Just a quick question: does the fact that the article on liches and vampires starts in this book mean that characters can't become undead before this adventure?
It might have been asked already, but I'm going to be a player in this campaign, so I don't want to read too much discussion about it :-)
Thanks for your input, but this only confirms what I thought, that the rules don't cover this :-(
Navigation: honestly, full speed for a sailing ship is 10 miles an hour, slow enough to keep a careful eye out
Hazards and Weather: nothing says that a storm would tear the sails faster for a fast moving ship, though I would agree that the more you want to catch the wind, the more danger there is, but that's a DM's call; hidden reef or wreck, sure, but are we really supposed to fill the areas with such?; for the crew, I'm basing myself on a sailing ship, 20 crew members needed, room for 120 passengers: you can easily plan to have a larger crew working in 2 or 3 ships.
Plunder: obviously you are right here, but it works both ways. If merchant ships can cross the Shackles from North to South or the other way around (Cheliax to and from Sargava) in barely more than a day, pirates will be hard pressed to eke out a living, as they don't want to fight in other territorial waters where the navy might be a threat
What I'm afraid of as I'm playing more and more with the ship rules (my players just came out of Rickety's Squibs and attacked their first ship) is that the basis for the system is wrong. The Wormwood leaves Port Peril and passes to the east of Dahak's Teeth on the fourth day (p 24), that's about 50 miles as the crow flies. If we double the distance to account for the fact that she does not go there in a straight line and goes at a slow 30 ft per round, that means that she is only moving 7.5 hours a day. My question is: why are they moving so slow and why are they moving only for such a low amount of time each day?
In the Player's Guide, under Evasion and Pursuit, it is suggested that a chase takes 1d4 days. We can imagine that a ship that's trying to evade pirates is moving as fast as possible and is probably not stopping at night. If we assume that the ship moves at the full 90 ft per round during the day and at a slow 30 ft per round at night to avoid running aground, for 12 hours of daylight, that's 164 miles a day, for 4 days, so about 650 miles. So if you start the chase in the open seas south of the Shackles in the Fever Sea (where Captain Harrigan hopes to find a prey) and the prey sails straight south, you end up about 250 miles south of Sargava, off the Golarion map.
Now, obviously I'm being a bit absurd here, assuming that the ship would flee straight south. But keeping in mind the speeds the rules allow, it should be impossible to attack a ship as they would easily be able to flee back to patrolled waters or even to a port. The only possible way would be to only attack ships within the Shackles and use your superior knowledge of the area to gain the upper hand on the merchant vessels and avoid the open sea like the plague. But the only experienced captain we see in action does the opposite.
What I'm thinking is that rules about speed were lost on the cutting floor. Otherwise, they can't make sense on their own and don't line up with the Core Rulebooks anyway.
Having thought about the regatta a bit more, I simply won't say anything to the players. I'm sure they'll make the logical choice of going as fast of possible and maybe just slow down when it makes sense. It sill bothers me that there's no mention of their speed in the rules, as players who would try to get the fastest ship possible would not be rewarded...
I'm reading the rules for the regatta and I have some trouble understanding one thing: what's the point of going any faster than 30 feet?
I don't see any advantage to do so and in fact, speed can be disadvantageous in event F. I'll put the discussion in a spoiler tag to avoid any issue:
Straight from the adventure: "If a character spots a reef at a distance of four times the ship’s speed, no check is required to steer the ship to avoid the reef. If a reef is spotted at a distance of twice the ship’s speed, the sailing check has a base DC of 5. If a reef is spotted at a distance of the ship’s speed, the base DC is 20. The normal penalties on the sailing checks for the ship’s speed still apply"
In other words, if a ship moves at 30 feet, a perception check of 17 negates the need for a roll, a check of 11 requires a DC 5 sailing check and a check of 8 requires a DC 20 sailing check. A check under 8 means the ship takes 8d8 points of damage and the PC's subtract 1d4+1 from their race score. At the end of the event, the race score is reduced by 1.
At 60 feet, a perception check of 29 negates the need for a roll, a check of 17 requires a DC 5 sailing check with a -5 penalty on the roll and a check of 11 requires a DC 20 sailing check, also with a -5 penalty. A check under 11 means the ship takes 8d8 points of damage and the PC's subtract 1d4+1 from their race score. At the end of the event, the race score does not change.
