>> Ask Ashiel Anything <<


Off-Topic Discussions

1,451 to 1,500 of 3,564 << first < prev | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | next > last >>
Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
Tacticslion wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:

Paizo says no to the item fighter.

But we can safely ignore Paizo on this. :P

Also, unless there's an errata of some kind, they're quite wrong (unless there is some sort of RAW that I'm unaware of.

(I mean, yeah, they're correct about intent, inherently, unless they choose to lie, but that isn't true from an as-written standpoint.)

Didn't you know about FAQratta?


TriOmegaZero wrote:

Paizo says no to the item fighter.

But we can safely ignore Paizo on this. :P

Tacticslion wrote:

Also, unless there's an errata of some kind, they're quite wrong (unless there is some sort of RAW that I'm unaware of.

(I mean, yeah, they're correct about intent, inherently, unless they choose to lie, but that isn't true from an as-written standpoint.)

TriOmegaZero wrote:
Didn't you know about FAQratta?

I, uh... I try not to.

>.>


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Klara Meison wrote:

> As a fighter, our to-hit and damage will never be as good as a real martial character (weapon training in core only reaches +4 at best), so we're going to want to go for some weapons with special abilities early.

O snap.

>The under layer will be a +1 padded armor which we'll wear under our actual armor.

Wow. That is a great example of a thing which is obvious in retrospect, but which you would have never came up with yourself. Is this legal? Wearing two armors at the same time? I love it already.

The rules only say that the armor bonuses from multiple armors do not stack, but penalties do, which means that there is typically no reason for wearing multiple suites of armor because it just weighs you down more with no added benefit. Similar to how wielding two shields typically isn't going to be very productive (you only get the better shield AC).

However, there are some pros for doing so in both cases. With the armor, using a very light armor such as padded armor, silk robe, or other armor with no check penalties makes for a good under-layer, for which to place armor special qualities on that do not improve your AC (you need that AC), such as fortificiation, energy resistances, and stuff like that.

An extra layer of light armor can also be useful as a fallback when you're resting. Rangers get the Endurance feat for free, allowing them to sleep in medium armor at no penalty, but Fighters are pretty much boned unless they sack their already spread-too-thin feats for the feat, so having a sub-layer that gives a few benefits while their main suite is doffed is helpful.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Tacticslion wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:

Paizo says no to the item fighter.

But we can safely ignore Paizo on this. :P

Also, unless there's an errata of some kind, they're quite wrong (unless there is some sort of RAW that I'm unaware of.

(I mean, yeah, they're correct about intent, inherently, unless they choose to lie, but that isn't true from an as-written standpoint.)

Didn't you know about FAQratta?

Honestly, I don't even consider the FAQ when I give advice. Paizo flip flops on issues all the time, and they can't figure out what a SLA is to save their lives.

According to the FAQ you can't use SLAs to create magic items because they aren't spells, but you can use them to qualify for things because they are spells, and you could use them to qualify for item creation feats because you have a caster level, but then changed it to you can't do so because the caster level doesn't count because you have to be able to cast spells (even though item creation feats do not require you to be able to cast spells).

They never actually provide any textual reason for their judgments. It's simply not a FAQ. It's whatever Paizo thinks the rules of the game are this week, even if the actual rules don't back them up at all.

They humorously changed it after I posted some stuff concerning the summoner and their eidolon making sweet, sweet use of these things. I don't know if it was related but it happened very soon thereafter. :P

I lost a lot of respect for Paizo's FAQ, way back when they released the Cavalier and then nerfed Handle Animal so that you'd have to spend your animal's feats on armor proficiency, whereas since 3E and even during early Pathfinder, it was known that training an animal for combat also trained them to wear barding. That respect has eroded away to nothingness over the years.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

I'm pretty sure they also FAQrattaed your multiple armor scheme, saying that the extra armor enhancements don't count as they are 'turned off' by the superior bonus'ed armor.

If it weren't for PFS, I'd have no reason to pay serious attention to the FAQ.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
TriOmegaZero wrote:

I'm pretty sure they also FAQrattaed your multiple armor scheme, saying that the extra armor enhancements don't count as they are 'turned off' by the superior bonus'ed armor.

