Ashkecker's page

totally had the same problem.
even with deliberately losing to the cadre the first time if it would get rid of a lot of cards, we only got to the 6th location.
both times when we ran out of time there, we saw the cadre was within 1 card of the bottom.
you need to use all allies and all blessings as explores, but you really need blessings to make 6 checks in a row, especially when some of them are crowe making a survival check.

the "solution": split the party into 2 groups of 3. it is ridiculously easy then, you'll be hanging around in the last location after the cadre to vacuum up boons.

one of the fragment's powers is a banish, so it seems unlikely.

Ashkecker wrote:

Vic Wertz wrote:

Unlike PFS OP, we won't be publishing scenarios for different levels to pick and choose from. We're essentially publishing a new AP that runs alongside the S&S AP, where the first month's scenarios comprise Adventure 1, the next month's comprise Adventure 2, and so on.

I am playing Skull and Shackles in real PF. I was considering not opening some of the later packages of the card game until I am through them in the game.

Would you consider the OP scenarios as also being spoilers for S&S?

The Adventure and Scenario cards plus the Villains and Henchmen would be the biggest spoilers. So I'd have to agree with you to hold off opening the decks if you want the AP chapters to be a surprise.

Yeah, but OP Scenarios (I'm assuming) have their own Adventures and their own Scenarios (and maybe their own Villains) so I wouldn't necessarily have to look at those cards.

That's essentially what I'm asking. Are the OP Scenarios different enough that it would only be mild spoilers?

Unlike PFS OP, we won't be publishing scenarios for different levels to pick and choose from. We're essentially publishing a new AP that runs alongside the S&S AP, where the first month's scenarios comprise Adventure 1, the next month's comprise Adventure 2, and so on.

I am playing Skull and Shackles in real PF. I was considering not opening some of the later packages of the card game until I am through them in the game.

Would you consider the OP scenarios as also being spoilers for S&S?

Thanks for the site, Kor.

I was checking if I had all the SS minis, and I noticed that 53 and 54 are reversed.
Also, I don't have it in front of me, but I think the Goblin Commando in RR should be Small.

I am confused about the SW and PF versions. Are there two versions of everything? Or just the main book?

If there are two of everything:
What's in the SW Player's guide? Surely not archetypes, feats, etc?
Can you fully mix versions in a pledge?
Do you get both PDFs or only the one you ordered?

Witches are for burning, so they are made of wood, so they float, like a duck.

How about we call it "Frequently Asked Questions - Unanswered" or FAQ-U?

In Summary,

WotC: Holiday tradition of firing talented staff like Lisa.

Paizo: Holiday tradition of dinner for your staff, even if you haven't gotten paid yet and are still burning through your start up cash.

Somehow "Stolen Land" gained copies since the November list.

Thanks and Happy Birthday.

1/13 is henceforth to be called Cosmoday and if any space bound Russians think it is named after them you have permission to correct them.

Ok. I have changed my numbers to 2.
Please send me a second case & dragon.

If you can attach it to my pending january order, that would be particularly awesome and I would have to rename a day of the week or something in your honor.

Thanks.
I am a subscriber and I already got mine. I like them enough I was considering getting another.

Are the Black Dragons available still or not?
If I add a case + dragon to my shopping cart as guest, it lets me but then it pulls it when I log in. If I'm already logged in, the add button is gone.

Just ignore this unless you have rules lawyer players.

It is to avoid a loophole involving extra spells.
You can't put on a headband of wisdom and pray for spells and then take it off and give to your friend the druid and let him pray and get extra spells too.

That said... we did track out what a fast track AP would look like, and as it turns out... a fast track AP would only get us ONE more level—aka, an average of 16th-17th level instead of 15th-16th level. Not sure one level is worth marginalizing one whole third of the three options for XP progression we offer, frankly.

I don't really have a dog in this fight. I don't necessarily want fast track or 20th level adventures. But my math-sense was tingling and I had to chime in.

It is wrong that an AP designed for the fast track would only come in 1 extra level higher. That assumes that an AP produces a set amount of experience and comparing that number on a different track. That isn't the right way to do that calculation.

