Really? Because you would think that if any party succeeded, there would be record of it somewhere. As far as the dudes as FrogGod know, their dungeon is STILL UNDEFEATED.
And YES the point of ANY dungeon IS to complete it. Its a beast to be conquered. If its unwinnable then it merely becomes a training simulator.
And its impossible to kill a god without another god.
It cant be called the grand"Daddy" if its the 3rd iteration. It goes father->son->grandson. This is the GrandSON of all dungeons.
I would call this edition of Rappan Athuk, the mean, nasty, serial mass-murdering bastidge-child of Le Tomb.
Through all the play-testing and whatnot of the people who designed this thing and KNEW all the stuff that was in here... (the people with the maps and the cheat-codes) Is this even POSSIBLE to survive until the end? Was the original even possible to survive?
Because, if 20th level characters kitted out in +10 armor/weapons with magic crap in every slot cant make it through the last level of the dungeon... then really, I'm beginning to wonder what's the point? If its completely 100% impossible...
Allegedly there are UNkillable monsters in this. As far as I knew, the only monsters that couldnt be permanently slain were the Tarrasque, and the 4(5) Horsemen.(Top tier daemons)
What's not official? The fact that a bunch of posters dont know the rules better than you do? -Because that's how that reads.
But lemme get this straight... A dev posting on the MB, isnt official?
Chris Lambertz wrote:
Removed a post. Please revisit the messageboard rules.
Hey Chris, if you've read enough of this thread to "moderate" someone's post... maybe, Would you mind terribly if I could perhaps impose upon you to toss your 2 cents into this little discussion? Or maybe poke the right people? Pretty please?
I dont know where all you guys came up with the idea that this might be personal problem, or even a relationship problem.
I'm not even the one who wanted a barbarian rogue, nor did I create one.
They mentioned their problem on our Facebook group and I simply looked into it. I discussed it with the GM in question and showed them that the rules disagreed with him and he is using both the "Table variance" rule in the PFS rulebook and the "vague wording" of the CRB to get away with it.
Simple as that.
I'd just like to point out the Shadow Lodge players are advocating keeping the GMs and VCs in line :D
LOL Appropriately so, and ironic?
I would also like to mention that it wasnt me who is trying to do this combo, I just like to stand up for the players who are smart enough to come up with stuff like this. If you can break the game using ONLY the core rule book which is fairly well balanced... then I salute you and support your right to do so. Especially if its PFS legal.
None taken. In fact, I asked him to get on the message board and present his case in his own words so that he isnt being misquoted or misinterpreted. He refused in either case saying that the opinions of a bunch of nerds is irrelevant anyway since he wont accept anything less than the word of the Paizo team and he wont get involved in a pointless discussion.
I sent Mike an email. I would also like to point out that it is MORE THAN ONE GM making this call. (Although part of me thinks it may have started with one GM deciding this and the other 2 decided it was a good idea and decided to follow suit.)
I tried to argue that the sneak attack wasnt based off of a skill check and therefore required neither patience nor concentration. The GM said that "if Paizo MEANT that things requiring patience or concentration entailed skill checks then they would have SAID something to that effect, either in the rules or an errata or something"
It boils down to- "He has never liked that you COULD do that, not in 3.0 or 3.5 where they explicitly said you COULD." So, he is pretty much taking advantage of the fact that Paizo left it vague, so he could disallow it.
He also doesnt like the way they changed facing and how sneak attack works, but that's an issue for another day.
I did post on the pfs forum. And yes, I did point out that it feels like theyre just mad because someone would be one-shotting the encounters otherwise, and this is their attempt to soften the blow.
(I mentioned haste+ enlarge person+ bull's strength+ kinetic reverberation on the raging half-orc barbarian with cleave and surprise follow through, becoming the cuisinart of doom and making everything into a fine red mist)
Their logic behind this-(aside from the B.S. "nuh-uh/yeah-huh" circular logic crap of "It doesn't say its allowed either") -comes from their trying to inject reality and its more of a "fluff" reason than anything relating to the actual rules. They say that, "You are too delirious with rage that your only thought is to keep hitting it til its dead." He thinks that you dont have the presence of mind to be able to "aim for the sweet spot". Does this mean you can't fire a bow either?