If it weren't for PFS, I'd have no reason to pay serious attention to the FAQ.

That's amusing. So what happens when they're equal bonuses? :P

Like, if you had a +1 ghost touch armor (+4 armor) and a +1 invulnerable armor (+4 armor)? (?_?)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Hmmm, actually, exploring this a bit more, I think I've found the part of the text that's relevant. I think it's less concerned with the armor at all, but concerned with the body-slot for the armor, which is actually a thing. A thing I admittedly forgot about (I usually think about body slots in terms of things like helms, rings, boots, belts, gloves, face, etc. Not weapons, shields, armor), so my bad.

EDIT: I can't find any text saying the one with the higher bonuses supercede, merely that additional ones (presumably those worn after the previous) cease working.

Core Rulebook, Magic Items wrote:

Of course, a character may carry or possess as many items of the same type as he wishes. However, additional items beyond those in the slots listed above have no effect.

Some items can be worn or carried without taking up a slot on a character's body. The description of an item indicates when an item has this property.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

So I guess our hypothetical fighter is pretty much SOL on the under armor thing. He could still wear it, but the top armor turns off when you put it on, making it a moot point.

We'll just have to go with a fortification buckler instead and eat the -1 to hit while using our reach weapons and bows. Very painful since our to-hit is already bad for a martially focused character (mostly because competing martials like Barbarians and Rangers not only have better ability scores, but have better class features).

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

Bucklers don't give a penalty on bows, just two handed weapons. Totally worth it on my Holy Vindicator. (The buckler bonus goes away when two-handing, but not the Vindicator's Shield! :)


Hm. I wonder if that's how this stupid thing was supposed to work...

Technology guide has a suit of armor that gives no AC, only touch AC. Basically it only protects you from rays. Useful if you're playing Iron Gods in theory, in function you face enough folks with chain saws that I'd rather take my chances and rely on Resist Energy (Best spell that AP).

The Scatterlight Suit specifically calls out it's touch ac boost is an armor bonus that only works vs rays and lasers. So I have to wonder if they actually intended for you to wear it under other armors? It's the only way I can see it being actually useful. But I'm not sure how it would interact if at all.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well, while the magical enhancements don't seem to work based on the slot rules, any nonmagical effects of wearing multiple armors would still occur. So parade armor would still give bonuses to Diplomacy, for example. That one armor that grants DR vs...something (I forget what) would work, etc.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Aratrok wrote:

Incidentally, the moat important qualities for that character are "is a gnome", "has normal feats", and "PC wealth". It'd be almost exactly as effective as a warrior of the same level.

That's equal parts amazing and depressing.

Aratrok wrote:
the moat important
Aratrok wrote:
moat

Nagaplz.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aliizsa Sylvari wrote:
Aratrok wrote:

Incidentally, the moat important qualities for that character are "is a gnome", "has normal feats", and "PC wealth". It'd be almost exactly as effective as a warrior of the same level.

That's equal parts amazing and depressing.

Aratrok wrote:
the moat important
Aratrok wrote:
moat
Nagaplz.

That's racial subtype profiling. :P


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Naga's are best. Especially Lunar ones.

*hoards Pirate series of pathfinder novels*


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think I fell in love with a lot of the reptilian races because of how cool the yuan-ti seemed in the 3E MM.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ashiel wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:

I'm pretty sure they also FAQrattaed your multiple armor scheme, saying that the extra armor enhancements don't count as they are 'turned off' by the superior bonus'ed armor.

If it weren't for PFS, I'd have no reason to pay serious attention to the FAQ.

That's amusing. So what happens when they're equal bonuses? :P

Like, if you had a +1 ghost touch armor (+4 armor) and a +1 invulnerable armor (+4 armor)? (?_?)

Universe explodes.

Incidentally, I think Quilted Cloth is a better choice for an under layer than padded armor, since it also provides DR 3/- against arrows and such.

Armor slot thing probably makes this point moot though.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Klara Meison wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:

I'm pretty sure they also FAQrattaed your multiple armor scheme, saying that the extra armor enhancements don't count as they are 'turned off' by the superior bonus'ed armor.