At 90 feet, a perception check of 41 negates the need for a roll, a check of 23 requires a DC 5 sailing check with a -10 penalty on the roll and a check of 14 requires a DC 20 sailing check, also with a -10 penalty. A check under 14 means the ship takes 8d8 points of damage and the PC's subtract 1d4+1 from their race score. At the end of the event, the race score increased by 1.
Heaven forbid that they have a galley going at its full speed of 120 feet or the perception checks get even crazier (perception checks of 53, 29, and 17 and the sailing check have a -20 penalty), for a measly +2 on their race score. I won't even bother talking about going with the wind in a sailing ship for a speed of 180 feet.
I can imagine a group willing to take the risk of going at 60 instead of 30 feet not to get a negative modifier to their race score, but nothing higher seem worth it.
But even worse than this particular case, there is no general modifier to the race score for having a faster ship than the others. This is in my mind a failing by the rules of the regatta.
While talking about speed, I have trouble understanding the general rules about max speed. Why wouldn't a ship permanently be at full speed? If we look in the Core Rulebook, a sailing ship moves 2 miles an hour or 48 miles a day (it also doesn't set anchor at night, contrary to the Wormwood in the first adventure). 2 miles an hour means 17,6 feet per round (2 miles = 10560 feet, 1 hour = 600 rounds). A speed of 30 feet per round would mean 3.4 miles per hour or 81.6 miles per day. At max speed (and I don't recall anything in the rules saying you can't go full speed indefinitely), that's 10.2 miles an hour or 244,8 miles a day. In other words, you can go from the northernmost latitude in the Shackles to its southernmost in a day and from its westernmost longitude to its easternmost in a day and a half. Obviously, this is in a straight line and navigating between islands is everything but, but I had trouble telling my players that they could not go from Rickety's Squibs to Tidewater Rock in a single (which they should have been able to according to the rules, since there are nearly no island to navigate through).
So my question is: what rules have I overlooked, either in the regatta or in the general speed rules? I'd be especially curious about the full speed all the time one and the possibility to navigate 24 hours a day (crew tiredness is not really a problem, given the space on a sailing ship, you can easily have 3 shifts working 8 hours each).
Thanks for the stats, some work I won't have to do myself!
I have a question of my own: did I miss the Man's Promise stats or should I use default stats from the Player's Guide? If so, I suppose it's the Sailing Ship stats that apply, right?
Isn't the base for the sharks a bit too small? It looks like the base is for a medium creature, but sharks are large size...
Great collection, though, it really helps my players putting a face to a name!
That's exactly what we did in our group. We negotiated with them, would let them live, clear their undead problem, if they promised to stop attacking the caravans and handed over their weapons, the fireworks. Then our DM acted great as the goblin leader who was happy enough to stop attacking the caravans, but pretty sad to part with their shiny fireworks. So we decided to sepnd the evening in the goblin camp and enjoyed a nice fireworks display to make sure they did not have any left with which to threaten humans! :-)
Linked article wrote:
Atheists and agnostics scored highest, with an average of 21 correct answers, while Jews and Mormons followed with about 20 accurate responses. Protestants overall averaged 16 correct answers, while Catholics followed with a score of about 15.
Linked article wrote:
However, level of education was the best predictor of religious knowledge. The top-performing groups on the survey still came out ahead even when controlling for how much schooling they had completed.
I wonder if there's a link between the two. Does anyone know stats showing percentage of atheists and agnostics among the general population, divided along their level of education?
Thank for the heads-up, but I was already aware of it. You'll see me in a lot of the older threads (heck, my contribution is even acknowledge in the book), but unfortunately the designer has moved where I can't follow... 4e :-)
I won't go into details of previous posts, but the reason I would love to have epic rules is simply to have rules for everything in the game. When you are level 20, you know there are individuals still stronger than you, be they a few other mortals, or immortals such as demon lords or gods. How can you stat them if you don't have rules for them?Many settings imply that mortals can become gods, but very few assume that PCs will want to, and I never understood that.
