|
|
||||||||||||||||||
| Paizo Pathfinder® GameMastery® Planet Stories® Paizo Games | |||||||||||||||||||
| About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ | |||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
 Recent Posts
Another thing to keep in mind is how trivial 1 hp/hit minions can be in this system, depending on party makeup. It's been pointed out how archer minions can pose a serious threat… what happens when the shoe's on the other foot? A decent archer PC can drop at least 4 in one round by 11th level; a wizard of the same level can down 5 with a single magic missile, a barbarian with lunge and great cleave will toast all minions near him… so how many minions do you need to add to an encounter to not make them trivial?
This "nerf", most certainly comes from a balance issue, as well as being a rules clarification. It doesn't only affect the paladin, it affects all instances where you can go above +10, especially the more infamous and prevalent casting of greater magic weapon to exceed the +10 limit.
Besides, who says the paladin needs to pay 250gp?It's the cost of the material component to create 5 vial of holy water. And I don't think you can find a font with 250+ gp of holy water in any temple of Heironeus. Once in a while it's nice to step outside that box labeled "The Rules" and stretch your imagination a little. You should try it sometime.
Relax. The whole thing has been in jest from the beginning. Besides, who says the paladin needs to pay 250gp? The paladin has had to deal with this uppity spirit before. He'll just dip it into the font in the local temple to Heironeous when next he visits.
Please only open the spoiler below if you have a sense of humor :) Spoiler:
That's was easy too… I was 12 years old when I played that edition. I looked at all that confusing text back then and said, this stuff doesn't make any sense. Let's just roll initiative; whoever rolls highest goes first. If there's a tie, everyone gets to act even if they die before the end of the round. If there was a dispute as to who acts first on a tie, I would use as much common sense as 12 year old could muster. 1E had complicated rules. It was still a simple game to play because we played it fun and simple.
GM (me), ponders for a moment. Then says: But… but… the holy spirit didn't refuse to do its duty. It was just being an uppity snot about it.
These would be totally reasonable scores in my campaign. If you're still interested in a non-caster because you've played them to death, I think a straight halfling rogue would be a lot of fun. Str 8 (10-2)
I'd focus on using alchemical items that have different effects so you're not relying on damage, and using touch attacks to contribute. Perhaps invest in the Craft (alchemy) skill to make your own particular items. Craft (trapmaking) would be a very interesting avenue to explore as well. However, investing in Cha type skills will serve you very well in this particular adventure path, if your GM plays up all aspects of the game and not just hack n' slash. As you can imagine, with a name like "Kingmaker", diplomacy will get you just as far, if not farther, than solving everything at the end of a sword.
Specifically, a ranger (3 in 6 chance of surprising) encounters a drow (1 in 8 chance of being surprised). Please show all your work. ;-)D&D 1st ed was much much simpler.Cool, explain the initiative system to me then... :) Sure ;) Converting to %
Add together: 50% + 12.5% = 62.5% Divide by two: 31.25% Closest die equivalent: roll a d6, with the ranger surprising a drow on a 2 in 6 chance (33.3%) Just having some fun Hogarth ;)
I've gotta use that someday: Player with a weaponless paladin: GM (me), ponders for a moment. Then says:
I like the concept of minions, but I don't think porting over the 4E rules for minions is the best answer. Sure, they could work, but by and large, they don't fit well within the PF system. At higher levels, the really low level minions (such as orcs and such) will still be useless, so there is no benefit there, and higher CR minions will often produce undesirable results: fireballs and other AOE spells still won't reliably take out swaths of minions (due to higher saves), and may in fact not kill any sometimes. I'd prefer minion rules that build upon the existing rules… a template is a great idea. I also like the idea of introducing an outnumbering rule. There's also plenty of flexibility with HP being variable. I also get the impression that many people seem to adhere to the notion that monsters must always have average HPs. IMO, an average HP # is listed in the bestiary and adventures merely for convenience.