If it weren't for PFS, I'd have no reason to pay serious attention to the FAQ.

That's amusing. So what happens when they're equal bonuses? :P

Like, if you had a +1 ghost touch armor (+4 armor) and a +1 invulnerable armor (+4 armor)? (?_?)

Universe explodes.

Incidentally, I think Quilted Cloth is a better choice for an under layer than padded armor, since it also provides DR 3/- against arrows and such.

Armor slot thing probably makes this point moot though.

Armor Slot is a magical item thing. If you put non-magical Quilted Cloth on under magical armor then you don't need to care about slot issues. It's only when you put on 2 pieces of magical armor that bad things happen


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Since I haven't forgotten about the best & worst encounters bit, I'm still going through the options. At the moment, I think I've got it narrowed down to a certain encounter that I think is super garbage, but the post explaining why it's garbage is going to be pretty long.

However, so you know what to expect, in the same fashion as with the worst homebrew encounters, I'm going to be basing my judgment on a few factors.

1: The concept and/or narrative of the encounter. Nonsensical encounters are going to be worse than those that make sense. If the encounter requires you to suspend a lot of disbelief, or leaves the party very confused as to why it was even a thing, that's not a good sign.

2: How valid is it mechanically. Nonsense mechanics, blatant rule breaking, getting common rules wrong, or drastically misappropriating the encounter design system (especially if you try to "fix" that misuse with hamfisted ad-hoc adjustments) are going to land you a lower score in this category.

3: How interesting / fun the encounter is. Perhaps the most important part. If the encounter isn't at least fun, interesting, and reasonably challenging, that's a strike against it. If the encounter is breaking the first two rules and still manages to be abhorrently bad from an interest level, it is exceptionally bad for the encounter.

There's a few dishonorable mentions from games I've GMed, intended to GM, or played in.

Jade Regent
Jade Regent #1 actually had two encounters that really ground my gears.

Spoiler:
In Jade Regent, the party eventually makes their way to a keep that has been overtaken by some badguys. They slaughtered the people living inside, including the guard, and then made the place an improvised base of operations or somesuch.

Two wrongs do not make a wight
The first encounter that really bothered me was with the former captain of the guard. He had risen as a wight because of his brutal murder ('cause people do that sometimes). However, despite being intelligent (wights are actually really smart), and despite no badguy in the keep having any way of controlling him, the wight is nonhostile to his murderers in the keep and has nothing better to do than mindlessly attack the PCs. Adding insult to injury, a fairly large amount of space is dedicated to explaining this guy's backstory, only for none of it to ever be a thing in the game itself and he's just a generic goon.

Adding more injury to insults, the wight is described as wearing his plate armor that he died in, but you're told just to ignore his equipment and armor, running him as a generic wight from the bestiary with no bonuses or penalties for being decked out in armor. *Angryface*

Comments: I actually adjusted this encounter when I planned to run the game. I tossed 1 warrior level on the wight, counted his damned armor, and had him lurking about the keep trying to figure out how to best take his revenge for the murder of himself and his people. Initially unfriendly towards the party, the party could attempt to convince the wight to join forces with them in defeating the denizens of the keep in an enemy of my enemy sort of way. If the party succeeded, the wight would allow the party to leave the keep unmolested.

Suicide Family Squad
In the same keep, there's a family of ogrekin who are just squatting there. They're unrelated to the badguys in the keep, and their motivation is they just want to be left alone instead of driven out of yet another home. Their relationship with the badguys in the keep is more or less "don't bother us, we won't bother you". The main NPC is a rather motherly older sister figure who sees it as her duty to protect her "family" because they just want to be left alone.

However, they're expected to fight to the death the moment they encounter the party because they don't want to leave this place they're squatting at (which had just been explained wasn't actually very important to them for any reason) and don't want to be evicted. All care as to the safety of her kin aside, they just really want to engage in some serious suicide vs adventuring party.