I know that a lot of people think that if you can stat'em, you can kill'em, but I see no inherent problem with that. Most settings include stories of conflicts between the gods or even powerful mortals and gods. Why wouldn't you ever to take part in those conflicts. I'm not saying that every campaign needs to turn into this, but if there is a good reason for your characters to do it, why not? Most adventure paths are self-contained, where your characters are driven to complete the following adventures until the big finale. Once that threat is over, there's nothing wrong with those characters retiring. But what about stories with no "end". I could imagine keeping a Kingmaker running after the last adventure (in our case, I think we will keep it going, but more along the lines of heirs taking over than increasing the power curve).
In my "perfect" system, Epic would be capped with the highest-level being(s) (Ao in the Forgotten Realms) at the cap and everybody else statted in between. For example, if the proposal of a level 36 cap was kept, I'd probably go with Greater Gods at levels 34-36, other Gods and major Demon and Infernal Lords at level 31-33, other Lords at level 28-30, their lieutenants and most Epic Characters the characters would encounter in the 21-27 range, and the vast majority of mortals would be in the normal non-epic range of 1-20
Brogue, what is your main fear? That the party would become more powerful than they should be or that *one* character will become more powerful than the others?
If it's the former, then it really doesn't matter, does it? If the party gets too strong and walk over encounters, just up the difficulty. An extra encounter every day, an extra mook in each encounter, a higher CR adversary or simply an NPC that uses the same tactics are all good ways to remedy the situation.
If it's the latter, I can understand your fears, but in my experience and from what others have written above, most of the time the crafter will craft items for the whole party, not just himself. The numbers you wrote are fine, but if they don't actually come up in game, they don't really matter. It's like some build in the advice board that are great at the level they're designed for but would have been terrible until then: looks good on paper, but no one would actually play them!
However, if in your group the situation would be that every character would look after himself, then that would be a problem. That's why those feats are banned for Society play. If every character is in a vacuum, then yes it will skew the wealth towards the character with the feats and if that's how my group played, I might disallow the feat.
All the original question and most of the replies boil down to is that a Phylactery of Faithfulness is the best item a paladin's player may wish for. If you do something that would shift your alignment, your DM has to warn you beforehand :-)
I'm in the same situation with a small child who I hope will take to rpg. But to be honest, *I* wouldn't let him have the Core book before at least 10, maybe 12. But to say that the trait would be more objectionable than all the rules about violence seem really strange to me.
I don't think my son's first game will be Pathfinder or any form of D&D, as there are very good alternative systems for children rpg (there is a very good one in French called P'tites Sorcières - Little Witches)
A Man In Black wrote:
I don't really understand the outrage. This trait basically says that in the past you were a sacred prostitute, where you learned those skills.
If there was a "Slaver" trait that would give bonuses to Intimidate, it would not mean that slavery is good or evil, just that someone with that background would have picked up that skill.
I don't see the problem with the traits, even if you think that prostitution and slavery are evil (which you seem to do, naming them objective social evils, when other replies clearly show that it's not as objective as you think). You could say either that only evil characters can take them or that the character is now reformed from his evil ways.
I don't really agree with that. What you describe to me is "God" in a monotheistic society, an all-powerful force.
There are many examples where gods might not be killable, but are just basically high-CR adversaries. In Greek mythology, powerful mortals have a chance to interact with gods, even if the only ones who can harm them are usually demigods. In Norse mythologies, gods will die at Ragnarok when they face high-CR monsters.
You cannot have all-powerful gods in a pantheistic society, because two entities who do not have the same goals but are both all-powerful would create quite a mess, especially when they are as involved in the world as usual fantasy deities are.
Now, I agree with you that gods should not be fodder for PC, but vulnerable gods make for awesome stories. Dragonlance with the most powerful archmage to ever live defying Tiamat is a prime example. But if you say that "normal" levels go from 1 to 20 and epic from 21 to 40, I could easily conceive of gods with CR varying from 30 to 50. Remember that just because you can fight them does not mean you can kill them.
Another reason why gods might need stats is if you want to play one. Players don't have any compunction against playing a king ruling over a nation, but seem to have a block against playing a god ruling a religion. I never tried it, but that's not a reason why it can't be done.
Now, do I want Paizo to waste valuable page count giving me statblocks for CR 50 gods when their rules allow only for level 20 characters? Not really. But when we get to the point where our characters can approach those levels, why not? Just because it bears a tag saying that it is a god does not mean that it should be treated any differently than a high-level monster: very rare (how many Tarrasque or Great Wyrm Gold Dragons are there in your world), very difficult to kill, but still there to antagonize against.