There are ways to get a horse to be used as a mount that do not constitute breaking its spirit. These method usually involved treating it... Hmm… That's what my interpretation of "why is a skeleton evil?" builds off of: the circle of life thing. Taking a dead body, and infusing it with "unlife", creates an actual creature that defies the established life cycle: it cannot die, it cannot create life in any fashion, it cannot decompose, it has a sentience, in other words, it's an abomination.And to contradict your post a bit: we don't stand on soil made from dead bodies. It's the other way around. Living things are made from "soil" and just simply turn back into "soil" when they die. :)
In regards to the OP: Didn't see this post earlier. Sorry I'm late to the game. So without reading the entire thread: I actually ran a similar scenario but at around 14th-15th level, but I think I used an enhanced kraken. To make a long story short, I thought outside the normal rules of the game, and gave an AC and HP to the kraken's tentacles. The kraken itself wasn't attacking individuals running around on the ship's deck (that didn't make sense to me… its body was submerged beneath the waves as well and couldn't really see the creatures running about on deck); rather it was attacking the ship itself, in an attempt to crush & sink it. Some of the PCs could attack it by going into the water and did so while others attacked the tentacles themselves, and yet others made attempts to save non-party members (i.e. the crew of the ship). Needless to say, they managed to drive off the kraken, but not before it destroyed the ship. Fortunately for the players, they had the forethought of taking two ships. It was a memorable fight. So in summary, I think your GM could have handled it better as it was an a-typical encounter.
You're right. What was I thinking?
The above being the case: Svirfneblin (ranger 1) don't seem to have a favored bonus factored into their stats, nor does the tengu (rogue 1). Also, the tengu has climb +5. It should be +7 (+1 skill point, +3 class bonus, +3 Dex) @ Wraith: Please see my other thread asking about whether or not favored class bonuses are granted to NPCs. I broke down one NPC so far with NPC levels from the NPC guide that DOES have a favored bonus factored in. Go figure…
Further research: Duergar (with errata factored in)
Skills (2 from warrior)
Svirfneblin (no errata that I’m aware of)
Skills (6 from ranger)
Tengu (no errata that I know of) HP: 9 (1d8, +1 Con) Skills (8 from rogue)
All these stat blocks are missing a favored class bonus, unless my math is off. An NPC from the NPC Guide: Mercenary Captain
HP: 15 (2d10, +2 from Con(12), +2 from favored class) Skills (4 from warrior levels, 2 from human racial feature = 6)
Here is an example of an NPC class with favored class bonus factored in. I think, without breaking down more stat blocks, that Karui Kage has it right, that the intent is that ALL classes, save prestige classes get a favored class bonus and that the bestiary stat blocks are a little screwed up, even with errata.
Again, I like printing the most current rules with each new printing. It's a great approach. To help alleviate concerns of people in the same groups having different printings/rules, would it be too difficult to print on the back cover of new printings something to the effect:
Well, so much for having it solved. :) I was just perusing the bestiary errata today (missed the +1 hp for the hobgoblin). I just posted a discrepancy in the errata for kobolds in the thread for the bestiary errata indicating that they forgot to include favored class bonus for the kobold. So back to my 1st questions: 1) Do NPCs with PC class levels get favored class bonuses?
2) Do NPCs with NPC class levels get favored class bonuses?
Is this right? P.S: I think I'll look in the NPC guide and try to reverse build those stat blocks.
There’s a kobold discrepancy on p.4 of the errata. I don’t think the errata takes into account a favored class bonus for 1 level of warrior. Kobold: warrior 1
Craft (trapmaking) +6 (+1 skill point, +3 class skill, +2 racial)
Stealth should read +9 by my reading, not +5 as the errata states. Or, the kobold should have 1 more hp. Unless NPCs do not get favored class bonuses. This discrepancy, among others prompted me to post earlier today asking that question. The very few replies I received in that post indicated that All classes save prestige classes get a favored class bonus, but it’s nowhere to be seen in the kobold stat block, nor its errata.
