amethal's page

Any idea when the print version is going to be available on Amazon UK? It doesn't seem to be there at the moment.

One of my players is currently going through Rise of the Runelords with his other group.

I'm certainly not going to let that stop me running the anniversary edition when it comes out.

Having said that, both I and his other GM are compulsive tinkerers, so there are likely to be some major differences between the two campaigns even if they started off as the same adventure path.

Agreed. The first Kickstarter project I ever funded met it's funding on March 21, 2010. While the most recent updated DID finally give a fairly substantial preview PDF, the fact that it's taken TWO YEARS to get there is pretty horrible.

The delays have been far from ideal, but I'm sure the project will get there in the end.

However, the other Kickstarter project I supported at more or less the same time (edit 16 March 2010) is almost definitely vapourware.

(Its not an issue with the great guys at Frog God, but as far as I can see Kickstarter gives you no protection whatsoever if the project achieves its funding but the people behind it never deliver the promised product.)

I added Ilvarandin to my Night Below campaign.

It fitted in really well with the changes I had previously made to the campaign when I converted it.

I have a print copy. I seem to remember that I bought it from the Mongoose site.

It's a shame there weren't more printed, as it is an excellent book.

Odraude wrote:

There was a time when people respected the DM?

Yes! It was an age of high adventure!

A time before the dreaded race of the Rules-Lawyer was spawned. Some sages say they came to the Prime Material plane from an extra dimensional rift from some unknown realm.

Well, the first edition AD&D DMG talks about rules lawyers, even if it doesn't quite call them that.

From what I can tell, all that happened was that giants were turned from Giant to humanoid when they did away with giant as a type. Giant type in 3.5 was basically identical to Humanoid (d8, 3/4BAB, one good save, 2+int skill points).

So, did Pathfinder change Giants or did they keep them the same? They kept them the same but eliminated an unneeded major distinction between Giant and Humanoid and placed giant into a subtype.

However, placing them as humanoid has altered what will affect them spellwise. I do not see a problem with this as I have always thought 3.5 giants were kinda screwy since they are just overgrown humanoids and yet they are immune to anything that is humanoid only. Now that is no longer the case is all.

- Gauss

On the other hand, making them monstrous humanoids would have given them a boost to their BAB, which could have been a nasty surprise for some poor party of adventurers.

In my opinion trolls, at least, seem more like monstrous humanoids than they do humanoids.

However, I think people's complaints are more to do with hit dice than with giants as such; maybe a better approach would be to put a hit dice cap on hold person and (maybe) charm person rather than have them only affect humanoids, but affect all humanoids?

That's odd - they've probably misplaced the box knowing my luck. If you place the order, it might prompt them to find it! Keep me up to date; if you are in the UK I can always send a copy direct.

They are now giving me an estimated delivery date of 4 May, so looks like they have resolved whatever problem they had.

As a means to bring an end to the Round Table it's pretty effective, and in a darker version of the story, I could see it being a magical trick by Morgan and her sisters.

I seem to remember that in Marion Zimmer Bradley's "The Mists of Avalon", that's pretty much the case.

Just tried to order the print version on Amazon UK.

It is showing as temporarily out of stock - hopefully it is only temporary, as I've been looking forward to this one for a while!

Prone shooter made me smile, thanks to this gem from (I think) OgreBattle over at the Gaming Den. That is no small thing in this cruel world of ours.

Let me tell you about Feats. A specific Feat. A Specific Feat from Paizo’s Ultimate Combat for Pathfinder.

This Feat is Prone Shooter. Let me tell you what Prone Shooter does.

It puts you into the mindset of The Prone Shooter. You go prone, you lie prone, you are thinking “I am a Prone Shooter” and you shoot with all the clarity Prone gives to the Prone Shooter.

Your buddy glances at your character sheet. He sees “Prone Shooter”, he knows "damn, that guy, he is a Prone Shooter, I better watch out when he falls prone, he still shoots!"