Comment: When I was planning to run this game, I modified this encounter too. The ogrekin there only became hostile if the party became hostile and were simply unfriendly otherwise. It made no sense to me that the ogrekin could squat there with a bunch of foreign tengu and evil badguys who they didn't have any relation or care for, but were so insane as to attack a bunch of armed individuals on sight out of a simple fear of being bothered. I also made it so that the party could try to ask them questions if they got on their good side, since they were more familiar with the keep (and given the way my party's roll, they might have helped them find a home if they asked what they were doing in the keep. Who knows?).

Curse of the Crimson Throne
Curse of the Crimson Throne is actually the first Paizo AP that I ever got and I gotta say it's one of the the standards by which I measure most things, but it's not without its flaws. There's one encounter in the first AP that has become a bit notorious and I have to wonder what was the author thinking.

Spoiler:
In CotCT #1, just after the first adventure, the game becomes significantly less linear and revolves around certain encounters and scenes that can occur leading up to the next on the rails adventure portions (I approve :D). However, one of those encounters...

An Imp-ossible Encounter
The encounter takes place while the party is wandering about alone, when a pack of imps who have escaped over time from the local mage college see them as being an easy mark for "wealth and mayhem" and decide to attack them. Four (4) imps attack the party out of nowhere.

At this point in the adventure, the party might be 2nd level. Four imps are CR 6 and a pretty hard CR 6 at that (above the "epic" APL+3 mark). Imps have 13 Hp, DR 5, fast healing 2, a nasty (for its level) poison, can shapeshift, and at-will invisibility. The combination of fast healing, DR, and invisibility means that it's trivial for them to just zip out of melee when they're in danger and heal up, only to return for more pain. They're also too fast for the party to flee from (50 ft. fly speed w/ perfect maneuverability).

A party of 2nd level characters is going to get brutally pillaged by this encounter, and if the party didn't make it to 2nd level, doubly so. Because they have at-will invisibility, they will always get the surprise round and they can get into some poor fool's square without provoking because of it. Their AC, speed, and attacks are well poised to walk over a party.

The "solution" was that the writer said a half-dozen pseudo-dragons will come along and help the party mop them up, and then fly away when the encounter is over. Which is great in theory, except it's morbidly obvious that the person writing it has never even looked at the pseudodragon monster entry, aside from maybe admiring the cool picture while paging through the Monster Manual.

The Pseudodragon literally cannot hurt the imp. Even if all six dragons leaped onto a single imp, or a hundred, they couldn't ever actually defeat that imp or even wound it. It's impossible for them. Even on a critical hit, they cannot deal more than 1 point of damage, and they can't pierce the imp's DR, and the imp is immune to their poison, they are so much weaker than the imps that they have little prayer of successfully wrestling with the imps, and they're at a significant disadvantage to the imps in terms of AC and to-hit rolls, and the imps can tear them to pieces (d4 damage, the dragons are vulnerable to their poison, etc).

It's literally impossible for this encounter to go as the writer describes it going. What will actually happen is, at best, a PC dies, along with a half dozen pseudodragons, while the rest of the party flees for their lives, and (likely) worse is the party doesn't realize how utterly screwed they are until it's far, far too late.

Paizo even released a custom feat to "fix" the encounter on their blog (yay, I'm sure 90% of the owners of the book thought to look on the blog for an update), but their fix was a feat that only worked for pseudodragons that made their natural attacks count as silver (because apparently they sharpen their nails on shingles that have bits of silver in them or something, I forget). Oh...what a fix. They can now deal a whole 1 point of nonlethal damage to the imps (for those paying attention, nonlethal damage heals alongside normal damage when an effect heals you, so if two pseudodragons hit an imp for 2 nonlethal damage, and a PC hits an imp for 2 damage, and the imp fast heals 2 damage, the imp now has 0 lethal and nonlethal damage).

Thanks for the fix. ಠ_ಠ


You may be happy to know that in the upcoming CotCT Hardcover, they are releasing a Korvosa variant of the psuedodragon specifically to address the issue of imps vs psuedodragons. Supposedly, the idea of Korvosa comes from James Jacobs homebrew setting where pusedodragons are 'beefier' or something like that. I dunno, perhaps they were better in a fight in 2nd edition when he started building his campaign setting?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Tels wrote:
You may be happy to know that in the upcoming CotCT Hardcover, they are releasing a Korvosa variant of the psuedodragon specifically to address the issue of imps vs psuedodragons. Supposedly, the idea of Korvosa comes from James Jacobs homebrew setting where pusedodragons are 'beefier' or something like that. I dunno, perhaps they were better in a fight in 2nd edition when he started building his campaign setting?