So, my main thought is... You can't just disallow crap because YOU think it "doesn't make sense". But... they won't take my word for it, or the words of other random folks who happen to agree with me.
Doomed Hero wrote:
Well, 3 out of 5 GMs said, "There is also nothing anywhere saying, you can do this EITHER." I tried to remind them of the stand that gaming companies generally had regarding ambiguity (The "can vs can't" rule) and that CAN generally supersedes CAN'T. That didn't go over too well unfortunately.
Their argument basically boils down to: "Its vague; therefore open to interpretation; therefore I'm the GM and my ruling stands, and I said No."
It seems that PFS GMs (in my region) seem to be rather conservative when it comes to things like this. "If a rule or ability doesn't specifically say "you CAN" do or have a specific thing- they deny it outright, even if the rules don't forbid whatever it was you wanted or tried to do.
There is a barbarian rogue in PFS who has questioned several GMs in Society and has gotten mixed answers about this. The rules don't say he can't. Some GMs say yes, others say No. The argument against is that it requires clarity of thought to perform precision damage.
The following is copied from the "Rage" section on the Barbarian page on Paizo's PRD:
While in rage, a barbarian gains a +4 morale bonus to her Strength and Constitution, as well as a +2 morale bonus on Will saves. In addition, she takes a –2 penalty to Armor Class. The increase to Constitution grants the barbarian 2 hit points per Hit Dice, but these disappear when the rage ends and are not lost first like temporary hit points. While in rage, a barbarian cannot use any Charisma-, Dexterity-, or Intelligence-based skills (except Acrobatics, Fly, Intimidate, and Ride) or any ability that requires patience or concentration.
A barbarian can end her rage as a free action and is fatigued after rage for a number of rounds equal to 2 times the number of rounds spent in the rage. A barbarian cannot enter a new rage while fatigued or exhausted but can otherwise enter rage multiple times during a single encounter or combat. If a barbarian falls unconscious, her rage immediately ends, placing her in peril of death."
The following is copied from the "Sneak Attack" section on the Rogue page on Paizo's PRD:
The rogue's attack deals extra damage anytime her target would be denied a Dexterity bonus to AC (whether the target actually has a Dexterity bonus or not), or when the rogue flanks her target. This extra damage is 1d6 at 1st level, and increases by 1d6 every two rogue levels thereafter. Should the rogue score a critical hit with a sneak attack, this extra damage is not multiplied. Ranged attacks can count as sneak attacks only if the target is within 30 feet.
With a weapon that deals nonlethal damage (like a sap, whip, or an unarmed strike), a rogue can make a sneak attack that deals nonlethal damage instead of lethal damage. She cannot use a weapon that deals lethal damage to deal nonlethal damage in a sneak attack, not even with the usual –4 penalty.
The rogue must be able to see the target well enough to pick out a vital spot and must be able to reach such a spot. A rogue cannot sneak attack while striking a creature with concealment.
IT'S NOT TOO EASY, AND KILLING CHARACTERS ISNT THE POINT!
When you die in pfs, you cant just roll up a new character (same level or one below) and rejoin the party. Getting rezzed is way harder, and getting another character levelled up to where you were becomes exponentially more difficult. Because you can only replay a handful of level 1 scenarios and once you are level 2...you cant replay anything for credit. Good luck finding a group to help you out with this...
Character death should only happen if the player acts like a complete moron or if the dice really hate you that day. Or RARELY, If a player heroically sacrifices themselves for the good of all.
If the GM wants to kill a player every week or every month or prides himself on party wipes... Then DONT PLAY WITH THAT GM!