An AP designed for the fast track would start designing encounters for level 2 players earlier, and therefore start giving out more XP per encounter from that point forward. This effect would increase until the roof was blown off the joint.

For simplicity, let's assume that every encounter in the AP is average CR for the desired track. That means that CR 2 encounters would start at the 14th for fast track and 21th for normal track.

A player on the fast track would reach level 20 after 253 encounters. A player in a normal track AP would be level 14 after that many encounters. Since most AP goes beyond that level, there would need to be Epic level stuff at the end of a 6 issue AP on the fast track.

There is a rule for what happens when you subtract 1 from a CR less than 2. It goes 1/2, 1/3, 1/4, etc.

So your group's APL is 1/2 and the following are appropriate challenges.

Easy 1/3
Average 1/2
Challenging 1
Hard 2
Epic 3

So if you want an average challenge, try a single zombie or 2 kobolds.

Didn't Pazio make a graphic available to gamers that had pictures of various potion bottles on it. I was looking for it again but can't find it...HELP

this?

you can find the link on the APG's page.

Gift of Life, the resurrection subdomain power.

It's a great idea. It doesn't soften the blow of death but it prevents it from tipping over into a TPK by bringing the person back for the rest of the fight.

I wish it were a spell.

xAverusx wrote:

Unfortunately, no. The bonus spells per day apply when a caster has access to those spells.

So, for 3rd level cleric spells, a player would need to be a 5th level cleric.

Thanks so mich for the quick reply! The rule that threw me off is from page 39 of the Core Rulebook:

"To prepare or cast a spell, a cleric must have a Wisdom score equal to at least 10 + the spell level."

But it seems from your answer there are different rules for "casting" and "accessing" a spell.

Thanks again!

No not really. The condition you cite is correct. But it is a neccessary not a sufficient condition. The rule the others are citing is in the ability score section, along with the bonus spell table.

Abilities and Spellcasters

The ability that governs bonus spells depends on what type of spellcaster your character is: Intelligence for wizards; Wisdom for clerics, druids, and rangers; and Charisma for bards, paladins, and sorcerers. In addition to having a high ability score, a spellcaster must be of a high enough class level to be able to cast spells of a given spell level. See the class descriptions in Classes for details.

So I just began running a steampunk campaign that will have slightly less magic than the standard D&D world. Don't get me wrong, there will still be flaming swords and helmets that change your alignment (o wait that's cursed not magical) but I kind of want to get rid of magical items that give characters a bonus to an ability score. The problem with this is that I don't feel that characters will feel like they're ability scores are high enough, although I think every character in my campaign has an 18 in at least 1 score and all but 1 have at least a 19 in 1 score (we rolled stats), o don't feel sorry for the character that doesn't have a 19, he has 2-18s.

The problem I'm having is figuring out what level to give PCs ability bonuses. I had thought every 2 levels might be ok but then I realized that's a total of +10 and I don't really want a character walking around with a 25 Intelligence at level 10. So then I thought maybe I could do it every 2 levels still but the PCs can only boost 1 ability score every 4 levels, so say they put a +1 in Intelligence at 2nd level, they'd have to wait til 6th level before they could boost Intelligence again. Any thoughts or suggestions on what to do?

This is exactly what I do, but I don't start people out with such high scores.

The rabid powergamer will always feel compelled to add to the ability score that is already highest, even when it is currently even, so the rule actually gives them some freedom to choose other scores.

The only problem is that you really ought to do the same thing to monsters, meaning you can't use the stats right out of the book.

OK, for example: table 15-2 in the core book has 3 columns of numbers to the left title minor, medium, and major. One page before that table, referring to the purchase of magic items, it says to figure out how many items a place has for sale, use table 15-2 to determine the type of item, and then refer to a different table for each individual item.

So, how do you use all that info to determine which magic items a place has, and is it the same method for determining the loot you might find after a battle?

First, understand that you aren't compelled to use these numbers for anything. If you want to randomly determine items for sale you'd use this method.

You first decide that this place you are in is a village. So it will have 2d4 minor and 1d4 medium items for sale.

Then for each item you determine it has, you roll on Random Magic Item Generation table. (I am looking at the PRD online, it doesn't have table numbers.) Let's say you roll 40 on the minor table, so it's a potion. Then you roll again consulting the proper column of the potion table.