Yeah, that’s damn right, it’s On Your Character Sheet.

You didn’t even need to say anything, that’s real roleplaying right there, it’s dialog without dialog like a gritty western, very thematic.

Sure, you might have imitators, that guy over there might also be prone and shooting, but you know what? He’s just prone and shooting, he’s not a Prone Shooter, it’s not on his character sheet. What he does is mundane. What you do, it’s a heroic FEAT.

For roleplaying immersion, it’s a world of difference. But some min/maxing goon wouldn’t understand (kick them out of your table, IMMEDIATELY or they turn your campaign into an Videogame)

It was clarified in a thread by James; don't feel like necroing. It's linked somewhere in the One Synth to rule them all line.

And yes, Rejuv / heal work as if separate; your HP heal, you have to use Rejuv to get the temps back.

Thanks, I was hoping that would be in the errata but it isn't.

Not sure if this is the right place for this question, but I've always been a bit unsure about how the Synthesist gets his temporary hit points back. Do rejuvente eidolon / cure spells work like they would if the eidolon was separate?

Yes, you will be charged the full price. Any preorders that ship out after your subscription has been canceled will no longer be eligible for the Pathfinder Advantage. The Pathfinder Advantage only effects items that ship out while your Pathfinder Advantage is active.

Thanks,
cos

Thanks for clearing that up for me.

Zane, my CG pyromaniac gnome alchemist, follows Sarenrae in her aspect as fire goddess.

We actually have a cleric of Sarenrae in the party, but a combination of Zane's disrespect for authority, and the player seldom roleplaying the cleric's "piety" (and concentrating on the healing aspects when he does), means Zane doesn't have any especial respect for the cleric.

... Great Stuff ...

Flippin' heck, that is a great bunch of ideas.

Okay, I am revising my original concept to add additional giant adventures.

G1 Coral Reef of the Merrow
G2 Stilt Town of the Marsh Giants
G3 Caves of the Fomori
G4 Glass Citadel of the Desert Giants
G5 Pueblo of the Stone Giants
G6 Tent City of the Taiga Giants
G7 Sky Castle of the Cloud Giants

D1 Vault of the ?
D2 Against the Rune Giants

I'm thinking that dwarves and gnomes will have to swap out Defensive Training for an alternative racial trait (per Advanced Players Guide) as otherwise they will be too effective. Rangers won't be able to take favoured enemy (humanoid (giant)) and players will be discouraged from playing single class / primarily rangers as it might lead to frustration. Is that fair?

^^^^^

Tels, you just rock!

Do what Tels suggests. That is TOO cool!

+1.

It seems to me that part of the challenge of running CotCT is getting the cool stuff out of the GM's notes and into the minds of the PCs, and this is a great way of doing it in respect of the Grey Maidens.

I'm thinking of running an "Against the Giants" style series of adventures which have 3 different types of giants as the adversaries.

My players are vaguely aware of the classic 1st edition adventures, so I don't want to use the giant types from that, and I don't want to use the giants that feature in Part 4 of Rise of the Runelords; (not gonna spoiler it, but I imagine most GMs on here know which 4 types of giant that rules out).

At the moment, I am thinking of using Marsh Giants (cannibal thugs with a fetish for aberrations), Desert Giants (twin scimitar wielding dervishes) and Taiga Giants (spiritual savages who live among the megafauna) as they are 3 of my favourite types. However, does anyone else have any alternative suggestions for different types of giant they think would make particularly cool adversaries?

The ultimate enemies will be a (presumably small, since they are CR 17) group of rune giant plotters. I'd like them to have a group of Darklands-dwelling minions that act as go-betweens, so any suggestions for those will also be welcome (the more obscure the better, as I'd like to replicate as much as possible the "wtf was that?" ending of G3).

Amethal wrote:

(Emphasis mine.) I consider this to be very bad advice, and would never adopt it with my friends as I would expect them to react very badly to such an approach.