YES IT HAS. People who write scenarios for Paizo try to come up with the deadliest crap possible because they see it as a contest to see who can kill the most players the fastest and they constantly try to "out-do" all the other scenarios that came before. Then the players try to come up with the "most broken" character concept they can get away with in an effort to merely SURVIVE the scenario. And then the writers have to come up with something MORE deadly to try to kill these min-maxxed broken characters.
Its become such that you can't design a character based on flavor or RP, because that type of character will get obliterated before they see level 2. If you want to make it to max level, you HAVE TO be an uber-munchkin or else you wont make it.
Hey can we get a dev or mod or somebody of authority to rule on this? Mike? Mark? Umm...(who else....?)
Anyway, This has come up SEVERAL TIMES, MANY TIMES in Pathfinder Society and GMs have been rather fickle on this topic. Some GMs say its fine, other GMs say "No." because they dont think it makes sense that you would be able to slice a throat or shiv a kidney while you are "frothing at the mouth" enraged. According to RAW, you can. But... the GM is arguing that it doesnt explicitly say you can or cant, so he is ruling in favor of "nerf" the barbarian.
So, for the sake of PFS (and some home games...)
Yes or No?
Somewhere I remember (at least in 3.x) that there were rules for making alignment "checks" when a character performed either a majorly evil act or enough small infractions to sufficiently annoy the GM. I think it was a will save or something? Or in some cases- the character's deity visiting them in a dream and "testing them". And each time you were asked to roll for alignment check, you were given and ever increasing penalty until you failed.
Can anyone tell me where I can find the rules for "alignment checks"? I've googled around for about an hour and all I can find is the stupid trivia quiz.
Try again please. The only thing that needed changing was the Hit Die and the requirement of the constitution skill ranks. OP didn't need to rewrite the whole fricken thing.
The BaB/HD should be in line with the Magus class from UC.Obviously the skill requirement goes away (since there is no concentration skill)
The only thing I might change is the "Special requirement", I would modify it to say the following:
I'm not gonna waste a bunch of time explaining to you guys how you could spread abilities out and swap out core abilities to make it a balanced 20 level class. But believe me when I say its doable. In fact, I have some ideas and I plan to work on it later later.
I also want to mention that it would be just as easy to create an alchemist archetype that does what a Blood Magus does. Altho I would remove the scarification ability (for alchemist) because it doesnt make sense for the Alchemist concept.
1) The part where it says your victim must be helpless or unaware of you is wrong and just plain dumb. Because, how many films have we seen where person A is seducing person B and then SURPRISE! garrote happens.
2) If you have a wire garrote, it should deal 1 point of damage (+strength) every round you maintain the garrote. Heck...there should be something like a wire garrote specifically for that reason.
3) WTF happened to the locking garrote? If anyone has ever seen the Dr. Phibes movies, they would have seen one and know what it is. There was a locking garrote in WotC Song& Silence book, and I would LOVE to see it brought back.
Dear OP, There is way more discussion about this than there should be.
Elves reach physical maturity at around 20-30 but- in the care of elves they take longer to reach mental maturity because they are not presented with as much hardship as humans. Since elves are nearly immortal- Elven parents can take much longer to shelter their young. Elven communities are very safe (compared to humans) and they spend far more time exploring the wonders of life. (picking berries, making kites, etc...)
Elves raised by humans have much harsher lives and its sort of like a child who grows up in poverty and has an abusive childhood...The kids that have to raise their younger siblings at age 10(because their parents cant or dont) will mature at an accelerated rate out of necessity.
NO, WE ARE NOT SPENDING 20 YEARS IN DIAPERS. THAT'S JUST RETARDED.
it is considered Arcane.
Is that an official ruling? Or just your opinion? (albeit shared by many)Because you are technically channeling positive energy- as in holy, as in divine. If its considered arcane then there should be a mention of it in the description either under bard or under the cure wounds spell(s).
Like, maybe a bard uses time magic or something to reverse the body to an unwounded state or speed up the metabolism to make you heal faster. Or the bard uses arcane powers to gather the inherent divine energy from the land or the living forces all around us and concentrates it into healing power? Unlike the other healers who get it directly from the source.