Everything I mentioned except the potion table, which is hyperlinked, is on this page.

I thought Jeggare only seemed like a dweeb because Radovan was narrating. But when he narrates, he seems even more like a dweeb.

I've updated the product description—though it's only a teeny-tiny bit different from the one that was there.

Sadly, I can't show you the cover yet. (It's done, but it would spoil an upcoming announcement about the line, so it'll have to wait a bit longer...)

My guess... "Pathfinder Chronicles" is going to be renamed "Pathfinder Campaign Setting" so that the novels can be called the former.

urk,

yup you're right there are two answers.. now that won't do.

hmm how to fix it.

It doesn't need fixing. If you can narrow it to 2, then one path is definitely not the doom, so you can go down that path, and if it leads out of the dungeon, go back.

Even True Resurrection cannot bring back a person unless their undead form has been destroyed. It doesn't specify only certain undead types like ghosts that clearly use the person's spirit.
The only reason I can think of for this is that their soul is being used somehow, even if they have become a skeleton or zombie. Probably something like possession where you can see the things you are being made to do but can't control it.

This explains why the mindless undead still detect as evil and spells to create undead are evil magic.

Thank you for the clarification Jason (and everyone else). I'm a big terminology guy. I wonder if you might include a sidebar in the actual book clearing this up...?

A sidebar that says "References to Potions below are, you know, ...Potions?"

It seems your confusion was over them modifying potions when they don't necessarily make them. That's a great point. So take out the mysterious "Throw Anything" bonus feat, replace it with "Brew Potions" and I think this problem is solved.

note that a Yeti who crushes an Artillery on its way to the trench does not receive a wound from that exploding Artillery.

I assume that this means the people to the left and right of the Artillery do get wounded.

PF accidently left out a passage from the SRD called Vulnerabilities of Swarms. See here for details.

Of course, it is probably common for PF parties to think they are really clever for saving a copper piece by just using at-will Light instead of a torch, like mine did. So even if you add these rules back, they have to light torches while being crawled/chewed on.

I think it is probably just its status as the last 3.5 adventure.

If you are sticking with 3.5, you are probably playing one of the earlier ones, and only have a 1 in 4 (or 1 in 7 if you count back to Shackled City) even if you assume equal likelihood.

If you are going to PF, but don't mind conversion, you are pretty much in the same camp as above.

If you want to jump into PF, you only have one AP to choose from until Feb.

Also, I wouldn't be surprised if an AP went through a lull in between lots of people chatting about it after reading it because it just came out, and lots of people chatting about it because they are playing it.

Blake Duffey wrote:

The cavalier's challenge seems a little wonky. If the cavalier issues his challenge, and then a rogue gets involved with the cav in melee, the cavalier is dead. (ie - sneak attack, sneak attack, sneak attack) The challenge lasts until the target is dead or unconscious. You can't turn it off or redirect it. Seems like something I wouldn't use often...

Probably not bad for a party member because often enough you have single monster encounters or there are obviously no rogues around. It makes Cavalier BBEGs unlikely though.

Not really. Cavalier BBEGs just have to remember to challenge the rogue first. :-)

Also, rogues tend to end up in flank pretty quickly anyway, if the opponent is tough enough to bother with it.

To quote a pretty solid piece of wisdom from Mike Mearls: "If knowledge of a game's plot would spoil its experience, it isn't a game." Your players may be coming at it from this angle. The story is great and all, but underneath the plot and the villains' motivations and the behind-the-scenes scheming, you're playing a game. If they're still capable of having fun, then it's simply a matter of differing expectations - NOT cheating.

You and Mike must be great fun at murder mystery parties.

If the effect allows a fort save, then it can't work.

Otherwise, it seems fine. I seem to remember something, possibly the 35 FAQ, saying that if you put a blindfold on a golem, it is blind until it is removed.

The rules about swarms were copied more or less verbatim from the 3.5 SRD however the section entitled "Vulnerabilities of Swarms" was left out. Without this section, swarms are very very tough.

