Abjurer's page

I imagine that Fortitude saves work as my group seems to think they do. That the poison/effect is something that would affect their body's reactions and as such. Being dead would grant "immunity" in such a case as his body would not be affected by it. Consider my character. As a Vishkenya, I have a Dex poison and a Sleep Venom. It is not like I am poisoned by my own blood...

Yes, but these are racial abilities that your race confers to you. He can't be a carrier of any disease - without a special attack like your racial ability - because there is no Typhoid Mary rule in PF. You either contract a disease by failing the fortitude save, which he can't do, or fight it off by passing it.

Hopefully you can use that against him.

While he makes that mistake I may be able to hold him off a bit, however the fact that he is undead allows him to do things like give himself diseases that would affect characters he touches with Con damage.

I don't know if this has been covered yet, but how is he giving himself diseases when he auto-passes fortitude saves?

The penalties the rule is referring to are the temporary ones e.g. conditions/spells. A cowering creature (-2 penalty to AC) would also have a -2 to CMD. A stunned creature would have a -2 to CMD. A slowed creature per the spell would have a -1 to CMD. So on and so forth.

Instead of spelling it out like they did for the extra bonuses, they just said "any penalties." It is poor wording, but it does not include size since size is already represented.

Posting to say hello. I generally lurk like no one's business, but I do read the forums and am unaffiliated.

Don't get me wrong - if it were released as-is, I would still sign up on Day One, and I don't wish at all to belittle how much work Mr. Wallin has put into his craft. My post was meant more as constructive criticism. It was something that stuck out to me on the initial watch; though, after watching it again, it seems slightly less out of place than I remember. Still, I feel like the characters, especially the females, are bounding. I would feel comfortable giving an ogre that gait, but it seems too slow and loping for a medium-sized creature that is running.

All my opinion, of course. Keep up the incredible work, Mr. Dancey!

One thing to remember about stacking AoO's though is that unarmed characters without the Improved Unarmed Strike feat do not threaten squares and thus don't get attacks of opportunity.

So, OP, in your example, if a non-proficient, unarmed enemy provokes an AoO from your weapon-wielding PC, your trip attack would not provoke an AoO back because he is not threatening you. Same applies for characters with reach - you can trip with no consequences against a character that can't reach you because they are not threatening your square.

Threatened Squares

I know this is a minor nitpick, but - is it just me or does the extremely large stride of the human characters bother anyone else? I'm a fairly tall dude and would have to be practically jumping to match that long, slow pace in covered ground per step. Look at the female rogue/ranger at ~2:20. Her legs wouldn't be able to move that far in a non-jumping run and still be able to support her torso, in my opinion.

Minor nitpick aside, the game looks very nice for still being in an early stage. It has both very pleasant architecture and appropriate outfits for once. I can't wait for this to come out!

Since I enjoy playing paladins, I am going to throw in my two cents against my better judgement. For paladins who are put in cases that haven't left key pieces out, the end never justify the means.

I'll start with the "Baby or the World" case. Considering that all existence on the Material Plane is going to be destroyed, and multiple extraplanar beings depend upon the Material Plane for various reasons including the paladin's chosen deity like Spook said, the situation would in all likelihood not be up to the paladin's choice. All of existence would be against this BBEG. So, unless the paladin is somehow more powerful and/or smarter than most deities -not to mention braver since those deities are making the paladin choose instead of doing it themselves- someone else would be in charge when it came down to this choice. This reminds me of the old Rovagug war. Was that fought by paladins or deities and extraplanars? Why would the baby case be any different?