I question the quality of your relationship with your friends. If you can't be strait with them, then they're not really your friends. Real friends can be honest with each other, and being able to be mature about it and say "Ok, douche move, dude" and then move on, is part of being a friend.

Fair enough, we don't have the same friends.

However, there are ways to be honest without calling your friend a "spiteful, greedy fool". Have you ever said something similar to your friends, or had them speak to you that way? I haven't, and I doubt I ever would over a mere game.

I'm considering cancelling my Pathfinder Adventure Path subscription after Skull and Shackles is complete.

If I have some outstanding pre-orders at that stage (which qualified for the Pathfinder Advantage discount when I made them) will I get charged an extra 15% when they ship because I cancelled my subscription beforehand?

It is the job of the DM to ensure that neither too much, nor too little wealth is provided to the party as a whole.

Good post.

It's off topic (although we are aiming fo 2,000 posts) but, given you mentioned about a thousand posts ago that you didn't allow a character's successful business to increase his wealth, how would you have reacted if the business had failed and ended up costing him money, thus putting him below the wealth by level guidelines?

I'm interested because I have an idea for a cleric of Cayden Cailean who loves betting on the horses.

When he wins, he spends the winnings (but not the stake) paying for the constuction of statues of his god (all of which bear a striking resemblance to the character) and hiring bards to wander the taverns extoling the virtues of beer and the rewards you get in the afterlife for buying a drink for clerics of the god of beer.

When he loses, he shrugs it off with "the god will provide".

Also, he doesn't believe in selling those unwanted magic items that might be of use to less experienced adventurers. Instead he gifts them to novice adventuring groups which are in tune with his deity's ethos (i.e. CG or similar), asking them to "repay him if they meet with success in their adventures".

As the GM, would you work to ensure such a character didn't fall below the wealth by level guidelines, or would you allow the character (and ultimately the group) to suffer for him effectively wasting his money?

Tell your friends to grow up and stop being greedy fools. Tell them to stop being spiteful while you're at it.

(Emphasis mine.) I consider this to be very bad advice, and would never adopt it with my friends as I would expect them to react very badly to such an approach.

I have actually learned a lot from this thread.

Most of us came into this thread with unspoken assumptions - "some people force crafter PCs to make items for the rest of the party for nothing", "people who take crafting feats expecting to be able to charge the party a fee are thieves and profiteers" etc. and a lot of the arguments turn out to be much more reasonable when you get a bit more detail.

There are also those who think two wrongs make a right - "take 50 gp of my hard earned loot and I'll either murder you right now, or betray you when you need me most". I'll happily play with a group where crafters charge, and I'll happily play in a group where crafters don't charge, but I ain't playing with that bunch.

However, the main thing I have learned is that the entire argument is moot. Since by the RAW PCs can only sell items at half price, and by the RAW PCs can only buy items at full price, PCs are unable to sell items to other PCs as that would result in breaking one (or both) of those rules.

*clink* Here's to reaching 10,000 posts by Christmas. Ennybuddy know a good toymaker? Hey, I know one! Maybe he'll make me one FOR free! Because I'm his buddy.

Depends on whether or not you have been a good little wolf.

It would like having to work an office job where you had to buy your own $2,000 macbook before you could earn a paycheck.

I take it you have never been self-employed?

Adventurers are not usually employees.

dragonfire8974 wrote:

actually it says crafted items counts as 1/2 for the purposes of WBL.

True, the Faq isn't written in legalese.

But it clearly intends crafters should have more gear, stating if a crafter were to "[have] the same gear value as a non-crafting character" it would "[neutralize] any advantage of having [the crafting] feat at all."

No it wouldn't.

Sometimes, it is easier to buy stuff than to craft it. Sometimes it is easier to craft it than to buy it. Having the feat gives you a choice.

You might not think that is worth a feat. That's a matter of opinion, but I'm sure we can all think of other useless (or useless apart from in very specific circumstances) feats that appear in Pathfinder.