I have a thread (http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/pathfinder RPG/rules/vulnerabilitiesOfSwarms) to discuss whether these rules were evicted deliberately or accidentally left out, but I've concluded the the latter so I'm making an errata request.

P.P.S. To OP's title; throw rocks and run away.

Obviously, throwing rocks (unless you are a giant hurling boulders) is ineffective and your DM was just handwaving to get out of an encounter that had become boring and annoying. I nearly did the same.

I'm going to choose to interpret James' opaque comment as evidence that the vulnerabilities of swarms rules were left out by oversight and add it to the errata thread.

Design. Swarms are tough news, and there needs to be some cheap and affordable ways for low level characters to have a chance against low level swarms. Increasing the torch damage is one of those.

Uh, what?

Design = We took out those rules because swarms are too easy if torches can do 1d3 damage.
Oversight = We neglected to include those rules from 3.5. Hello, errata.

In 3.5, there were two places with info about swarms. One was in the subtype section, and the Bestiary has copied this more or less verbatim.

The other place was in the entry called Swarms, where all the swarms were plopped together. The bestiary puts the swarms in alpha order, so there is no similar section.

Most of what was in the second spot was a repeat of the first, however this section is not. As a result, these rules have been evicted from the Pathfinder game. I'm assuming by oversight instead design.

Vulnerabilities Of Swarms

Swarms are extremely difficult to fight with physical attacks. However, they have a few special vulnerabilities, as follows:

A lit torch swung as an improvised weapon deals 1d3 points of fire damage per hit.

A weapon with a special ability such as flaming or frost deals its full energy damage with each hit, even if the weapon’s normal damage can’t affect the swarm.

A lit lantern can be used as a thrown weapon, dealing 1d4 points of fire damage to all creatures in squares adjacent to where it breaks.

Without reinstating these rules, my group would have been killed by bats. Very embarrassing.

So which was it, oversight or design?

Errata for the Core Rulebook: "Mattock of the Titans" is now "Mattock of a Really Big Guy Possibly Named Bob"

Pax asked me put up the notes from when I converted this to 3.5. You should be able to use PF rules with minimal trouble too.

If you've got comments - put them in the original thread to keep this uncluttered.
http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/community/gaming/dnd/helpWithOldAdvent ureUK4WhenAStarFalls&page=1

Some of the changes I made were for my homebrew universe, so I might mention Eo. Also, in a fit of undue paranoia, I changed all the names of characters because I found several journals of the adventure from searching Piyarz, etc.

Shalfrey = Freyu
Piyarz = Podnio
if I refer to them instead, feel free to call me on it.

When a Star Falls - An adventure for 6 Level 3 characters.
If you do not have the original adventure by Graeme Morris, then buy that (I was lucky, I got a PDF copy when Paizo was still selling), rejoice in the awesome, then come back.

Death on the Moors (EL 5)

I changed this the most. I didn't like how the Memory Web was just a "plot device pinata" that you beat on until it spills out memories everywhere. So keeping the same general theme, I invented Brain Spiders (I don't play psionics, so I didn't know about the spell.)

You can begin this adventure during any travelling, make it seem like a random encounter.

4 Brain Spiders
Brain Spiders are giant brains with a large set of eyes, 8 hairy legs and chelicerae. Use Medium Monstrous Spiders for stats, but increase CR by 1 and give them this ability.

Spit Memory (Su)
These spiders consume memories by eating the brains of their victims. Intense memories are too difficult to digest, so the spiders store them and attack their next victims with them.
The target must make DC 12 Will save or be stunned for 1 round as they experience the memory. Even if they save, they still experience the memory but remain aware. I used dazed for this state (see why below) but if that's too harsh replace with something else or with no effect.
Consult Monk Memories for what to do for each attack.

The PCs will notice evidence of a fight on the road they are following, and signs that things have been dragged off into the nearby copse of trees. If they follow, they will encounter a web (DC 20 Spot to avoid walking into it - see spider rules) and the spiders will attack.

After the fight, the PCs will find another dead spider, and the bodies of 4 men in white robes.

(Well, black in my game. I thought the white/black thing was a little too corny. Other reasons too, see much later.) They have only sparse possessions and are obviously monks. The only thing of value is a Bestiary. (They got an early copy! But I have it on pre-order too, WTF!)