Quicken is IMO the most useful since it allows 2 spells per round - more area, more duration, more damage are nice, but situational and rarely gamebreakers.
Keep in mind that the 35k mentionned above is for the Lesser version of the rod. Maezer above says that it becomes a consideration at level 12, so when you're already casting 6th level spells. Is it useful to cast 3 times a day a 3rd level in the same round as another spell (or doing something else entirely)? For sure. Is it game-breaking? I don't think so, especially taking into consideration what the character gave up to be able to do it.
I have a linked question pertinent to this thread: how do you track available space in a backpack and especially in a bag of holding. Most of the games I've been in usually handwave this, but the biggest bag of holding can only carry 250 ft³, so a cube of a bit more than 6 feet on a side. A portable hole is barely bigger, a bit over 280 ft³ (if my calculation is right: 6 ft diameter = 3 ft radius; area of the hole = 3x3x3,14=28.26 ft²; 10 ft deep). If I remember correctly, I must have at least a dozen full- and half-plate in in my character's currently!
I kinda agree, but I did not think of it at that moment. I thought of where I could send him where he would be taken care of, and I thought first of the good/evil antagonism rather than the law/chaos.
I can also report that since we played yesterday evening, I took the chance to plead my case. The DM thought more along the lines that by acting in ways that hurt others to protect myself, my character's alignment should change to Neutral. It was not the first time indeed that she thought I played in a way along the lines of "me first, screw the rest", which is Neutral Evil.
I tried to counter that it was not the goal of my actions, but in her book that does not matter. I kind of see where she's coming from, most evil characters won't see themselves as being evil or doing evil acts, that does not mean they're not evil.
All in all, that was an interesting discussion and it opens up good rp possibilities, so it's not the end of the world!
Benchak the Nightstalker wrote:
Thanks for the second clarification. I'd say you can't know all the tules, but I guess it would be more right to say that *I* can't know all the rules :-)
Benchak the Nightstalker wrote:
You're right, I was under the misconception that only good characters could be protected by the spell. Only a good cleric can cast it since it has the good descriptor, but anyone can be protected by it (and as I'm a wizard, there's no limitation limiting me from casting it).
I think sending the demon to hell would have been a better choice, but if I were the DM I might have shifted you toward CG not N.
That's probably what I'll try to negotiate next time we play. I think she simply thought that lying is evil rather than chaotic. I'll have to see though if she changed my alignment for that one act or if she thought I was playing too close to neutral and this act pushed me over the line...
W E Ray wrote:
To be fair, alignments are a metagaming concept. The way I play my character won't change because I erased the "good" from my character sheet :-)
And I realized that probably won't be much of an advantage anyway, because Protection from Evil won't work for me either :-(
Just to clarify a bit, since it doesn't seem I was very clear in my first post: my DM did not have a problem with what I did and seemed to think it was a good solution to our problem, a good use of resources and of the specifics of my character (I pumped Diplomacy for a reason, after all). She just felt that lying to it and sending it in the middle of Angels who didn't ask anything was an evil act. As I said, though, it's not a big deal and I might actually benefit from the change if we start meeting with demons, since some have access to spell targeting good characters :-) I'll have to ask her if maybe she felt I was skirting the line between Neutral and Good and just felt that this action made me cross it...
But I'm curious if you had a forked rod attuned to Celestia, which is required to Plane Shift somebody there.
I did not, but to be fair, we've glossed over most spell components since the start of the campaign, as we had no downtime between the scenarios and thus no time to go on a shopping spree. I took the Eschew Materials feat at level to justify it anyway, but I guess the rod would not fall under the limit of the feat.
W E Ray wrote:
1) Lying is always difficult to represent in the alignment system, but I guess I would define it as more of a chaotic act than an evil one. As such, if she had told me my alignment would change to CG, I would have been less surprised...2) I don't know her plans. It probably won't happen before the end of RotR as she's running it pretty close to the book, and we don't know yet whether we'll keep playing these character afterwards.
3) I just looked at the stats of a Glabrezu and it has got an INT of 16, compared to my wizard's 22 (including item), so I guess it's not impossible that I could outsmart him like I did. I think I surprised the DM herself when I shifted it to Celestia. In fact, when I started negotiating, I had the Abyss in mind, but I changed my mind during the conversation. I guess that's a good thing or I would have had to roll Bluff instead!