In any case, I'm gonna need a link to where the official ruling is (if there is one) because after going over the CRB with a fine-tooth comb and magnifying glass- I cant find a single thing about bard cure spells being arcane. In fact, by RAW bards cast both arcane and divine without multiclassing or any fancy tweaking.
What about succeeding at one skill check to give a temporary boost to another? Like, a successful knowledge tactics roll would give you a +1 to hit. Or- a successful perform check might give a +2 to diplomacy or bluff? Or a successful bluff check might give a boost to sleight of hand?
But- What I wanna know, is how a heal check stacks with either of those spells. During a normal 8hours, you get double your hp with a successful heal check- so... I guess, you treat an 8hour sleep+heal check like full bedrest +healcheck. but if you do full bedrest with restful sleep and heal check...how much hp is that?
Should we just assume that a heal check + full bedrest while under restful sleep will heal you from 1hp to full no matter what? (for simplicity's sake) Unless youre level 20 and a barbarian with 22 con and have over 1k hp then maybe we would do napstack with full bedrest and a heal check...
Note the following: "In addition, if creatures continue to sleep or rest beyond the initial 2 hours, every additional 2 hours counts as a day of rest for the purpose of recovering hit points, ability damage, as well as for enduring diseases, poisons, or other afflictions. This means 8 total hours of sleep counts as 4 days for natural healing and for saving throws as diseases or similar afflictions run their course."
I would say that they would stack for the duration of the sleep. For reference-you would not gain twice your hp from sleeping for 2 hours in other words. They would work in tandem. After 8 hours, you get twice your hp + whatever hp you would gain from 4 days of sleep. (4x level)
Realistically tho- you would be better off casting those spells on different people. You can only be affected by napstack once a week- so one person would get a napstack and keep watch all night while everyone else got a full night's rest (with heal checks all around) then the next night, its someone else's turn.
I was just thinking more like- it levitates, no higher than 10ft and can teleport to its master once per day at higher levels. (like the magus's black blade) And maybe...it can hold an indefinite number of spells since it would be a magical item- it might have an extra-dimensional space to hold unlimited pages. I'd still have to pay the normal amount of gold to scribe them of course... and perhaps that could be part of the items personality? It hungers for knowledge so you have to feed it a new spell once a week or something? or anytime it discovers that you found a spell- it harasses you until you learn it.
I'd pay 2k for something like this and the improved familiar feat.
Erik Day wrote:
this Agrippa- is it in the bestiary? is it a demon? or an object (intelligent item)?
So unless there is something published that does this- My thought is- Take Improved Familiar feat, purchase or craft a homunculus in the shape of a binder/bookcover thing...insert blank pages and voila! Stats-wise it would speak common and one language of the caster's choosing, and give you +2 to Knowledge Arcana (or Spellcraft at DM discretion)
True necro was from the Liber Mortis (libris mortis in older prints) and is not on the OGL licence. Only the core rulebooks are under that license.
AEG published a book called "UNDEAD" which I've discovered is "Libris Mortis" reprinted almost verbatim- with all the names of everything changed. (go look- most of the mechanics are the same)
Anyway- can someone post a link to this mysterious White Necromancer?
Also if anyone else has any ideas of prestige classes which play to the strengths of the Necromancy school (or life subschool) please let me know and I would be very grateful.
I see KQ and all I can think is...Kings Quest? (can you link this white necromancer?)
Btw, Icyshadow- Everything that is in the Pathfinder Core Rulebook came out of the D&D player's handbook and Dungeonmaster's guide. I'm fairly certain that's all copyrighted as well. WotC didn't close the door on OGL until after 4th ed and the "class books" which True Necromancer and all the other really awesome stuff came out of- (Tome and Blood, Sword and Fist, etc) were all 3.0 content. So, I'm fairly certain that the reason it wasn't reprinted was because Paizo was only interested in polishing 3.5, not converting all the old stuff. Which is understandable considering that was ALOT of ground to cover. Even WotC didnt bother to reprint everything they created for 3.0.
