beat your check the creature obeys your commands. The petty differences between the definitions of the words is moot as the result is the same.

I had a friend who played a Ranger with his first Favored Enemy being Animals. He treated them like tools to accomplish a task. He was more of the "cruel lion tamer" type rather than the "cuddle with my awesome animal companion" type. By your ruling it sounds like you wouldn't allow his concept. But, to be clear, there is nothing in the...

Then I am not conveying it properly. If a PC or NPC took the "cruel lion-tamer" approach, the animal would obey its training mostly... but the difference would be things like :


  • if the animal could save its master at the risk of its life, the one treated kindly is much more likely to do that

  • if the animal ever slipped any collar or bonds, the one treated badly would likely take the opportunity to escape and ignore any "come" command issued by the "cruel lion-tamer"; the one treated well is less likely to do that


Forseti wrote:
Why wouldn't you use the word "force"? It's what the trick does, no two ways about it.

I would not use "force" because the GM still runs the Animal Companion has a NPC. The GM may defer most control over to the Player, but still has the right (and duty) to say "no, the animal won't do something so suicidal"... so the AC will not ignore being frightened or panicked, for example, in order to obey a command. It is not "forced" to obey; it is "trained" to obey. If the master acts so egregiously against the animal companion, no amount of training will "force" it to come back if it gains its freedom. Training is not a magical compulsion.

Forseti wrote:
Assuming an animal will never have the wherewithal to move into a flanking position of its own volition just because there's a trick you can teach it that forces it to, that's the same as assuming a companion will never come towards its master of its own volition just because there's a trick you can teach it that forces it to. Neither assumption makes any sense at all, and in fact, neither are implied by the respective tricks.

Your assumption is misleading. You seem to be assuming "not trained to do something on command" = "will never do so on its own". Animals not trained to do specific tricks may well take similar or identical actions.. but the master may not make them do so.

An Animal Companion not trained to flank could still enter flanking position if ordered to Attack, and the flanking square happened to be the most direct route to make that attack.

That's the difference... an animal trained to Flank on command will seek out the flanking position specifically, while one not trained to do so may incidentally wind up there anyway.


Forseti wrote:
Urath DM wrote:
Outflank improves existing flanking bonuses; it says nothing about teaching the animal to identify an opportunity to flank in and of itself.

The flank trick doesn't say anything about that either. It only states how you can force an animal to flank. There's no language anywhere, explicit or implied, that deals with the animal's "trickless" behavior.

I wish people would just accept that there are no rules for how a GM chooses to play companions.

How did people manage when there was just the core rulebook?

I would not use the word "force". The Flank trick teaches the animal to flank on command or as directed.

From what I read in the blog post on the subject, interpretations could be very different depending on the GM. Some made Flanking an automatic part of the animal's behavior; some assumed that taking a feat like Outflank automagically taught the animal to flank as well; some required pushing the animal; and so on. The existence of the Flank trick helps standardize the interpreration.. and I agree with Mergy's request in the blog discussion that the expanded list of tricks should be posted to something generally accessible, like the PRD, for broader visibility and acceptance.


HellFire442 wrote:
Hmm, I have the Paizo RotRL Pawn Collection PDF that I printed for my use. I might take those and make named NPC and vilian images with a round border.. Would I be violating a copywrite or anything if it was uploaded here?

I am not a lawyer, but since posting them anywhere to share would be re-distributing altered artwork that you do not own the copyright to.. yes, that would be a violation.


Forseti wrote:

Flank {DC 20): You can instruct an animal to attack a foe you point to and always attempt to be adjacent to (and threatening) that foe. If you or an ally is also threatening the foe, the animal attempts to flank the foe, if possible. It always takes attacks of opportunity. The animal must know the attack trick before it can learn this trick.

That's not what I want a companion to do. It also doesn't imply anything about what a companion wouldn't do of its own volition. A companion with Outflank can spot an opening when it's flanking with its master, and it can't spot that opening a from few feet away? Preposterous.

Outflank improves existing flanking bonuses; it says nothing about teaching the animal to identify an opportunity to flank in and of itself.

Outflank wrote:
Benefit: Whenever you and an ally who also has this feat are flanking the same creature, your flanking bonus on attack rolls increases to +4. In addition, whenever you score a critical hit against the flanked creature, it provokes an attack of opportunity from your ally.

Note that it begins with a condition that you and an ally are already flanking a creature.


Devilkiller wrote:
I don't like the fact that the Flank trick specifies that an animal companion moving into flank must always take AoOs though.

Do you think this means it always moves in the most direct manner, regardless of provoking attacks of opportunity along the way?

I read it as "the animal will attack other foes through attacks of opportunity, if available".