As I said above, I agree, that it could be a problem if a GM doesn't keep up to date on current rules and he has players who buy more current versions of the rules. :) I don't believe that to be the norm however and quite far from it. It's pretty hard to be completely oblivious to rules changes these days, especially in Pathfinder. And if a GM finds himself to be in this predicament, it isn't really that hard to rule one way or the other, and from then onward, keep to that rule. It really is not that different from having a dispute amongst a group as to how a rule is to be interpreted (for instance the Stealth debate) IMO. In all my years of gaming, when I've experienced people playing the same game with different rules for the same situation, (this happens alot in Warhammer Fantasy), the person with the most current rules, is considered to have the right rule.
Don't mistake my statement for something it is not. I did not say that a GM must follow a website. If a GM makes changes to his rules set, whether they be from a website, new printings of the rules, from a 3rd party source, or of his own devising, it's the GM's responsibility to inform his players.
And i know that 1 in that subset already has the book, and 1 is buying one next week (or plans to). Neither would ever print the errata and keep it with them, but starting next week 1 will have them incorporated in their rulebook and 1 will not. If i dont tell them, neither will know where the difference comes from. What this indicates to me is that the GM is responsible for the rules set he is using and is also responsible for telling his players of any changes to it. Conversely, if a new player has a newer version of the rules and the GM prefers to play with his older version sans updates, it's his/her responsibility to inform his players.
Right. And on top of that, let's all jump into the future with 5th, 6th, and 7th printings, just like those posts: "so what would you change for pathfinder 2nd edition", when the 1st edition was just released.
In my particular case, Paizo reminded me of the update through e-mail with a link to the errata. I in turn, informed my players of the relevant changes. It was very easy. If I don't have/don't like the current update, there's always the all powerful house rule. Heck, people are still using Beta versions of the pathfinder rules despite new versions. If I don't remember that there was a rules change, and noone detects it in that particular session, who cares? The rules are complex enough that this happens all the time in play, without any changes in the rules. If someone does detect it, and we have the relevant text readily on hand, we review it to get it right, and move on. If someone detects it, but noone has the relevant text on hand (or it would take too much time to look it up), I make a judgement call on the spot to keep the game moving, and then review the rules after the session. Our group has been operating this way for years.
Like i said, typo corrections, clarifications, i am ok with, but genuine changes being adopted into the rules is a very dangerous path for a rulesystem that could potentially continue to get errata for many years going forward I think it's a better route than WOTC's "let's just make new rules that obsolete old ones where we screwed up. And when the system gets too bloated, let's make a new edition and start over."
I'm even fine with that, as long as someone with an older printing of the rules can obtain a copy of the updates (which they can). Saying "I don't like the rules change in your printing of the book," is no different than saying "I don't like fighters having 2 skill points per level, so I'm giving them 4." If your rules preferences differ with the most current rules, they're simply house rules. Nothing wrong with that at all. I like that Paizo is making the effort to keep tweaking their rules without making a new edition. I couldn't stand WOTC (and Games Workshop for that matter) stonewalling us for years when it came to rules changes.
I have no problems with printing errata in new printings of books along with updating the PDFs. All players can easily be on the same page even if they have different printings of the core books. Those players with older versions simply need to download the updated PDF if that's what they use, or they can print out a copy of the errata and keep it with their book. A GM can keep their lazy players informed of the updates by giving those with older core books a printed copy of the errata. I like striving for perfection, even if it can never be reached.
I was trying to reverse engineer some of the NPCs in the bestiary, namely hobgoblins, goblins and orcs. What I found when doing so was that: Orcs: had too low an Int score to know for sure. Hobgoblins: (fighter 1):
2 Skill points total (2 skill points per level, no Int bonus)
Goblins: (warrior 1):
So looking at these 3 creatures, I can’t tell from the orc stat block, the hobgoblin stat block indicates that there is no favored class bonus, and the goblin stat block indicates that there is. I haven’t looked closely at other stat blocks in the bestiary yet. The situation with the 3 monsters above prompted me to post the question.