This case, IMO, shows the problem with most of these philosophical questions. They are purposefully handicapping the character in ways that aren't realistic relative to the world in question, and in such situations, a realistic answer can't be expected. It's pretty similar to asking the following math question: (If 14 + cheese, then what is blue?) How does one answer that? However, if I was stuck in this situation and there was no possible alternative after I tried and tried to find one, I would have to sacrifice the child; knowing that the child died as an innocent and would be okay, knowing that all of existence including my deity would still be around afterward and knowing full-well that my soul was doomed. But is my soul worth more than that of my deity's existence? The answer to that is obvious. A paladin would condemn himself to a thousand lifetimes in Hell before betraying his god. I would then kick my GM in the shin and go home. (Joking)

I also want to respond to the Anne Frank situation. First of all, I'll start by saying that I don't believe a paladin would lie even in this situation. He would tell the Nazis they would have to go through him to get to the Jews. However, paladins not being complete idiots as such, a paladin would not hide the fugitives for long at his house since he knows that he can't lie. He would say "I can't deny you help, but you are not safe here because I am sworn to honesty. I will tell the Nazi's that you are here if you are still here, but that they will have to go through me to get to you. I will then proceed to kick the dogcrap out of them, which will make you even more unsafe. Therefore, we need to find somewhere else where you can live safely out of the reach of those trying to hurt you, and I will make sure that happens even at the cost of my life." Why a paladin continues to live in Nazi-occupied Europe is beyond me, though. His life will end quickly and could have been used better elsewhere. Paladins aren't good fits for underground resistance movements. That's a 2e ranger's job.

TL;DR The ends do not justify the means for paladins.

I've spent the last week off and on reading this thread. Not only does it seem like you are a fantastic GM and a great writer, but you have a stellar group matched up with you. I've laughed, I've felt bad and I keep finding myself reading on instead of going to sleep like I know that I should - it's almost like reading a really good book!

I'll be reading this as you continue. Thanks for the campaign log!

How about a small ring of vampiric stone giants? Pretty well covers either melee or ranged, and would allow you to get in social encounters with regularly neutral stone giants or an isolated clan of dwarves trying to rid themselves of the menace.

Or a chaotic neutral magma dragon. All sorts of ways to use and abuse that guy in the mountains, and it makes sense why there is no civilization there - nobody wants to live near that insanity.

I'll add in on this. The main places where piracy thrives are waters that are uncontrolled due to the prey nations' inability to project power into the region. The prime example of this is the Caribbean during the 16th through early 18th centuries. There was simply too much ocean and too many uncharted islands, barrier islands, etc. to control all of it. So you could basically pick anywhere reasonably close to the shipping lanes, and since you would know the waters around your local islands better than anyone else, you could outrun anyone through better navigation.

Therefore, when it comes to fantasy, the answer is anywhere that the local powers don't have full control. I'm pretty sure the idea of any pirate base would be temporary at best, but basically any island that was off of the main shipping lane enough to hole up for a short amount of time without detection would be a great base.

According to Classic treasures revisited, the writers believe the stuff to be gone if the bag of holding ever loses its powers, temporary or not. I won't get specific because a) I don't know if it's allowed with that type of book, and b) I don't have it with me. ;)

Edit: actually, the suppression in an anti-magic zone may be right. But permanent disenchantment, like dispel magic, makes the contents go bye-bye.

Abjurer wrote:

I am almost positive that you are talking about Conway, based upon the three colleges and the half-shelf of RPG stuff at Hastings(which is in the Video section.) If I'm right, have you checked out the Conway Gaming Center?

I've never even heard of the place! Thanks!

No problem, man. I try to steer people there, as I've noticed a huge problem in our area - word of anything going on game-wise takes forever to get around. They were open for quite a while before I even knew that they existed, and I'm noticing that's true for almost everyone I meet. It's over by the Mazzio's on Washington Ave., by the way, if you haven't looked it up.

Also, there's 'Imagine! Games' in Sherwood. I just played a Pathfinder Society Scenario there earlier on Friday, so if you don't mind a little drive, they have some organized stuff there. Someone really should get something going at the Conway store, though.

I live in a town with a population between 50 and 55 thousand. Not a big city by most standards, but for Arkansas it's pretty large. We also have two colleges and one university here, and of course armies of kids from middle school on up, not just in the city limits but outlying towns as well. You'd think that'd be enough to keep at least one modest FLGS going, but it's not.

