|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
What if the fighter is using archery?
Archery isn't better than two handing because of damage. It is better because it is not so limited by distance. With archery you almost always get a full round attack. If that is your point then maybe the barbarian archer would need an adapative bow, but he would still be competitive I think. In addition he still has better defenses than the fighter.
Whether or not they are availible depends on their CR which influences the level the GM will allow the PC's to be or maybe the other way around. As for expecting an attack, that depends on the storyline. If they are causing trouble then I see no reason why they would not expect trouble, and depending on the scenario invis may not be enough on its own. Invis is not detect proof and fly does not last forever in any event. If I had more information on this scenario I could give a more direct response.
I don't really worry about trying to force things to be cinematic. They tend to happen naturally. As an example my old GM(3.5) had a mounted fighter and they do a lot of damage even on a normal hit. He charged our sorcerer, who I knew would likely die if he was hit. However on the way to the sorcerer he drew an attack of opportunity from me. I critted and killed him.
Following the Average Player Wealth guide lines the potions aren't a bad investment. At level 3 they're expensive, but 1500 GP to skip the entire dungeon isn't a bad deal. At 4th level crafting its 750 for the pair at lowest level which is a steal. After that its trivial. I tried short changing my players a bit when I was GMing, but once they noticed their wealth per level discrepancy they started getting upset.
That is a lot of gold to spend on a consumable, and that potion of invis will only last for about 3 minutes. I doubt they are skipping an entire dungeon in 3 minutes. They can use a higher caster level, but it is still an entire dungeon, and the cost go up if they use a higher caster level. I would also think that if they are in a dungeon the ceiling is not normally higher than 10 feet, maybe 15. That is still in range for the flat DC 20 perception check. At this point the bad guys can alert the entire dungeon, or they can close the door trapping some if not the entire party in the room. If they are in a hallway then alert everyone. Taking on an entire dungeon at the same time is not something most parties will try. Also if magic is common in the world and they want to avoid flying invisible people flying overhead give some of them reach weapons and/or ranged weapons.
Before I go any further the rule for the flat 20 check is in the glossary under the invisibility section.
Since it is a ruined city I would have a random encounter table in play since the monsters don't really care about the widget. I will use level 5 since it is between 4 and 6. As a GM it is a good idea to take the party into consideration. It seems your party is like Ocean's 11. Now the undead need a reason to guard the widget. Let's say they are there in service to a necromancer whether it is a lich or living person who is supposed to return. Otherwise the widget is probably not that important.
If they just open doors or windows while invisible then someone will notice. While we are on the subject of a castle I would think that all possible entrances would have guards if this widget is so important. Since the party is level 5 a few skeletons and/or zombies will make up the primary bulk. Intelligent undead such as wights, ghouls/ghast, can be the ones guarding important areas, and don't have them on guard alone. Also don't have them fight to the death if it is imminent they will die. Running away is a good idea at times. This also allows them to put the castle on alert.
Some traps have poor DC's for disabling and perception for their CR, and some have a high DC. I don't really care for traps, but if the place is not intended to be bothered then having 2 or 3 won't hurt.
Traps on their own don't do much, but combining them with monsters is a good idea. You can have the trap set to go off just before the monster appears or have it in the middle(somewhere in the room) of the room.
Since you seem to have a walking radar the occasional mechanical trap is fine. Just know it won't do you any good. It is more of a way to reward a player for investing in finding them.
Before I get into this I will use a character I made as an example of the walking radar.
5 ranks in perception, +3 class skill, +5 eyes of the eagle, +2 for having 1/2 class level in perception, +3 wisdom=18
Continuing the subject of traps.
A good way to make players careless is to sucker them in with easy fights. A ghoul is a CR 2 IIRC. Taking on 2 or 3 of individually or even 2 at a time will be a cakewalk.
So they enter another room and they see another ghoul, but he might be a CR 4 due to class levels. He might also have 1 or 2 normal ghoul buddies. In addition there is a trap that can be setoff accidentally by players or on purpose by the monsters. There is a disagreement on whether or not the players get an automatic check for a trap. I don't think they should, but that is a discussion for another thread.