I'm not really sure how I feel about that. On one hand, I think it's kind of a cool idea. On the other hand, it feels weird to force "the mighty pseudodragon, found nowhere else except Korvosa, so that we can deus ex this encounter". Even then, how much of this encounter is going to be left up to the PC's doing vs the newer pseudobeefs, I wonder.

Hmmm...I guess time will tell. :o

Mind you, I'm not wholly against PCs getting help from the NPCs (I'd ideally hope that the PCs are the deciding factor in an encounter though, whenever possible, otherwise there's not much point for them to be there if it's not somehow advancing the narrative) so maybe it'll work. I'm just kind of funny about verisimilitude and making exceptional pseudodragons just to make a poorly designed counter work a little better feels really weird to me.

Seems like a less hamfisted way to go about it would be to have a few guards armed with silver weapons and the like around in the area (who could share some of their weaponry with the PCs) and have the pseudodragons take more of a support role by using their blindsense to point out which spaces the imps are in while the party members and the guards do their thing. Maybe even someone with faerie fire or glitterdust (when combined with the psuedodragon's blindsense, you'll pretty sure to hit with it).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It has less to do with that encounter and more to do with the flavor of the region. Korvosa has had imp vs psuedodragon wars for scores of years, it's a major factor of the city's history. On the meta side, one of the few art pieces of Korvosa itself is of a massive battle between the imps and pusedodragons.

The issue of the pusedodragons has been a long-standing conflict of rules and flavor/fluff. Since they can't region the psuedodragon entirely, the next best option is to publish a variant that has evolved over the many generations to fight the imps.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

Yeah, they talked about that problem.

I like the pseudodragon swarm idea myself.

And then they patched it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I forgot about the Dex to damage thing. That makes it a lot less one-sided. :o


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Korvosan pseudodragons all have levels of inpired blade swashbuckler and a silver rapier, along with fencing grace for free.

What imps?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

>The Pseudodragon literally cannot hurt the imp. Even if all six dragons leaped onto a single imp, or a hundred, they couldn't ever actually defeat that imp or even wound it. It's impossible for them. Even on a critical hit, they cannot deal more than 1 point of damage, and they can't pierce the imp's DR, and the imp is immune to their poison, they are so much weaker than the imps that they have little prayer of successfully wrestling with the imps, and they're at a significant disadvantage to the imps in terms of AC and to-hit rolls, and the imps can tear them to pieces (d4 damage, the dragons are vulnerable to their poison, etc).

They can still point at the square the imps are in, and use telepathy to communicate that information to others. More importantly, they can throw flour/chalk/dust/whatever at those squares, revealing them for the party to slaughter. Rinse/repeat for all imps. Depending on how many of them there are, they could Aid Another all the way, maybe helping a little with imps AC.

If someone in the party is the sort of person who always carries 20 acid flasks bound to bags of flour "just in case", a bunch of pseudodragons can be a deadly force. I have been discussing a character class concept based around that with a friend lately, actually.

Honestly, I am describing tactics you yourself wrote about, Ashiel. There are different ways to be deadly, and biting the face off of your enemy is only one of them.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Bonus point:since flour will be oxidised by acid, Imps will smell like cookies. Even if they retreat to recover health, their dignity will never recover.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

That would make sense, and would be a way more interesting encounter than the one actually in the book. The pseudodragons swoop in sans any sort of equipment or preparation, and are described as engaging in tooth-and-claw mass battles against imps.

Incidentally, that's super weird even beyond the matchup not making much sense. A female pseudodragon lays a brood of 2-5 eggs once per year (usually in Spring). The only way for imps to arrive in the city is horrifically botched planar binding attempts. So how are there enough of both in the city to have gigantic air battles on the regular?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think he's implying the impossibility for the pcs lies in that you have no expected means to see a normally out of your league encounter coming like that and hows a likely level 1 char gonna have 200 gold worth of acid? It's not like you've much time in CotCT early on to craft it yourself generally. Unless you're an alch maybe. In any case imps have acid and resistance 10. No alchemical weapons going to hurt them unless you were somehow making lightning in a bottle enmass.