But I made my save!
Presumably, the monks of Shalfrey are more awesome then the ones who protect the other sages. (See much later in the adventure.) Which means they are higher level than the PCs, so how did they fall victim to the spiders? Well, they killed one, so there were 5 but still...
That is why a successful save still gets dazed, since there were 4 monks and 5 spiders, the monks were in trouble. If it seems like this ability to way to powerful, keep in mind that the spiders need ammo. Without a recent kill, they are just weird looking spiders.

Monk Memories
Here's how I did the memories.

1) Spice up each memory so it is more than just a broken phrase. Fair use demands that I give one as an example, you'll have to do the rest yourself. You have a copy of the AD&D module, right? No? Why are you still reading?

You are in a sunlit room with a dome of glass hexagons. You know somehow that this is the tower of a place called the Citadel. An old man with a snowy white beard and dark robes is here, he is your master Freyu. Your brother Orm says, "And if we are delayed, master?" Freyu looks carefully at us, then says, "If you must, send word with someone you trust. Tell them: The fair sun shines brightly, but the stars have secrets, lost in the day, that only the night can reveal.

(OK. Lots of my homebrew changes in that one.)

2) Print them on index cards, or print them and tape them to index cards, if you are as bad as I am at trying to get print on cards.

3) Group them into 3 categories: Important (these are the bold ones in the module, the game is broken without them!) Moderate (ones that help with the game, like the lost in the maze one) and Unnecessary (ones with just some flavor to them.)

4) Increase your stack by printing lots of duplicates of the important ones, and a few of the moderates. Put all the important ones and some moderates in the stack, leave the rest to replenish your stack.

5) When a PC is attacked with a memory, fan out the stack and have him pick one. Then weed out the duplicates of that one, and add some of the less important ones.

6) When the fight was over, I had one unnecessary memory left. If the characters are having too easy a time, and you've still got a lot of memories, maybe you need to have an extra spider emerge from the shadows. If you end up with important memories left, you might have to have the monks wrapped in a web and do the smashing the web releases memories trick. If you run out of memories, there's no problem, that just means the spiders are out of ammo.

The PC who get the "make haste to Derwyth's home" memory or others that deal with travel can recall the map that the master laid out for them. It should tell where the druid lives, and where the pass and the tower are.

Random Encounters

I just used these as given. If you don't have a source for a certain monster, roll again or substitute something appropriate.

1-2 Griffons EL 4-6
1-4 Mountain Lions (use Leopard) EL 2-5
4-6 Giant Sheep (use Riding Horse) EL 5
1-3 Ogres (tough enough without the dogs) EL 3-5
1-2 Brown Bears (note that 2-5 would be EL 6+!) EL 4-6
2-4 Bugbears (again, watch the EL) EL 4-6
5-10 Wolves (ditto) EL 5-6
2 trolls (make sure you have them arguing since surprise will be helpful) EL 7
I also made the bag with the giant sheep a Bag of Holding (Type 1) since it would suck to get no treasure for a tough encounter.

How much for the anarchy d20? :-)

I saw this on the site The Register. It is a recent poll of Dr Who fans.

The full 200-episode league table appears in Doctor Who Magazine #413, out today. The top ten are:

1. The Caves of Androzani (1984 - Peter Davison)
2. Blink (2007 - David Tennant)
3. Genesis of the Daleks (1975 - Tom Baker)
4. The Talons of Weng-Chiang (1977 - Tom Baker)
5. The Empty Child (2005 - Christopher Eccleston)
6. Human Nature (2007 - David Tennant)
7. Pyramids of Mars (1975 - Tom Baker)
8. City of Death (1979 - Tom Baker)
9. The Robots of Death (1977 - Tom Baker)
10. Bad Wolf (2005 - Christopher Eccleston)

As much as I like Doctor 5, I have a hard job saying Caves is better than Blink or Talons. I think all the fans of 4 and 10 split their vote, but the 5 fans all voted for Caves.

Not a big fan of pyramids or city, and Bad Wolf was a complete mystery to me until I realized it was really a vote for both parts. Otherwise, it's a pretty good list. It really needs Girl in the Fireplace in it though.