You are probably wondering what trap to use. I prefer something that the monster is immune to. In this case I choose stinking cloud. The CR is 4, but the perception to find it is a 28. Yes that means my walking radar could have found it if he was not in combat by taking 10, but now there is no taking 10. What does stinking cloud do? It makes you nauseated.
Creatures with the nauseated condition experience stomach distress. Nauseated creatures are unable to attack, cast spells, concentrate on spells, or do anything else requiring attention. The only action such a character can take is a single move action per turn.
Even if only one party member fails they are likely in for a decent fight. As a free action the ghoul can call for help. To be fair I would not have a simple call alert the entire castle, but everyone within ___ feet might here it. They will show up in XdY rounds.
As for the boss fight to get the widget after getting the key I would have it be a CR 8 fight since they are level 5.
The boss would be a CR 7(I would likely use a vampire template on a caster, and his backup would be a combined CR 5. I think 2 shadows will be sufficient.
What would you do as a player to have maximum effectiveness and least risk?
I would try to have a wand of cure light wounds, and lesser restoration prepared. If the money was available a few potions of lesser restoration might be nice. Also leaving spell slots open can be a good idea. If the castle being manned by undead is a trick, then you can put other spells in those slots. I would also try to take the castle in one go. If possible try to get an enemy to talk and give you the layout of the castle. This is less likely with undead barring the use of command undead.
Thats probably it. I do expect a certain degree of difficulty for things I draw up and put thought into. Random encounters I don't care so much, but overall I don't think the world should be the PCs playground. At the end of a good quest I think the players should be out of resources and almost dead.
I have a similar view on things. I only design certain encounters to be a challenge and/or to gauge the party's strength. If they can easily handle the rest I don't care too much.
I feel like I forgot something. If I remember I will post it later on.
Stop it.You KNOW that is not the intent. If you want to make a houserule fine, but don't pretend like you don't know that is not the intent. Combat is not in play until dice are rolled, so they are not distracted or in imminent danger. This is you trying to weasel your way into making stuff up. As the GM if you want something to work a certain way just do it. Now if you really think that is the intent there are dev quotes that disagree with you.
In games I play/run the BBEG is not always at the top. They may be in a basement, or in a room in the middle, and that includes published adventures. Invis also only allows for one attack before becoming visible. In addition you only need a flat DC 20 perception check to know an invisible creature is within 20 feet of you. It might not pinpoint the square, but you will know you are not alone. Making a 20 is not that hard.
It only tells you an aura is around, and you can identify the school. You still do not know what the spell is. Also if a creature cast a spell and walks away the aura will still be there. There is no way to be sure it is a trap, or an spell on the area.
As an example if cast invis and walk away there could be an illusion based trap, an illusion in place, or an invisible person still there among other things.
There are also spells such as magic aura and nondetection, but I would not suggest over using them. It gets annoying.
That is just a smart use of abilities. As players get higher in level they circumvent more ideas a GM will have in place if he is not used to running higher level games.
Example: You as the GM just planned an overland trek, where the party will run into NPC Y, but you forgot, or did not notice, that the party wizard/sorcerer had teleport. So your 3 day hiking idea is bypassed in 6 seconds.
There is nothing wrong with taking 10. It is for situations where you can take your time and you are so good at your skill that you are sure you can do it. As an example as a computer tech in the military, I was never worried about something as simple as defragging a hard drive or taking my weapon apart. Now doing that while someone is trying to shoot me might be more stressful. That is what forced rolls are for. And as a player you want to be good at things to avoid failing. It is not heroic to fail something that should be mundane to you. As an example taking a casual swim across a calm lake should easy. Taking a swim in a river might require you to put in actual effort/roll. That does not mean you can not try to take 10, but it could be a bad idea.
When designing BBEG's a GM has to be mindful of such things, and even so sometimes the BBEG will get one-shot. It happens. What I have noticed a long time ago is that one fight BBEG's dont work as well in Pathfinder as they do in video games due to action economy. If I run an AP I will actually tone the BBEG down at times, and use the leftover XP to give him some minions. That is actually a tougher fight then one NPC.