I think that was the only encounter we never had in Curse of the crimson throne. I vaguely recall that's why we didn't. I kinda agree.

As for the first book of the Jade Derpery, yeah that annoyed me, but we both have ranted about intelligent undead being glorified doorstops to writers for a long time in other threads. The Ogre bit is irksome too.

Though toss in the utterly broken caravan rules and the kinda... Gamey relationship system and it's... Messy. Most my group just turned the system into Dragon Age Origins and shoveled gifts into the npcs.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aratrok wrote:

That would make sense, and would be a way more interesting encounter than the one actually in the book. The pseudodragons swoop in sans any sort of equipment or preparation, and are described as engaging in tooth-and-claw mass battles against imps.

Incidentally, that's super weird even beyond the matchup not making much sense. A female pseudodragon lays a brood of 2-5 eggs once per year (usually in Spring). The only way for imps to arrive in the city is horrifically botched planar binding attempts. So how are there enough of both in the city to have gigantic air battles on the regular?

Maybe someone has a deal with Imps and botches their binding attempts deliberately?


Icehawk wrote:

I think he's implying the impossibility for the pcs lies in that you have no expected means to see a normally out of your league encounter coming like that and hows a likely level 1 char gonna have 200 gold worth of acid? It's not like you've much time in CotCT early on to craft it yourself generally. Unless you're an alch maybe. In any case imps have acid and resistance 10. No alchemical weapons going to hurt them unless you were somehow making lightning in a bottle enmass.

I think that was the only encounter we never had in Curse of the crimson throne. I vaguely recall that's why we didn't. I kinda agree.

As for the first book of the Jade Derpery, yeah that annoyed me, but we both have ranted about intelligent undead being glorified doorstops to writers for a long time in other threads. The Ogre bit is irksome too.

Though toss in the utterly broken caravan rules and the kinda... Gamey relationship system and it's... Messy. Most my group just turned the system into Dragon Age Origins and shoveled gifts into the npcs.

>Special Qualities: Alternate form, damage reduction 5/good or silver, darkvision 60 ft., fast healing 2, immunity to poison, resistance to fire 5

I don't see acid resistance.


Aratrok wrote:

That would make sense, and would be a way more interesting encounter than the one actually in the book. The pseudodragons swoop in sans any sort of equipment or preparation, and are described as engaging in tooth-and-claw mass battles against imps.

Incidentally, that's super weird even beyond the matchup not making much sense. A female pseudodragon lays a brood of 2-5 eggs once per year (usually in Spring). The only way for imps to arrive in the city is horrifically botched planar binding attempts. So how are there enough of both in the city to have gigantic air battles on the regular?

Looks like, in that edition, it was 10-15 years for a lifecycle of pseudo dragons.

2-5 A year averages out to 3.5 - so that's not too shabby all-told.

That means that, if you start with a population of 20 psuedo dragons, you could have 70 adults two years down the line, and 245 four years later. Presume about twenty years, and you're at the 1,225-mark (give or take; these are averages).

With imps and botched summoning rituals, it seems pretty fair to say that, for all the skill and intelligence shown in the Acadamae, they're also a pretty stupid bunch, if rather typical of government-run education OH, SNAP!. If there were about three to four botched attempts by a student summoning creatures each year via scroll (which could possibly aid in justifying the impovershing price the Academae charges), that can add up fairly quickly as well - especially since the imps can't be harmed too much by the pseudo-dragons and can get into stockpiles and conjure more, after coordinting a bit via their commune abilities... and James noted, in that thread, that imps might be "born" into the material over time, there (meaning not just through soul-damnation). I imagine there's a great hell-racket that goes something like, "We got an A-S callin' - you know the drill, invisibility, and don't say nothin'; wait 'til they go away, and the instructor'll free you when he "cleans up" later. Make sure to pay the man, and get out of the school."