First on the subject of profteering. A mage is NOT going to charge 50 percent to Joe the Merchant, and 60% to his companion Bob the fighter.

Actually, the crafter in our game hit upon magic items as a great way to create portable loot. He'd make the sort of utility items no one normally bothers with, such as a helm of comprehend languages, use them on adventures, then sell them when he needed the cash for something else.

I don't know what would have happened if at that point another PC had wanted the item. I hope he'd have waived his normal crafting fee since it wasn't made to order, but he might not have.

Here's the bottom line. Those of you who are turning crafting into a profit stream are treating your adventuring party as a monetary resource.

That's fine so long as you are willing to be treated that way yourself.

You can rationalize your profiteering however you like. It's profiteering pure and simple.

Your ten percent benefit from making a magic sword for the fighter comes when the fighter uses that sword to kill the ogre and you get a share of his stuff.

I think the problem here is if one party member is spending a lot of time and effort to benefit the party (i.e. by crafting items) but the others aren't (in some cases because they can't).

Assuming the crafter holds his own during adventuring, that can lead to resentment from the character as it seems like he is being exploited - doing 100% of the work for 25% of the gain. Unless the character is a saint, it seems a recipe for in-character problems.

You can metagame it, like you probably need to metagame why a disparate bunch of reprobates are even adventuring together in the first place, but I don't think it is fair to refer to those who don't as profiteering.

Ugh, not at all. My party prefers to work together and benefit each other for the better good of all.

My party realizes that having better magic items makes us more proficient and so we win more battles and get more loot.

Everyone benefits.

Including the magic item crafter.

Get it?

I'm glad it is working out for your group. It is the way I would choose to operate as well, but the rest of my group prefer the charging approach so that is what we use.

As a matter of interest, does your crafter give priority to crafting item for his personal benefit or are the needs of the group paramount?

And when the crafter is spending 8 days of his down time crafting stuff for other people, are the rest of the group also spending time trying to benefit the group? I'd be interested in knowing what sort of stuff you do, as I can get my character to do similar things in the hope of persuading the crafter to waive some of his fee.

The Pathfinder wiki article gives an overview, but it is out of date.

Then there isn't anything worthwhile for you to add. You can argue game mechanics, or economics until you're blue in the face. When it comes down to brass tacks, this isn't a game mechanic or economics issue, it's a player(s) issue.

Fact is the other players aren't happy about one player making a profit off of them. It's a player issue to resolve. Not something to take to a messageboard looking for validation of a chosen approach.

I am interested in discussing the general principle of whether it is ok for those who take crafting feats to charge for using them.

Otherwise this thread can be settled in two seconds.

"I'm pissing off my friends. Am I being a jerk?"
"No"
"Should I stop doing it?"
"Yes"

amethal wrote:

However, how is the party stronger when the fighter has the 5% gold rather than the mage having it?

Because he spends it on better armour/weapon/stat enhancers/cure potions he pours down the neck of the dying caster who made him his shiny new sword when they got crit'd?

Well, if we are inventing situations, how about if the caster didn't get critted, because he spent the 5% on a pearl of power and was able to save himself?

amethal wrote:

However, how is the party stronger when the fighter has the 5% gold rather than the mage having it?

The party is stronger for not having an element of built in player stress or antagonistic feelings. Is it an in character answer? No, but but it's not a totally in character problem either. Fact is the players are upset because they see their wealth funneling to another player. The justifications don't matter, they see a player "winning" at their expense.

That's perfectly true, but is not anything I am interested in discussing as I don't know any of the people involved.

amethal wrote:

Korpen wrote:

It is all about in-group and out-group.

By saying that you wants to take a profit from the other characters one is basically saying that one is no longer part of the communal group effort, but only in it for the money. That is why there is a strong reaction; it is like making dinner for some friends and then presenting them with a bill for the time and effort one took to make the dinner. I for one would end any friendship with such a person.