I'm currently doing a conversion of the original The Keep on the Borderlands module, and would really like to know if NPCs get favored class bonuses. I can't find a definitive answer in the rules and my 15 minute search in the archives turned up a lot of half-baked posts on the issue. So:
Thanks in advance. There's a lot of NPCs in that module!
You make a good point. Why does it not extend to an animated object? Why does it not extend to golems? After all, those are animated by captured elemental spirits, bound into an unnatural service. The golem has as much sentience as a skeleton does. Does the material used make that much of a difference? If so, what about the flesh golem? On further reflection, I don't see any evidence that an animated object is animated by a captured elemental spirit. It's true that a golem has as much sentience as a skeleton. However, having sentience isn't proof that something's alive or a mockery of life. Intelligent weapons have more sentience than golems or skeletons. Yet they aren't alive. I'm not convinced it is bound into "unnatural" service… just service. I think that unless something is infused with energy from either the positive material plane, or the negative material plane, then they can't have life (or unlife).
I'm not convinced an animated object is truly alive. The animating force itself that gives it a "semblance" of life does not come from any of the "building blocks" that make up life. And "semblance" doesn't necessarily mean "actual". Golems are a different matter. I'm not sure how to explain them quite fully.
Thanks TOZ. So how can a soulless corpse given a state of life, be neutral if it defies the entire cycle of life and death? The building blocks of the material plane are the elemental planes and the energy planes. All are neutrally aligned. The positive is the beginning source of life, the negative the end of life, with the elementals the building blocks. All makes sense so far. So now you have a spell that funnels energy from the end of life source (i.e. negative energy) to create an unliving creature that defies the entire life/death cycle which in turn was presumably set up by higher power. The entire act itself creates an abominable act that has created an abomination as a result. It's a creature that without interference, cannot actually die. The fact that negative energy merely happens to be one of the main ingredients to bring about such a phenomenon is beside the point. True, the creature has no soul, no intelligence, but still is in effect alive – or a mockery of life – that rejects the order of things in the universe. It doesn't matter that it can't think on its own. It still has mental stats of Charisma and Wisdom, so it must have sentience on some level. Again I say, there is a fundamental difference between animating dead on a corpse vs. animating object on a corpse.
What happens when a skeleton is brought to unlife with the spell animate dead in regards to the deceased creature's soul? Does it remain somewhere in the outer planes? Or is it suddenly wrenched back into the body somehow through the spell's magic? I see a fundamental difference between using animate dead on a corpse and using animate object on it.
@ Ice Titan Spoiler:
You can't combine spectral hand with plane shift. Using reverse gravity to shove something through a prismatic wall is extremely difficult – it's a vertical plane. Hold spells and their ilk are useless against dragons & undead and are certainly no proof vs. outsider BBEGs who consistently have great saves and SR. Hideous Laughter allows for SR and 2 Will saves, and while the target loses it's actions it still defends normally. All you did was guarantee the target can't run away from the smiting paladin… who WILL kill it inside of the two rounds IF the save was failed and SR overcome to begin with ;)
Look, I get your point. A wizard will on occasion trivialize a BBEG encounter. But a paladin will with great consistency trivialize a BBEG dragon, undead, or evil outsider. So what if he does it in two or three rounds instead of one. The encounter was still trivial and non-challenging.
I like the idea I already give my bad guys hp per dice or max minus 2 and if the party is just walking through all the mooks I max out the BBEG HP In the end, it's just an alternate version of the advanced simple template, with a slightly different purpose: Advanced simple template: use it for beefing up otherwise weak monsters in relation to the party Boss template: use it for beefing up a monster with an already capable offense, that you want to weather the PC's storm through economy of actions.