It's not perfect, but over those twenty years or so, I can dig it. Thereafter, there'd be a steep drop off in the pseudodragon population, until they started adapting via that feat James created.


Klara Meison wrote:
Aratrok wrote:

That would make sense, and would be a way more interesting encounter than the one actually in the book. The pseudodragons swoop in sans any sort of equipment or preparation, and are described as engaging in tooth-and-claw mass battles against imps.

Incidentally, that's super weird even beyond the matchup not making much sense. A female pseudodragon lays a brood of 2-5 eggs once per year (usually in Spring). The only way for imps to arrive in the city is horrifically botched planar binding attempts. So how are there enough of both in the city to have gigantic air battles on the regular?

Maybe someone has a deal with Imps and botches their binding attempts deliberately?

I believe that was in there, but I'm not entire sure, at present (and may well have been thoroughly buried in minutiae somewhere).

Klara Meison wrote:
Icehawk wrote:

I think he's implying the impossibility for the pcs lies in that you have no expected means to see a normally out of your league encounter coming like that and hows a likely level 1 char gonna have 200 gold worth of acid? It's not like you've much time in CotCT early on to craft it yourself generally. Unless you're an alch maybe. In any case imps have acid and resistance 10. No alchemical weapons going to hurt them unless you were somehow making lightning in a bottle enmass.

I think that was the only encounter we never had in Curse of the crimson throne. I vaguely recall that's why we didn't. I kinda agree.

As for the first book of the Jade Derpery, yeah that annoyed me, but we both have ranted about intelligent undead being glorified doorstops to writers for a long time in other threads. The Ogre bit is irksome too.

Though toss in the utterly broken caravan rules and the kinda... Gamey relationship system and it's... Messy. Most my group just turned the system into Dragon Age Origins and shoveled gifts into the npcs.

>Special Qualities: Alternate form, damage reduction 5/good or silver, darkvision 60 ft., fast healing 2, immunity to poison, resistance to fire 5

I don't see acid resistance.

Good catch!

I think he was thinking of devil traits in general, instead of imp traits in specific.

(Also, since I'm linking; pseudodragon.)

((Also, also, I linked what I did, because that was the system that it was published under, instead of PF.)) :D


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yeah thats my bad, my brain went to the pathfinder stats where they aren't a mysterious exception for raisens.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tacticslion wrote:
Aratrok wrote:

That would make sense, and would be a way more interesting encounter than the one actually in the book. The pseudodragons swoop in sans any sort of equipment or preparation, and are described as engaging in tooth-and-claw mass battles against imps.

Incidentally, that's super weird even beyond the matchup not making much sense. A female pseudodragon lays a brood of 2-5 eggs once per year (usually in Spring). The only way for imps to arrive in the city is horrifically botched planar binding attempts. So how are there enough of both in the city to have gigantic air battles on the regular?

Looks like, in that edition, it was 10-15 years for a lifecycle of pseudo dragons.

2-5 A year averages out to 3.5 - so that's not too shabby all-told.

That means that, if you start with a population of 20 psuedo dragons, you could have 70 adults two years down the line, and 245 four years later. Presume about twenty years, and you're at the 1,225-mark (give or take; these are averages).

With imps and botched summoning rituals, it seems pretty fair to say that, for all the skill and intelligence shown in the Acadamae, they're also a pretty stupid bunch, if rather typical of government-run education OH, SNAP!. If there were about three to four botched attempts by a student summoning creatures each year via scroll (which could possibly aid in justifying the impovershing price the Academae charges), that can add up fairly quickly as well - especially since the imps can't be harmed too much by the pseudo-dragons and can get into stockpiles and conjure more, after coordinting a bit via their commune abilities... and James noted, in that thread, that imps might be "born" into the material over time, there (meaning not just through soul-damnation). I imagine there's a great hell-racket that goes something...

Your math is way off. Pseudo dragons mature in 2 years, which means that their population growth is exponential on the scale of 20 years. Assuming 50-50 birth rate, 10 male and 10 female pseudodragons at the start, they get to 1271 in just 6 years. After 10 they are at 17112 total population, and after 20 they have a mere 11 million critters. (model probably breaks down due to availibility of resources and higher death rates at this point). 100k is reached after 13 years. If you nudge the birth rate to 30-70(70% female, not unheard of in nature), 100k is reached in 11 years. If you drop it to 13-87(some birds IRL), you get to 100k in 10 years, but after 20 you have 300M critters.