DMC,

I am almost positive that you are talking about Conway, based upon the three colleges and the half-shelf of RPG stuff at Hastings(which is in the Video section.) If I'm right, have you checked out the Conway Gaming Center?

Tambryn wrote:

That's weird, I have actually heard really good things about Conway's gaming community. I was just told the other day that Conway had a game store. I will ask around and get back to you.

Tam

Well there is Conway Gaming Center, but their website doesn't seem to be promoting much pen and paper gaming at all (they're primarily a LAN site, though they do have a d20 on their logo, right next to the xbox), and they're an 'it costs money to be inside the building' location, so dropping by and hangout is something I have ventured to do yet.

I live in the Conway area as well(Greenbrier), and I can tell you that they carry RPG stuff there. Lots of Warhammer and 4th edition stuff, and this-and-that of PF. They definitely had the Core Book, and I remember seeing Classic Treasures revisited as well.

We have fighters in ren-era plate mail using caveman era clubs :P

Look at the illustration in the core book for a club and tell me that wouldn't hurt someone in armor. :P Besides, who seriously uses a club, anyway? ;)

Now, I know that's just style, and a player can describe their club any way they wish. Personally, I'd be fine with the idea of a "free" club doing non-lethal damage and like a 1 gp club doing lethal damage or something, but I guess I'm pining for the days of older editions where stuff like that matters.

I've always been skeptical about the use of firearms in melee in a high-fantasy system. I almost wonder if it shouldn't do damage much like the sap in 3.5. The sap did much more damage than an unarmed strike (excepting the monk), but it was considered nonlethal damage.

Now, I've never swung a firearm at someone, so I don't pretend to know what some of you guys that have posted here know, but, to me, it seems that the use of a firearm as a melee weapon is something that's feasible due to relatively low-to-unarmored enemies - armor being rendered mostly obsolete due to the massive amount of penetration the other way of attacking with a firearm causes. I don't know how useful it would be to swing a pistol at someone in full plate, and I don't think you'd be doing much damage to that someone.

Let me ask a question of the vets here: when they taught you to "beat" with your rifle, did they tell you to aim for stuff like face and neck, or was it just a "go to town" exercise?

Well, I see what you're trying to do. Just make the spike smaller. Think pencil-sized or so. Then you can ramp the DC up some, although you would still need some way to keep the blood from flowing. Maybe make it where the assassin actually leaves the spike fully in the victim's head or something.

Edit: @Snobi - Thanks for the sources. I looked in the PF Core and my 3.5 PHB; which explains why I didn't see it. It sucks they didn't copy over at least the general Forensics ability, but most players I've gamed with just assume Heal can do that anyway.

I'm not sure where people get the impression that I get the impression that I have to take them. I asked why should I take the feat. I didn't ask why do I have to take the feat.

Apparently there is no reason at all for my wizard to take the feat as the fighter can now do it himself.

Pretty much, although some people might want to play an artificer-type caster. It's pretty much there if you want it - if not, do what you think makes your character fun.

@Snobi: May I ask for the source of that description? It's not in my PF core book, but that's exactly what I've always considered Heal to be, regardless.

@Northbrb: A dime-sized puncture wound is still pretty big, and it would cause damage to any hair covering the original surface. I'd consider it almost automatic, but if you want to assign a check, make it easy - DC 10-15.

if you are trying to examine something like a dead body, looking for defensive wounds, broken bones or puncture wounds what skill would you use for that?

would it be perception?

what would the dc be to find a puncture wound the size of a dime in the back of someones head if they have a full head of hair?

Most adventures that I've seen use a Heal check to examine a person or body. It's kind of a knowledge skill as well as a utility skill. Knowing how to heal someone would require knowledge of what is ailing them, and that's the tie-in that I would use.