This would be easily covered for shadows if they have a racial susceptibility to light/fire. Other incorporeal creatures that have been previewed (the allip, for instance) were not noted as being vulnerable to fire.

It was a good theory. But the shadow's in the new preview and it doesn't mention fire. And the description of incorporeal matches the others.

Just noticed that What Lies in Dust is for Level 7.

Does this actually take you from 3 to 7 or is there a gap?
That's almost a level per trial... It must be a long play.

Holy bozorgs! You took the time to convert it to v.3.5? If you have this documented, may I please have a copy, I would love to run it in Pathfinder RPG!!!
Let me know if you'd like something quid pro quo?

—Pax

Sure. However, it was like 2 years ago so it may take me a week or two to dig up.

Fair enough. Thanks.

Given who wrote those words, I was certain I was missing something that the Pathfinder rules had deliberately changed.

I had once thought of using "Degree" for spell level -- like Fireball is a third degree spell.

That seems about right, seeing as how they cause third degree burns. yuk,yuk.

I don't have a problem with "potion of X" because potions and wands are all stored spells. If you call the spell "Cure Critical Wounds", you should call the potion that too. If you've given all the spells cooler in-world names, then my hat is off to you.

I do have a problem with +1 Sword and +2 Gauntlets of Dex, etc.

I use:
Magic Chainmail
Improved Magic Chainmail
Great Magic Chainmail
Greater Magic Chainmail
Greatest Magic Chainmail
or just the first 3 for things that only have 3 categories.

The players, of course, always groan and write +3 Chainmail on their sheet anyway.

The title is literal, not lyrical, in this case.

A certain PF publication talks about harming an incorporeal creature (a shadow in this case) with fire from a torch or lit oil. Is there any evidence in the PF (or heck even 3.5) rules that this is possible?

Much love for UK4!

When I couldn't find my hard copy from the old days, I went looking for a digital copy. I found a little company called Paizo. I think I paid 1 or 2 dollars for it. If you told me then I was going to spend many hundreds of dollars at that little site, I would have thought you were bonkers.

I converted it to 3.5 and I think it was well received by my group.
I think I renamed the machin i borg something like the iBorg to give it that extra Apple creepiness.

I received my copy, and I must say this is what also struck me as odd; it may be clear-cut for experienced GMs, but 20 years ago I might have just read the boxed text out loud without thinking about it too hard. I don't think it would have required too much space to include an entry/alternate description for parties who were struck by Kassen's curse (Kassen appears, lifts the curse, and then congratulates them).

I didn't get Ashkecker's point until I noticed that in the module Kassen's sarcophagus lies open, which is in my experience a "green light" for experienced players to get the stuff (closed sarcophagus = opening it would be tomb-robbing and generally a big no-no, open sarcophagus = something the PCs will sorely need in the adventure and/or "legal" treasure meant for the PCs). Hell, I could even see a Lawful character justifying that it's in everyone's best interests if that stuff is put into use, or at least borrowed to defeat the BBEG and then reverently returned back to sarcophagus. New players probably feel this way, too.

Here's what I think I will do: have Kassen's ghost appear slightly earlier. During the fight, he will offer advice to the party and trade barbs with Asar. After it, he will give the party the stuff from his tomb he can bear to part with, the usual reward, but leave the armor and sword. I think this will make the battle more memorable.

It also solves the following problems:
1) It explains where the other stuff came from.
2) I won't feel bad cursing someone if they take the rest of the stuff after he's gone.
3) The book says, he will "reluctantly" talk about his time adventuring with Asar. In my mind, you can only reluctantly talk about something if someone prods you to talk. If I make it clear during the fight that he and Asar know each other better than you would expect, it should make someone ask about it.

"To cast a spell with a somatic (S) component, you must gesture freely with at least one hand. You can't cast a spell of this type while bound, grappling, or with both your hands full or occupied."

Although correct in 3.5, all other rules involving grappling seem to contradict this. Most notably:

"Instead of attempting to break or reverse the grapple, you can take any action that requires only one hand to perform, such as cast a spell..."

I think that the first quote should read "bound, pinned, or with..."

If true, a particularly insidious error that seems to nullify an intended rule change.