If you know you have super stealth guy then have an NPC with high perception, and I would have been upset also. Just saying no pretty much invalidates the work you put into your character. If I can't use something then it defeats the point of me having it. As a fellow GM I know it sucks sometimes to spend a lot of time on something to have it insta-killed, but that is something we GM's have to realize will happen.
A good GM learns the rules as best he can and tries to avoid them, but also realizes that sh*t happens. Arbitrarily saying no will not make players happy.
A good GM also has an alternate plan or just changes story elements the players does not know about. As an example with my teleport comment, I would just have moved NPC Y to another destination the players were headed to.
I have had players skip a large number of enemies before. I wont deny them the XP. I give it to them. Otherwise I would be punishing them for being smart.
Degoon Squad wrote:
Not really. We just use bards, inquisitors, and rangers to do those things.
1. I don't.
2. I would not play if he was a jerk about it. If a GM does not want me to do ____, then he should make it into a rule or talk to me about not using it too much.
The GM appears to be immature in my opinion.<-----me being nice about it.
The rules don't say you can only attack from within 30 feet. They say ranged attacks have a limit of 30 feet. It is not a ranged attack the limit does not apply.
Yes there is a difference.
Lets say you have some gargantuan creature with sneak attack,and it has a reach weapon. It will be more than 30 feet away so it could not sneak attack if the limit was 30 feet.
A ranged attack is very specific in pathfinder, and unless the spell in question is actually a ranged attack the limit does not apply. I am not saying it makes sense, but that is the rule.
The wizard is better, but bringing everyone up to wizard level is not a good idea IMHO. I would give the sorcerer more skill points, and not make him use a full round action to apply metamagic feats. I might even let him learn spells at odd instead of even levels. That is as far as I would take it. They are already a very powerful class.
I do agree with this. I also wish hide and move silently should have been left alone. Being invisible does not mean you are quiet.
edit: I think that as long as the commoner has it however that all the PC classes should get it.
I see a lot of posts implying that rogues aren't worth playing, why is that?
It is not that a rogue absolutely can not function in a game. The idea is that whatever you want from a rogue you can get from another class, and the other class will be better at it.
You want to do decent damage and find traps--> Go bard or ranger.
You want to be good at a variety of skills, and do damage--->bard, ranger, inquisitor.
You don't care about damage, but want to be the utility person that can do a little of everything-->bard, inquisitor.
Also traps are not really deadly enough as a whole to make trapfinding worth having. You can get past a trap without disabling it.
Certain feats should scale with the fighter. As an example improved initiative can increase as to +6 at level 7 and end up at +8 at level 11 or 13.
He should be able to move and make multiple attacks, even if it is with a penalty. It is not like his 2nd attacks are likely to miss.
Some of my ideas such as the good will save and extra skill points were mentioned by others.
And give him perception as a class skill<----I still don't understand why this was never fixed.
Some people learn certain things quiet easily. Others do not, and it does not help when many people are influenced by what they heard, which influences their way of reading material.
I am not saying psionics is difficult. I am saying that it is not as easy for everyone as it is for you. When some people easily grasp a concept it can be difficult to understand why others have trouble with it. I have to remind myself of this sometimes, especially back while saying "that is not how it works", when I used to find myself defending psionics or ToB.
Right now you are probably thinking, but it is so simple .........
I get it, trust me I do...
That is what I keep saying. People need to understand that once you step outside of the rules expectations they really have to make up their own rules. We can just guess at what we think the designers would do.
As a reminder to everyone more then 2 hands = MWF. So trying to use TWF means you have to houserule.
I never said what anyone wanted to do. My point is that casters can do these things and martials can't.
That does not change the FACT that martials cant do this and casters can meaning they have more narrative power.
possible cabbage wrote:
.... but they still have the same narrative power that every character has to
My focus was on "same narrative power".
So I thought you meant equal since it is synonymous with "equal" in many of its uses, and if casters can affect the story in more ways then they have more narrative power.