I would argue that it is more like spending a couple of days painting your house, then a friend asking you to then spend a few more days painting their house for them - and only offering to pay for the paint.

That is an incorrect analogy, as in the “paint the house” analogy there is no difference to you whether or not the house is painted, while a mage do benefit from being part of a stronger party.

I was simply offering a better analogy than yours. I didn't claim it was perfect

However, how is the party stronger when the fighter has the 5% gold rather than the mage having it?

My DM has a penchant for kobold adepts - 7th level casters firing two scorching rays a round but are only something like CR 4.

He also likes skeletal warriors and other templated undead that were previously drow nobles - effectively replacing the drow's Con penalty with a Cha bonus.

It is all about in-group and out-group.

By saying that you wants to take a profit from the other characters one is basically saying that one is no longer part of the communal group effort, but only in it for the money. That is why there is a strong reaction; it is like making dinner for some friends and then presenting them with a bill for the time and effort one took to make the dinner. I for one would end any friendship with such a person.

I would argue that it is more like spending a couple of days painting your house, then a friend asking you to then spend a few more days painting their house for them - and only offering to pay for the paint.

Canonically, strix live only in Cheliax, and a specific part of Cheliax at that. But the great thing about the aarakocra in Night Below is that they're a splinter of a larger tribe. We just need a reason for them to have flown from Devil's Perch to Featherhold.

The race-hatred makes the conflict a lot more interesting. Let's move Featherhold to the southeastern end of the Patchwork Hills, overlooking the Yondabakari close to Whistledown. The strix are attacking those who travel on the river, and while they've stopped short of killing anyone so far, they've destroyed a number of barges and traffic from Magnimar to Whistledown is struggling. Shalel--I mean Shiraz wants the PCs to talk sense into the strix before the Hellknights just murder the entire colony. It's much more tense than the original mission, and better fits the campaign's theme of negotiating with monsters.

(If I can be excused for replying 7 months later ...)

I left out the aarakocra completely, since I didn't think it would interest my players. I much prefer your idea, and I wish I'd thought of it at the time.

As it is, the PCs just have to rescue the escaped slave and deal with the Ixians, and then its the assault on Shaboath.

I remember cancelling my Dungeon and Dragon subscriptions because of the number that kept going astray. Ordered them from my FLGS instead.

I must have cost you guys a fair bit of money sending me replacements, but I'd like to think I've made up for it with what I've spent since.

THIS is where your problem is!
Its like saying: I give my players a 50 point buy and suddenly all the AP encounter are a cakewalk for them!

In fairness, it is more like saying: I handed out the treasure in the AP as written, and used the magic item crafting rules from the core rulebook, and suddenly all the AP encounters are not challenging one member of the party.

Seems to me this could happen to anyone, and I won't be allowing PCs to craft permanent magic items if I ever run this AP.

Demogorgon has two heads -- two personalities that struggle against each other making for a greatly Chaotic Demon Lord.

But....

What if one of those two Heads -- one of those personalities -- were actually Lawful Evil to the extreme? Intelligent. Creative. Thoughtful. Wise.

Bad or Brilliant?

Surely the intelligent, creative, thoughtful and wise head would be the chaotic one :)

It is an interesting idea, but demon lords are the embodiment of chaotic evil. Nothing lawful evil can thrive in the Abyss.

Thanks Kthulu,

Life's been so hectic of late, and some pre-orders so long ago ordered, I can't remember half the stuff I might have ordered :-)

You and me both.

Still, the other DM in my group was delighted when I gave him Black Monastery as a present, after I made the mistake of pre-ordering it from Frog God and the ordering it from Paizo.

Is there a spell or magic item that ups your caster level besides the ioun stone?

Well, there's Death Knell ....

first: I think you optimized and your GM wants to make you pay, he's the GM, you have to accept or at least respect his view of charisma.

That being said, I would "play" it as that others barely notice you're a living being, and not furniture. When you lie dying on the floor the group will say "okay, let's move on" and when they need something that you have on your belt they will just take it, like from a shelf, and not ask you.
So basicly the rest of the people have to play your charisma, not you.