4) I don't really know if I got extra XP since we got them at the end of the session and we don't give extras to specific players, all additional XP the DM wants to give goes in the same pot then is divided among the three players.
..were you under the impression that was the only demon in the Abyss?
No, but it feels safer to send it among enemies than back on its home turf...
I get that, and I can understand the appeal of such a system, but I guess it is just too abstract for me :-)
By removing any positioning and movement from the rules, it feels like any war will come down to "who has the best army". Once both armies are recruited, there's not much an army leader can do to influence the outcome. Mostly, he will add his Charisma (which in the group I'm going to play in, means the best general will be the Sorcerer) and choose whether to be aggressive or defensive. IRL, the best armies did not always win, and that's why men like Cesar or Napoleon are remembered, leaders of strong nations who brought that little extra to battles.
I don't mean to sound too critical, it's not like Paizo had one hundred pages to create a wargaming system. Setting one up in 5 or 6 pages like they did is a feat in itself. And all this is just from reading the system once. It might be different in actual play, but I won't know until we start playing the AP (the DM is waiting to read the entire campaign to start it).
Yesterday, while playing through the Rise of the Runelords AP, we fought
the Scribbler and his Glabrezu ally. We killed the Scribbler.
Then since the party's resources were depleted, my NG wizard who has a high level of diplomacy proposed a truce and offered not to fight the demon and using planshift to send it away from the material plane. The demon accepted.
Of course, my moral dilemna was then that by leaving the demon alive today could mean human deaths down the line, whether it was one, one hundred, or a thousand years from now. So I decided to send him to Celestia where angels would be able to dispose of him.
My DM decided to move my alignment to Neutral. She argued that I lied to the demon and that I endangered Celestia and its inhabitants. I argued that I never said I would send him back to the Abyss (but I guess that's probably what it understood) and that it would have been evil to send him back where there would be no one to stop the trouble he could cause.
I have two questions for you:
Now I know that alignment discussions are always a matter of opinion, but I'm not asking who was right or wrong, just trying to get a feel of other players' opinions.
I also realize now that the smartest thing would have been to send him to Hell, where he could have been taken care of too, but any casualty would have been in the ranks of Devils rather than Angels. Unfortunately, when playing last night, I did not think of that.
Um, no. That's stupid. Your profession is "Ruler". You're getting paid (assuming you're a relatively nice guy, overall) for not wandering off to greener pastures and leaving the people of your domain to be plundered, raped, killed or enslaved (maybe and enslaved) by whatever superhuman threats lurk nearby.
Damn! Killed and enslaved? And here I thought I was a mean DM :)
James Jacobs wrote:
Well... in the interest of managing expecations, the mass combat rules in Pathfinder 35 are NOT that detailed or expansive. They were never intended to be. They take up about 4 pages of rules, and are supposed to be VERY simple and quick to use. The goal is to be able to resolve a conflict between two armies without having to map the battlefield out, without having to use miniatures at all, without having to learn an entirely new set of rules, and so that the battle itself, when it comes up in play, can be resolved in 5 to 10 minutes or less.
I just went through the rules and I have to say they will fulfill the role outlined above. I'm a bit disappointed that it does not handle positioning and movement on the battlefield, but I will probably use it nonetheless in the Kingmaker AP as its integration with the kingdom building rules means it would be a shame to have to do a lot of work to integrate another system.
However, except if it totally blows me off with its awesomeness in actual play, they probably won't be the rules of reference of I was hoping for... I would have liked a more strategic system where the player's role as generals and the decisions they made would have more of an impact. Don't get me wrong, having an impact as adventurers can be fun (Red Hand of Doom was probably the best campaign published by WotC), but as rulers of a kingdom, I don't think the PCs should get entangled in the fighting that much.
I can't wait to get my hands on the pdf (the email said sometimes this week) to have a look at the mass combat rules.
I hope it's not too lite a system so that the players can still have an impact strategically (as leaders of an army) and tactically (as heroes). I'm still looking for a system that meshes Napoleon- and Aragorn-style play :)
Warforged Gardener wrote:
Gold value? As it's a more intelligent creature than whatever is likely to buy it and will require enormous resources to gain any kind of mastery over in time, magic, and money, you'd be justified in lowering its value according to your own whims all the way down to absolute zero. It might be worthless for the sole reason that unlike other creatures, a dragon can only be reared by its own kind. There's no text to back that up, but it's not outside the realm of logic for dragons as a species.