If the feat said you did full damage using your off hand in a manner that did not specifically call out strength I would agree, but because it does, the answer is no. I don't think it is broken, and I would probably even allow it, but I don't think it is supported by RAW. RAI, it can't really be proven.
As an example if I use intelligence to boost my acrobatics check, and there is another ability that says to add +5 to any ability roll modified by dex then I can't use it. The reason is that dex is not the qualifying attribute anymore. Now if there is another ability that says add +5 to any ability modified by intelligence I could use that because intelligence is now modifying the acrobatics check.
All that matters to me is what they are mechanically trying to do. I just look at it as miscommunication. The player was being descriptive, and the GM took it literally.
Now if the player says they really want to do something like that I would just let them know I dont use the called shots subsystem, and that would be the end of it.
Sneak attacks also occur when you lose your dex to AC versus the attack. You can't lose dex to AC against something that does not even target AC.
SKR, game designer wrote:
Sneak attack normally works with weapon-like spells, including rays. It doesn't normally work with magic missile because that is not a weapon-like spell or ray.
The ability from the AT allows you to use a spell that would not normally work, but hey must be flat-footed, which is not the same as losing dex to AC.
In 3.5 and PF what you are suggesting has NEVER been RAI. I do agree that the rules should go into greater details on which attacks work with certain abilities, but this hardly a new rule. It has been that way for 14 years now.
The problem is not them not playing a caster. They are being very stubborn about not doing anything to help themselves. A game can be ran without casters, but you have to be smart about it.
Sorcerers really need a major power boost. I'd personally use the 3.5 Favored Soul Spells Known table (level 20: 9/6/6/6/6/6/6/6/5/4) and something like a final total of 7 or 8 spells per day of each level as a baseline.
Sorcerers are a strong class. They can still make GM's cry if the players chooses to go that route. They are not wizards, but then again, neither is anyone else.
The Fox wrote:
Even on the same init count characters have their own turns by RAW so he would have woken up. Anything else is a house rule, which PFS does not endorse unless they are PFS house rules.
Whether the init is 15A and 15B or 16 and 15 it is still two separate turns. The point of the init order is just to see who goes first.
I am only stating this so people understand that same init turn does not equal "at the exact same time".
oops I got the memo late. I will try to find some new ones in addition to what I posted on page 1.
I dont think it was just for paragon surge, but for any future abilities which might add spells.
I do think however the wording should have been that you can not know the spell if the source does not add it to your class list with an exception for class features.
I say that because it does not make sense to know it, and not be able to cast it.
I am sure they have other jobs to do and you need a certain mindset to find things. In my 3.5 days I found a lot of ways to combine things in a manner that would make a GM throw a book at me, but now I am not really into that mindset anymore. Maybe the devs are not either. I am not saying they shouldn't be but I would rather them not spend hours trying to break every spell or feat that comes out. A class is something I can see getting that kind of attention.
It still is not that easy. I know the rules better than most people and I was not among the first to pick up on it. I just did not think to put that combo together.
Baku Shadescar wrote:
preparing and knowing are different.
You have to know it before you can prepare it.
The class feature calls out knowing any number of spells, but you have a limit of what you can prepare.
SKR when he still worked for Paiz wrote:
stuff in first post
I am a rules lawyer at times, but I also realize the GM has the last say. For the most part as long as there are no "surprise rules" I don't say much even if I disagree. If I do say something then I think the GM is really making an error or making things way to complicated similar to how you wanted 3 rolls to find and cook food. I would have voted against it also. Due to the game being an abstraction many things can be handwaved or not accounted for.
The spellbook rules are there for balancing reason, and it is just easier to use rules we already know. They can also take 10 on those checks so they should not be failing.
Fumble(especially fumble) and crit charts work against the players. I will admit I have used them in the past, but not anymore. The more times you attack the more you will likely have something bad happen with a fumble chart. It does not make sense to get better at fighting and have more an increasing chance at making an big error. Remember that while the player only rolls X number of attacks the character is actually making more than than so rolling more dice does not mean the character is always really making more attacks.