@ Ice Titan: Off topic:
Spoiler:
Yes, but: putting to sleep up to 4 1HD creatures? That's hardly BBEG territory. A 1st level wizard could put to sleep an Ogre… an example more in line with what the issue here is, BUT, he generally gets only one shot at it, while a paladin who invokes smite evil gets it pretty much the whole encounter. Sleep still looks better at this level, but then again, a paladin's smite ability isn't a problem at low level, but higher levels.
And still after all this debate, I still don't see what the problem is of skeletons and zombies being evil or animating the dead being an evil act. The two defenses are: they're created with negative energy which is neutral, and they are mindless and are not capable of moral decision making. So? Unholy weapons are evil.
None of these have intelligence. All can be linked to the negative energy plane. A skeleton is animated with negative energy. Can it simply be that the use of negative energy to further one's goals is an abomination to the powers of good (deifically speaking)? There's a reason that a good aligned PC using an unholy weapon (even to defeat an evil foe) gains a negative level while doing so. There's a reason good aligned clerics can't cast desecrate. There's a reason a mace of blood can cause you to become chaotic evil. And there's a reason good clerics shouldn't try to cast animate dead… deities of good don't like it. So you're a neutrally aligned PC? Your particular deity may not be diametrically opposed to your use of the spell, but certain others certainly are, just as evil aligned deities probably applaud it. It's irrelevant how you use the spell. It's still evil: – Good considers it evil and an abomination
Where are the writers screwing it up? EDIT: In other words, a skeleton (with a sword) is SORT OF like a +1 unholy sword with the dancing property, if you get my meaning.
I like the template idea. Instead of beefing up a BBEG in general general offense, perhaps looking at the flip side and concentrating on purely defensive measures to give the BBEG more staying power? Economy of actions becomes less of an issue if those multiple actions have diminished results. I like the idea of a Boss template. Make if focus on purely defense. That way you avoid TPK territory by upping the BBEG through advancing it in general. For instance, it could provide:
I can see Aura of Justice being smacked down a bit, as well as the double smite to some enemies. I think if the first was brought low a bit and the second cancelled, paladins would still be awesomebroso. This is also exactly what I'd like to see. In addition, I feel a paladin should have some combat advantage EVERY time he finds himself in combat with evil opponents. As it stands, he remains average with respect to other melee oriented classes when fighting evil, EXCEPT for when he smites… and then he is overkill. In other words, when fighting the following, mechanically speaking he should feel: 1) Owlbear: average
Because as it stands he looks: 1) Owlbear: average
Two comments:
2) "Don't let the BBEG go it alone." All this does is indicate that solo BBEG battles are not an option. I like having the option of a solo dragon encounter.
I like 15 point buy with a limited rolling option as well. They're both tight and force players to make tough decisions about PC development. To compensate, I let ability score increases happen every other level instead of every 4 levels with cap of +5 to any one score from your original. I agree with the OP, in that if you let the PCs start with high scores, you get into an arms race with the monsters, and have to keep revving them up to compensate.
Well honestly, if you could, that would be a problem. I mean c'mon, the bard who is often brought up as a better alternative for warrior/arcane caster can't fight like a fighter, nor can they cast like a wizard either. The problem with the EK isn't the EK, it's the journey getting there, as has been discussed thoroughly in other threads. That's not to say one cannot make an effective EK, nor provide good advice in building one.
This eldritch knight doesn't need too high of an INT score. The purpose of this type of EK is to augment fighting ability with arcane magic, and that particular EK shouldn't be trying to be a wizard if you catch my drift. The build only needs enough INT to cast his buffs. I've made an EK which I think might look very similar to meatrace's. To add to meatrace's advice, if you can work one or more of the following feats in: Extend Spell, Brew Potion, or Create Wand in, you should have no shortage access to buff and melee tactical type spells. Of course you already have Scribe Scroll going the wizard route.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