Just a note: we're talking of a white dragon wyrmling here, who has 6 INT. If it's a human who buys it, the buyer won't see the dragon getting to the upper average of human intelligence in his lifetime, as its INT score is 8 at Very Young and Young (from 6 to 25 years old), 10 at Juvenile and Young Adult (from 26 to 100 yo), and 12 at Adult and Mature Adult (from 101 to 400 yo). A White Great Wyrm only has an 18 in Intelligence, so still within limits for humans, so we can say a white dragon never has superhuman intelligence.
In fact, chromatic dragon are not as smart as we tend to believe. At appropriate level to face one, the party wizard will probably be almost as smart if not smarter. The smartest chromatic dragon are blue, green and red Great Wyrms, with 22 INT. Metallic dragons are smarter, with Silvers and Golds having a 26 INT by Great Wyrm age.
The Paladin is a wrecking ball against any evil dragon, outsider, or undead now, and has no need for Wisdom as his spells are now Charisma-based, as are all of his other class abilities.
Not as much anymore since the double damage has now been errata'ed to only apply on the first attack after activating Smite Evil.
Fantasy authors don't go to great length to explain weapon choices, so why should we? I'm currently re-reading the Wheel of Time and one of the main characters (Perrin) has what I'd define in D&D as a Great Axe. How did it end up in the backwater they called home? A caravan guard asked the blacksmith to forge it then did not pay the price demanded, so the character ended up with it. Sure, the culture difference between this and an Indian weapon in a European setting is not as large, but still...
For me, the most important part of a fighter/wizard are the buffs. I could care less if he cannot blast like a sorcerer or have a broad range of spells like the wizard. Give me access only to the spells with a range of personal and I'll be happy. I also like the idea of imbuing his weapon with special qualities :-)
Regarding the HD/BAB discussion: I don't see how giving him a the best BAB would outshine the fighter that much. As others have said, other classes don't, so why would he. IMHO, the fighter is much better than the others mainly because of weapon training + greater weapon focus and specialization, which give them a total of +6 to hit and +9 damage per attack compared to every other class.
As for the name "magus", that would not be my choice either, it's too close to "mage" and "magician" to evoke (pun intended) something more than just a spellcasting class.
I think Vorpal does not need balancing at "end game". If your character(s) get +5 weapon enhancements when the game is nearing its end, it's no big deal at all to have a vorpal weapon in the game. Just make sure the final BBEG of the campaign is immune so that the culmination of your campaign does not end after the first attack of the fight.
My problem is that my campaigns do not end. I really DM currently two games, but I have a third one, where the characters are over level 30, where we mostly play through email with a real game session about 4 or 5 times a year. I don't even think that there is one fight per session, so giving the preparation that goes into it, both me as the DM and the players themselves would be pretty disappointed if the fight ended on the first attack.
It happened once in 3.0, where the enemy wizard used their tactics against them by using Time Stop and a bunch of direct damage spells (this was changed in 3.5 so that you cannot affect others whil time is stopped). The players did not have fun and I did not either because I had planned a game for several weeks to finally have to adlib the rest of the game. Sure, I could have held back, but that was a tactic the players used all the time, it made sense that an enemy who was aware of them would not hesitate to use it himself given the chance.
The easy way to solve the issue at epic level is simply to say that epic play trumps normal play, and characters always get a check against all-or-nothing abilities (such as vorpal, where the defender gets an ST; immunities, where the attacker gets a chance to beat SR to ignore it;...).
I noticed for this first time in my AP #31 pdf that there is a checklist with recent PF product (even though I've been a subscriber since AP #1, but I never went to the back pages of the pdf!).
Is there somewhere a complete list of products? I know I can find them all here on the site, on the wiki (http://pathfinder.wikia.com/wiki/Portal%3ASourcebooks/Lists), or simply by going back from AP #1 through to #31 but it would be great to have the convenience of a checklist, if one already exist!
DM Wellard wrote:
I'm just going to move it one hex, call the top off the map north and let the players loose.If they have any questions then I'll blame it on faceless Brevoy clerks.