There's nothing wrong with the character's memory, however.

When (if?) he gets his charisma restored, he will realise if people have taken advantage of him when he was vulnerable.

I fear my players may be a tad bit... less anticipatory about the whole experience.

Mine have never heard of it. Yet.

This thread has got me wondering what happens if a gargantuan T Rex tries to swallow a huge water elemental. Does it drown?

I'd probably rule that there are some things even a T Rex won't swallow!

As has been pointed out on this thread, there are lots of spells to counter a summoned T Rex. However, as the OP has explained, part of the problem is that most of the opponents in Kingmaker don't have access to them.

I recommend reading "The Curious Incident of the Dog at in the Night Time" by Mark Haddon. It presents a first-person narrative of a character that could be said to have high intelligence (logical reasoning), high wisdom (perception, spatial ability and acute awareness) and extremely low charisma (near inability to comprehend information in social terms).

Even if your character has a charisma of 24 I recommend reading this book, because it is excellent.

A character role-played like the book's hero would be a wonderful thing to have in a role-playing group, but I certainly wouldn't be able to pull it off. It is also slightly off base for d20 games, because the character in the book has zero ability at Sense Motive (as he is completely unable to understand social situations), but Sense motive is based on Wisdom, not Charisma.

For me, one of the attractions of the book is that sooner or later the reader is able to understand what is going on in the boy's life, despite it all being relayed second hand by the boy, who doesn't understand it at all.

I'll be getting the print version, and getting the PDF as part of your great "Free PDF" deal, so it makes no difference to me either way!

On the subject of "trap" options, I think a trap option is if (say) a fighter 10 makes a better pirate than a fighter 5 / dread pirate 5 does.

It is not a trap option if a particular campaign (or even most campaigns) often take advantage of a class's weaknesses and rarely play to its strengths. It just makes the option particularly campaign specific.

I also consider it a trap option if an option makes a character significantly weaker, but not in a way that is immediately obvious. So a fighter archetype that (say) gives up all weapon and armour proficiencies in return for granting improved unarmed strike as a bonus feat is such an obvious bad deal that it hardly counts as a "trap". Anyone who takes it can be assumed to have a good reason for doing so - perhaps they are taking a one level dip into fighter for some reason and already have all the weapon and armour proficiencies they need from their other class.

On the other hand, something like the Vow of Poverty, where the adverse consequences of taking the option might not be obvious to inexperienced players, and/or subject to a great deal of GM interpretation as to how they work in practice, could be considered a trap option.

I know this is a tangent but, out of curiosity, as a fan of the Mystic Theurge PrC who is unable to play it (and isn't a fan of the Witch), where do you think the Mystic Theurge fits in the player trap/poor GM expection management divide?

I only ask because I'd love to play a Sorcerer/Oracle without the spectre of Admiral Akbar following me from gaming table to gaming table.

Mystic Theurge is an ok character class if you (and the rest of the party) understand what you are getting into.

As a Sorcerer 4 / Oracle 4, the very weakest part of the progression, you are an 8th level character casting 2nd level spells. You are neither the party "wizard" nor the party "cleric", and are worse than a single-classed oracle in melee (1 less BAB, and unlikely to be wearing armour).

The party needs to have some other means of covering "wizard" and "cleric". Being able to cast both magic missile and cure light wounds is great, but there are times in the game when what the party really needs is a dimension door or a death ward, and you won't be able to supply them. So someone else needs to be able to, or the GM needs to adapt the adventures accordingly.

You will, however, have a ton of low level spells to choose from. I think it helps to come up with quirky stuff that a "proper" wizard would never bother with. Summon Monster I, for instance, can give you a handy minion for setting off traps and triggering ambushes. There's no point trying to compete with a full caster - burning hands is never going to be a replacement for fireball.

So, it is now March. Any news yet?