As for personal quest I have done them for RP reasons, but not for XP. RP moments can also grant XP, and you can have more random encounters. Both will cut down on you having to make personal quest.
I am not a player in your game but I would be saying "why are you making things overly complicated"?
If possible invite the other player here. If his problem is only that "it is not in the book", then I think he needs to lighten up. Every table I have sat at has house rules so he will have to get used to it.
Those don't happen as much so they are not the topic. In addition the word never* is not being insinuated. I and others have stated this at least 3 times. The idea is not to let your buddy your die. The idea is to prevent them from being close to dying if possible, and heal them if you think it is the best means to prevent death. However removing the enemy is the best means of preventing death since dead/unconscious enemies can't fight back. How far down they have to be hit point wise to choose healing or not to heal is a line in the sand that will have to be drawn differently for each group.
Now generally speaking if you know something is coming it is a better idea to be preventive than reactive, and that also applies to status affects. As an example if I know a monster use negative energy effects it makes more sense to cast death ward than to try to undo the affect mid battle, or after the battle. The same logic applies to preventing hit point damage from taking place.
I think we may have been talking past each other the entire time. :)
I think the problem is when people treat the cohort like it is a golem made of flesh that will just follow any order, and not like it is a person.
The NPC is still his own person so he does not have to do everythign the PC says if the cohort will be in danger. I think that writing a background story for the NPC, and talking about how he would behave in certain situations will help you and the player decide if he should take it or not.
It should be more like a superhero and a sidekick, who may not always do what they are told, and the cohort being a "yes man".
I have use them, and I like the system. If you allow them as a GM make sure the psionic/magic transparency rule is in place, and make sure the players know the rules.
Also be aware that if you only have one or two fights a day, and/or if you let the players rest in enemy HQ without letting the enemies account for it, then the players may start to Nova.
Once that is done you should be ok.
I know this is off-topic that has nothing to do with evil, and is a silly idea. Being does not mean you never do anything good, nor does it make you any less human. It is just your outlook on life that you will do what you have to do in many cases to achieve your goal, even at the expense of others. Being evil, you would still recognize the need to work with others to achieve goals. You may even become friends with them. You could not have certain villain tropes if evil people had no feelings, or they were too stupid realize the importance of cooperation. By helping the other person you are helping yourself.
Are they also going to not buff each other because that is helping someone else?
PS: I realize we likely have the same outlook. I would suggest you make a self sufficient character, and be ready to escape when the battle turns against you.
PS2: Is the entire world evil? Why would there be no healing magic anywhere, not that I think it is a good excuse. I am just curious.
My point was that if you can heal, then you still normally do something to help that is better than healing. However if your build is focused around healing then there might be an exception to that.
Being able to heal and making a character whose primary goal in the game is to heal(cure hit points) can have a substantially different outcome with regard to how effective they are at healing. However it is normally better for the purpose of preserving resources to stop the incoming damage than to try to heal it.
Haste or Blessing of Fervor can shorten a combat. If the monster is up for a round it might do 50(random number) points of damage. That is at least one cure serious spell which is also a 4th level spell, and likely a cure light or cure moderate wounds also. If you decide to not use the other spells to top off then you could still likely have had those 50 points which were lost.
Now I know neither spell stops a crit so if that happens you may need to heal in combat, but that is far different than planning to heal as the primary option.
Before we go any further is "altering the opponent mix" changing the original encounter to entirely new creatures?
If so that is not a problem, and not what I was getting at.
I was speaking of situations where the monsters are presented, and due to tactics devised to reduce healing needed, the GM adds hit points, fudges saves, attack rolls, and so on to prolong the fight and/or force* damage to take place.
If the current tactics don't work against encounter X that is fine. That is different from making sure the party takes damage by using your power as GM to ensure it happens.
Matthew Downie wrote:
It keeps up depending on the GM. If I throw an APL+9 fight at a party the healing will not keep up.
It is not theorycraft, just like your experience is not theorycraft. Well I take that back. For some of us it is not theorycraft, since we have seen it.
That bolded portion seems to get overlooked no matter how many times it is stated.