Agree. If you do that, the charter does indeed make sense. I don't have the AP in front of me, but I think the Stag Lord fortress is the only hex more than 60 miles south and the players should go there to confront him, not to explore, so it's not a problem.
Scipion del Ferro wrote:
Regarding this, it shouldn't be a problem to move the Trading Post one hex to the left to avoid PC's wondering off the edge to the right, correct?
Indeed, that's the easiest solution, that's why I needed a tool to export the map and rework it. Even better, when I did, the map that was exported did not contain the symbols, so I can place the Trading Post or any other encounter area anywhere I want (any other encounter too).
It worked great, thank you! I now have a blank map with just the hexes overlaid!
I have two small remarks regarding the map on page 14 as it relates to the charter.
Also regarding the map, is there a way to retrieve the map graphics from the pdf? I'd especially love to have a version of the map without icons and site names.
James Jacobs wrote:
If there's a player who insists on making unrealistic choices just because he thinks he found a flaw in the rules... you can correct those flaws as needed by roleplaying out the result of, say, building nothing but brothels on the overall feeling for the nation.
Just reading this makes me want to play the AP more than GM it!
Corollary question: does it change anything whether the prisoner is one of the civilized races (PC races) or a non-civilized humanoid race 'such as orcs or goblins)? If it does, what about closer calls such as Drow and Duergar (who are civilized)?
Prince That Howls wrote:
But to tie him up you have to move him, which would wake him up.
That's been a pretty standard tactic from level 1-2 sorcerers in my games, coupled with a longspear with its x3 crit multiplier...
Prince That Howls wrote:
Killing a helpless prisoner is an evil act, no matter what. You may be serving the ‘greater good’ by killing the individual, but killing someone who is defenseless is still evil. The question becomes “Are you willing to be evil for the greater good?”
What about casting sleep during a fight then doing a coup de grace?
I don't want be to a pain, but I'm interested to see if other GM were less lenient than me...
My opinion on the alignment system in D&D is that it uses the viewpoint of its main audience as the basis to define characters in a medieval fantasy setting. If a real world American or European would act in a way that would make him evil, a character in the game doing the same thing would be evil too. Cutting the right hand of a thief? That would be pretty evil from where I'm looking at it, so a character doing it in a game (or a country where such thing is common), would be evil in D&D, nevermind that it was a pretty common sentence in the real world medieval era.
Whether it's in the upcoming GMG or APG or a future installment, I hope somewhere along the way Paizo provides recommendations or alternatives for significantly reducing or outright eliminating the system "need" for magic items and restoring them to the status of "rare, but wondrous".
I DM a one-on-one game where the scenarios are tailor-made for the player and the character (whether it be his abilities, equipment and motivations), so I have it easy. But what I did was simply hand over to the character an armor, a shield and a weapon that will grow with him (+1 modifier per 2 levels). That way, he does not have to start plundering treasures, raiding tombs or robbing corpses to get ahead in the game, which really does not suit the type of game we're playing.
You could easily handwave other equipments: nearly every player I play with gets a cloak of resistance. Simply give a +1 to all saves every 4 levels. Stat-enhancement items? Simply hand out more stat increases than one point every four level (didn't Conan do that? Or was it Iron Heroes?). Don't like the wands of CLW every group gets? Simply allow faster hp recuperation; though this would depend on the style of your players too - no one likes the 1 encounter a day type of games.
Once you've done all this and removed all mechanics-only magical items, you'll get a shortened list of items that only have interesting effects. I find the items above very boring: their only effect is on the character sheet, not on the game.
The problem is that I'm not sure if I'd buy an rpg designed like this. I like the books I buy to be full of details. Spending money on a book that tells me that I should make the decisions makes no sense (that's why I like very detailed game world such as the FR or the Wilderlands); but as house rules, once you've come to grips with the system, they work very well.
Will Amazon carry the book again in the future?
Not sure if you can share this information, but my asking can't hurt :-) As I'm in Belgium, ordering through Paizo is not realistic as I don't want to pay more for the shipping than for the book, and it's really difficult to find an English version here...
Still nothing... and still no Dungeon 149, or even 150 or Dragon 359 either...
Same here... and not being able to at least look through the pdf is a bit disheartening.
My worst fear is not receiving Pathfinder 1 in time to decide to renew my subscription and still get all issues. With my luck, I'll miss an issue and will be with an adventure path missing adventure 4!