After I posted my question, I ran across this Blog post on the topic:

Animals and their Tricks


As has been mentioned, the player doesn't get to decide how many rolls or what type are allowed. That's for the GM to decide.. and, as mentioned, only one might be appropriate, especially for random sites. If you don't have something prepared for "THIS Knowledge result gets THAT information.." then there could well be nothing there to know.

It is *possible* the player is thinking of (or along the same lines as) the "Expanded Skill Uses" in Pathfinder Unchained. There are some additional skill "tasks" there that might be what he's looking for.. but, it is still all up to the GM.


I'm wondering what a Dhampir is doing with Tusked... a feat that requires the character to be an Orc or Half-Orc.

Did he take the required Weapon Focus in Bite, in order to take Feral Combat Training?

The Feat partially-quoted is from the Advanced Race Guide. There, the Dhampir's option for gaining the ability to bite is to trade his spell-like abilities for the "Fanged" Alternate Racial Trait, which allows you to deal a small bite when you deal grappling damage.

Overall, the entire chain of abilities seems to be built on shaky ground. Tusked is not a Dhampir option, and the Dhampir option does not give a bite attack that could be used in a Flurry of Blows or with Feral Combat Training.


Token Resources:

Devin Night has made his first 20 token packs free. Search for "Devin Night" on Roll20, and you will find a variety there. These free tokens are his earlier works, and are not quite correctly scaled (visually) for what you might expect. For example, goblins look the same size as Medium creatures. The packs do include things like some animals, camp scenes, bodies, as well as characters and a few townsfolk (not enough to give everyone in Sandpoint a unique token, though).

On his site, he has a couple of free token packs with Pathfinder characters. These were made on commission for paying customers who have agreed to make them available to the public. Gogmurt, Koruvus, Ameiko, Shalelu, and more are there.

His kickstarter included a good number of basic monsters.

Many of the other packs are probably available through Roll20's marketplace. I prefer to buy direct from Devin Night's site, so I can use them in multiple places.

You could also choose to pick up some of the Pathfidner Paper Minis here on Paizo's site. There is a Sandpoint townsfolk set in addition to the sets for each part of the AP. You could extract the images and with a little cropping make full-face tokens out of them for your own use.


There is the "Faction Guide" which extends the concept of factions to home play. In that, the Pathfinders are just one single Faction, while other groups (Aspis Consortium, Whispering Way, various churches, etc.) are others.

They use the same mechanics as PFS, but are not part of organized play.

There are also various Faction-lite organizations in Inner Sea Magic (Guilds, Schools), Inner Sea Combat (Gladiator Arenas, Martial Academies), and Occult Mysteries (Secret Societies) that use a modified version of the same mechanics.

I find the Faction Guide and related materials useful for letting the PCs participate in factional politics in my home games without worrying about the PFS factions.


Rednal wrote:

*Glances in*

As a personal note, uh, I probably wouldn't refer to two books, plus sidequests, as an 'Adventure Path'. At the moment, this sounds closer to being an "Extended Two-part Adventure", especially if you're not starting at Level 1 or 2 and going all the way up.

Agreed. This sounds more like a marketing stunt than an actual Adventure Path.


Thank you all for your input.

For the record, I am the GM and asked the question in fairness to a player who feels the free feat should also imply that the animal automatically knows how to flank on command.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Inner Sea Magic contains some goodies on Razmir (class and level, an archetype for his priests, etc.) that help to explain his rise to prominence.

The Cult Leader Mesmerist archetype in Occult Adventures has "Razmir" written all over it, for me. I could see Razmir being ret-conned into one.


My Self wrote:
You get bonus tricks as part of Animal Companion progression. 1 at 1st level, 2 at 3rd, 3 at 6th, 4 at 7th, 5 at 9th, 6 at 12th, 7 at 13th, 8 at 15th, 9 at 18th, 10 at 19th.

Yes, but the question is "do you have to use one of those to teach the AC to flank, or does having the Outflank feat as a bonus selected here include the AC knowing how to flank when needed?"


Cavall wrote:
Entirely relevant as you gain teamwork feats for free.

Not relevant as that is a different class ability than the one being discussed.


Thanks, but the question is raised in the context of the Class Feature that offers the Outflank and Precise Shot feats as options. Other feats, even if possibly better choices, are not relevant to the question.


2 people marked this as FAQ candidate.
Advanced Class Guide, Hunter, Precise Companion wrote:


Precise Companion (Ex): At 2nd level, a hunter chooses either Precise Shot or Outflank as a bonus feat. She does not need to meet the prerequisites for this feat. If she chooses Outflank, she automatically grants this feat to her animal companion as well.

Does the granting of the Outflank feat's benefits to the Animal Companion assume that the Animal Companion knows how to flank with the Hunter, or is it up to the master to maneuver into flanking position?

Must the Hunter train the Animal Companion to flank in order to do it on command (using the "Flank" trick from the Animal Archive or "Other Trick")?