Imps have no chance to keep up unless someone is seriously nudging the scales.

*math nerd out*


D'oh! That's what I get for just multiplying by twenty! XD

(I blame my little children for being distracting. ;P)

EDIT: But, really, it could also simply be an effect of imps being so invulnerable to the pseudos... at first. That allows the imps to grow "slowly" - and the numbers given before could still be solid... but that's more incidental than (as my math would still be way off, because of the reasons you mentioned); either way, a sudden precipitous drop-off in the population is not only likely, but inevitable. That would explain the "war" mentality as well - suddenly imps move in and begin murdering pseudo-dragons who can't really do too much back, at least at first. Eventually, they create tactics (and a bonus feat) that directly oppose the imps, and voila, you hit an equilibrium down the line. :)

Community & Digital Content Director

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Removed a series of posts. We're really not comfortable hosting this sort of graphic content on our forums.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

For anyone who is curious, looks like it was Ashiel's "worst encounter" post and everything that spawned from it that was deleted.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Mayhap that's for the best


Does make me giggle given this is the same folks who have written some pretty graphic things happening to npcs

Just read book 6 of Reign of Winter. Getting voted off the island is a hell of a way to go.


Huh. Didn't think there was anything more graphic than classical literature, but alright.


Or even the first Pathfinder AP, really. That is super weird and disconcerting.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It's probably the subject of rape. Paizo doesn't really tolerate talking about it here on the forums.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tels wrote:
It's probably the subject of rape. Paizo doesn't really tolerate talking about it here on the forums.

But Ashiel said in the end that it was consensual.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Klara Meison wrote:
Tels wrote:
It's probably the subject of rape. Paizo doesn't really tolerate talking about it here on the forums.
But Ashiel said in the end that it was consensual.

Not true. The GM decided she liked it, but that doesn't mean consent. You could force someone to go down a water slide, and then find out they enjoyed the ride. That doesn't mean they consented though, only that they may consent to further rides down the slide.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

[sarcasm]Curious as to what the DC for a "likes Rape" saving throw would be.[/sarcasm]


IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII'mmmmmmmmmm not asleep, though I probably should beeeeeee~!

Ashiel: what mechanical penalties am I suffering?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Personally I think being tired should apply the penalties of the lullaby spell. Exhaustion and fatigue are all about physical fatigue. I can run a lot while on no sleep, but my attention span suffers and I may nod off very easily. Eventually I'll just pass out if I want it or not cus my body will force it too whether it likes it or not.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Icehawk wrote:
Personally I think being tired should apply the penalties of the lullaby spell. Exhaustion and fatigue are all about physical fatigue. I can run a lot while on no sleep, but my attention span suffers and I may nod off very easily. Eventually I'll just pass out if I want it or not cus my body will force it too whether it likes it or not.

This is one of the reasons I want to revise the fatigue and exhaustion conditions in D20 Legends. Mostly because fatigue and exhaustion, in reality, affect things like your concentration and awareness, and cause you to make mistakes you wouldn't normally make.

As a result, I'm leaning towards making fatigue and exhaustion work in a similar fashion to conditions like shaken, where you have some penalties across the board. They will likely apply penalties to a caster's concentration checks (which is used to cast spells in this system, so being fatigued would make it harder to cast spells effectively, causing you to fall back on using lower level spells).


I will say that, at least in my case, I was definitely experience a strength penalty, drop, or something similar as well as a mental thing. I couldn't even open a bag of salad - salad - without scissors! :)


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Tacticslion wrote:
I will say that, at least in my case, I was definitely experience a strength penalty, drop, or something similar as well as a mental thing. I couldn't even open a bag of salad - salad - without scissors! :)

To be fair, you may have just encountered one of those freak bags that has DR 30/slashing so you need scissors or a knife to open it.

1,451 to 1,500 of 3,564 << first < prev | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / >> Ask Ashiel Anything << All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.