So, it would seem that Paizo has not bothered to convert/reprint anything along the lines of the Necromancer prestige class. (On that note, they didnt reprint very much of anything outside the prestige classes in the 3.5 DMG)
I had hoped to find the old "True Necromancer" somewhere among Paizo content, without having to convert something from 3.5 (or worse, from 3.0)
I want to play a wizard that can replace all energy-based spells with either positive or negative energy.
Ye olde popular examples: Holy fireball, or Black Magic missile
Justin Riddler wrote:
Feather Token Whip (Core; 500gp) - STILL shuts down casters! I've seen this be the bane of a party caster in tier 1-2 and in tier 10-11... this IS the secret monsters & BBEGs know that the players aren't using!!!! ** spoiler omitted **
That sounds AMAZING! Except....Just one problem- It still costs 500g.Still unaffordable at character creation, and assuming you survive your first scenario-AND it happens to be on that chronicle sheet- There goes ALL your gold, unless you spend 1PP on it.(which still assumes you survived your first scenario)
I only hope that its reusable...
The other 2 items...If you have darkvision then you dont need the elixir
Nevermind that you'll be level 2 by the time you can afford the elixir and @1200g for a consumeable? Only in non-pfs games would you do that, because its far easier to get money where you arent capped by a chronicle.
and as for the amulet...if you really feel you need it? At minimum you might be able to scrape together the money if you dont buy anything until level 3.
I clicked on this thread hoping it might contain a gold nugget of invaluable information with regards to surviving subtier 1-2 of a tier 1-7 scenario. Alas my bubble was burst, and hopes were dashed.
Instead, I discovered the "nugget" to be of another type- a foul smelling sort of nugget. A nugget perhaps left behind by some powerful and sadistic creature?
Sure there was a passable idea or 2... but it was akin to finding a silver dollar in a pile of (see previously mentioned metaphor)
Anyways...most of those items are not affordable at character creation and by the time you can afford those items- you are at a point where you dont need them and are far less likely to die. (i.e. not level 1) I'm thinking that level 1 newbies should stick to the "intro to first steps" and level 1 vets should jump into 6 man tables (as the 7th person) at Tier 2-4 or 3-4 and find somewhere to hide when combat happens for the gold boost. (or play pregens to add the T1 chronicle to it)
Is there perhaps a survivability 99? You know...for newly created level 1s? (if you understand how college courses are numbered... 99=remedial course)
TL:DR - The OP was not helpful to new characters where surviving level 1 is the most difficult thing to do.
Akeela Valerian, the Wolf wrote:
OMG! I created a monster. Lol! You guys have completely derailed this thread. This wasnt supposed to be a philosophical debate about sex, drugs, and violence in games and their effects on impressionable youth. This isnt about kids at the gaming table or anything to do with how their parents raise them.
This thread is about whether or not drugs can be available as buyable goods. Particularly, if they appear in a scenario. I understand that you cannot buy them via faction or between scenarios because the Pathfinder society by-laws (as per seeker of secrets) evidently forbids it. However, if you do it on the down-low and dont let your superiors find out... Surely you can buy it during a scenario if its written in the module that you come across it?
As I said- please link me to where it says a user may not have multiple accounts.
If the scenario is listed under a different PFS# attached to a different email/(first and last)name etc... Especially if I call myself by that different name while I am playing it at a table... it may as well be a different person. Each account will have only played it once.
In regards to tactics, the tactics listed should be a guide, not mandatory. This game is awesome because it's flexible and there doesn't have to be a script. The opponents tactics should reflect this.
I quite agree and I would LOVE to believe you. I got into huge arguments trying to convince GMs to scale down the tactics.Except, from what I'm hearing- it IS a script and the tactics- (I've been told repeatedly) ARE mandatory.