The puncture wound might be a perception check, but if it's the size of a dime, some sort of damage had to have occured to the hair on the person's head - even if it's just being blood-soaked. So even then, I'd still consider it a Heal check.

Edit: Even if you decide to use perception to find hard-to-see wounds, precedent will generally require a Heal check to identify the cause of the wound.

Eg: Perception - You find a dime-sized hole in the back of the man's head. Heal - The hole shows evidence of a puncture wound, and based on the inflammation around the exposed tissue, it looks like venom was involved; something like what a stinger of a giant scorpion might cause.

@Abjurer - I miss XP costs, but I think I'm one of very few that do.

Happy gaming.
Barator

Yeah, it didn't really bother me either way. The cost in XP really wasn't that significant at low level(1xp for a 1st level scroll and such,) and at higher levels, you shouldn't be churning items out like a factory anyway. However, my group, with the exception of myself, crafted exactly zero magical items during our 3.X edition run. They balked at the idea of losing XP. Then again, they also balked at the idea of having an ability below 10 as well...kind of a narrow-minded group.

Why is it that the casters have to waste their feats so that non-casters can get cheap magical items?

It seems to me that if a Fighter wants a magic sword and armor then *he* can take Craft Magic Arms and Armor as a feat and my wizard can stop by and cast the spells for him when needed (for a small fee of course). (Ka-snip)

The fighter CAN craft his own arms and armor, or even wondrous items. See the Master Craftsman feat, PF Core pg. 130. I don't have the link for the PFSRD; sorry.

Now then, about not requiring feats, you have to realize that you're giving your players a powerful tool with magic item creation. It would make a lot more sense to me if you did it without feats in 3.5, because magic items had a much more severe cost - XP. However, in PF, the only cost of creating magic items is gold. Casters with free creation feats can, potentially, break the system by creating magic items en masse. That's why, IMO, they cost a feat. You have to invest part of your character into doing it, so it becomes a much more serious endeavor.

I'd have to go with option #1 actually. The ranger's favored enemy class works almost exactly the same in PF as it did in 3.5, so there's no need to really convert much of anything besides skills. Now, the ranger's class ability is both listed in its level table and its ability descriptions as gaining a new favored enemy, whereas the low templar lists a bonus.

To explain for those without a book handy, the ranger lists itself in both 3.5 and PF at 1st, 5th, 10th etc, as "1st favored enemy, 2nd favored enemy, 3rd favored enemy, etc." The low templar lists itself as "Favored enemy+1, Favored enemy+2, etc." That, to me, implies that the designers meant for the low templar to pick chaotic outsiders, or whatever, and for their bonus to increase at higher levels at the rate given. The only thing, IMO, that the "identical to ranger ability of same name" means is that the +1 bonus applies to all the skill checks, attacks and damage that a ranger would apply to his favored enemy

Fair enough, and I suppose by RAW, if I am remembering properly, being grappled wouldn't stop you from completing the action, so you'd just take the negatives for beign grappled? Of course, you could house rule the "logical" answer that the grapple ends the charge....

A few things that could stop the charge, if you wish to interpret them this way:

1)Grappled creatures can't perform actions requiring two hands, so greatsword/other two-handed weapons are immediately out. This one is actually not up to interpretation as it is explained by the grappled condition.

2)Grappled creatures cannot move as per the grappled condition. Therefore, it could be ruled that since your charger cannot move, it was not his movement that put him adjacent to the monster. It was the monster's grapple that moved him there, and since his movement stopped before he was adjacent to the monster, he can't finish his charge.

3)If you don't want to use reason 2, then you should notice that a successful grapple against a non-adjacent opponent moves them to an adjacent space next to you. Note that it is a space of your choice and doesn't have to be the nearest adjacent space. This means you could mess up the charge by putting the charger in a space that was not his nearest square to you - which stops the charge because he can only charge into the nearest adjacent square from where he is to where you are.

I'm not saying you have to use any of these reasons, but they are there.