Low-Light vision says you can see twice as far as a human in the same lighting conditions. So the torch that provides a 20 ft radius of normal light and an additional 20 ft ring (out to 40 ft from the source) of dim light for a human provides 40 ft of normal light and dim light out to 80 ft for someone with low-light vision.

THAT can be incredibly useful in an adventure where the ambient light is "none" (like most dungeon settings).

Most PC-available Darkvision is 60 ft. What is murky about that is Dim light. Pretty clearly you see normally in "normal" light, and see clearly in monochrome out to 60 ft if there's no light. But it is not clear how it is affected by Dim light.

Reference: PRD; scroll down to "Vision and Light", there's text under the table that goes into this.

My peeve with the lighting rules is that they are written pretty solely from the perspective of someone standing with a light source (torch, lantern, etc.).. and not from the perspective of something lurking in the dark, where that light source makes the bearer a target.


Joe Hex wrote:

It's frustrating that I still can't find an in-store released date for the book anywhere. Everyplace I check, has a different release date listed, and those dates are constantly changing. Some don't have a date at all. As of this week, I've seen Aug 20th, Aug 18th, and Aug 13th. I wonder where they are even getting those dates?

Is July 29th exclusive to the Paizo store? If so,it makes it hard on us players who want to support the local hobby/game shops. Not only are those shops owned locally, they are also the places that host things like organized play, and even let a group reserve a night just to play with their own group. It would be sad to see these stores accommodate Gamers like that, and then have all those players just end up buying their books online. It's hard enough that small stores cannot compete with online prices, but getting their books almost a month later makes things worse.

The listed PDF release date is also the expected store release date. All stores are supposed to wait until this date... though some may put it up for sale early.

Local stores in the US should all have the book in time for the release date, unless their distributor ships to them oddly, etc. That's not under Paizo's control.

Amazon and other sellers sometimes estimate their release dates when their distributors have not given them the firm date, often well in advance of the final date. So sometimes those dates are far from accurate.


langen wrote:

Yeah, there's alot here if you can find it. One of the ways of making a town come alive is to have different people walking about different parts of town, chatting with friends, buying stuff, selling stuff, flirting with girls, etc. Sandpoint becomes "dead" when it's still. So the people about doing stuff is quasi-important. Oh, and rumors really help too. So when the AP says there's rumors about, have people in town gossiping about whatever it is. And exaggerate and change them as you go along so they act like real rumors do. Case in point, Banny and Katrine. Have the rumors go the gamut of the innocent to the extremely raunchy, depending on who's telling it.

Don't forget Gorvi's Boys.. the local garbage/trash collectors.. they can be out and about at all hours, and are likely "invisible" to the main populace.. so they have probably seen or heard a lot of interesting things.


Some GMs just don't allow Leadership at all, because of potential abuses and odd things that can happen. As a relatively new GM, you'd be perfectly within your rights to say "we're not using leadership in this campaign". Similarly, if you think it would be disruptive, you can say "no" for that reason as well.

Also, if there are 5 PCs, there is less need for additional help (since the AP was designed with 4 in mind). The more PCs you have over 4, the less need there is for Leadership.

IF you do decide to allow Leadership, read up on it.

Older versions of the rules used to restrict Followers to NPC classes (Warriors, Adepts, Aristocrats, Experts, and Commoners); I don't see that in the current write-up, but they are still "generally 5 or more levels below" the leader, so claiming a 4th or 5th level Follower at 7th level seems out of bounds.

Some of the factors he's counting on for his super-leadership score are not really his to decide. "Great Renown" ... would likely mean being famous beyond Sandpoint (such as in Magnimar and other cities and towns around Varisia).

Treating Cohorts as "crafter slaves" is one of the potential abuses. Remembeer that the Cohorts and Followers are "people" too, and they can reject unreasonable demands. Note that the modifier for Reputation (Great Renown, Fairness and Generosity) are the opinions of the Cohort and Followers.. not necessarily the general public. If word gets around that he's a terrible boss, or a great boss, that's what this is about. He probably shouldn't be able to "buy" that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Are they prolific enough that a one-click "flag as spam thread" link, like the hide link, is warranted?


I think Leadership is a good example. "The Party" taking Leadership and getting one (shared) Cohort and (shared) group of Followers might be easier to manage than multiple PCs having them.

It somewhat goes along with having a "Group Reputation" (Ultimate Campaign)... and treating "the party" as a quasi-character type of thing goes along with the Kingdom, Caravan, and Expedition type rules.


Haladir wrote:

Many of us have re-built several NPCs and villians using rules published after the AP had hit the shelves. I'd like to use this thread to share that work in one place.

Obviously, this thread will abound with spoilers, so players should stay away.

Nice. I saw the thread title and was about to suggest the same thing.

1 to 50 of 791 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.