The Feat 'Improved Eldritch Heritage (arcane)' lets you add spells from the Sor/Wiz list to your repertoire, regardless of the type of caster you are.
How?
Through the New Arcana ability as seen below:
New Arcana (Ex): At 9th level, you can add any one spell from the sorcerer/wizard spell list to your list of spells known. This spell must be of a level that you are capable of casting. You can also add one additional spell at 13th level and 17th level.
Does having no sorcerer/wizard levels but having high enough slots count as being capable of casting that spell? It doesn't explicitly make any note of having to meet the stat requirements either.
Sorry to necro something from 5 years ago, but this seems like the only option available to a character I'm building.
Swift Aid is a feat which lets you do a +1 aid another as a swift action. Bodyguard allows you to aid another's AC as an AoO.
Eek. Swift Aid has a hefty requirement for what it does. I can't honestly see a fighter wanting to use his Swift for +1 attack at level 6 or higher. Though, for the fighter, they don't have many options for their swift. The only thing I've seen them even have a chance at getting is something like the Item Mastery feat for +1d4 damage when using an elemental enchanted weapon.
For anyone else, this is a really high requirement for a +1, if it were the standard Aid Another, it would be more worth it. If something like the Helpful traits (both halfling race and combat) could affect it, too, that would boost it as well.
Deal enough Int damage that they can no longer cast their spells.
If that doesn't give you enough time (they heal ability damage over time), you can use Bestow Curse twice:
Curse 1:
50% chance to do nothing on your turn.
Curse 2:
Spells take twice as long to cast. (not one of the recommended curses, but it's got about the same power as Curse 1)
Together, those two curses give you some reaction time to if they're going to cast a spell. They have a 50% chance to fail on turn 1, on turn 2 if they succeeded, they have another chance to fail again. That's a 75% chance to fail at casting a spell, with one turn to react, you can just beat the spellcaster in the face to make them fail for sure.
Stack nonlethal damage on top of them until they're unconscious and just hit them every so many hours to ensure they don't wake up.
So, I've been looking at the Combat Advice feat, and it's really good for making use of that Move Action I don't always spend.
I was wondering if there were options like it for boosting the party with the bits of my turn I don't use.
For standard actions, there's the Aid Another action, which can grant +2 bonus to attack. Not as good as just making your own attack in most cases, but it's an option for those times when your attack's damage is less valuable than another striker's attack (they can bypass damage reduction and you can't, or they're casting an important dodge-or-die touch spell).
For move actions, there's Combat Advice which grants +2 circumstance bonus to attack. Great for when the party doesn't have a bard. Doesn't cost any resources and can be done on a turn in which you attack or cast a spell.
Are there any swift options?
Are there any other boosts that can be granted instead of +2 to attack/AC without diving into a specific class?
Yeah, I'm going to agree that this doesn't make sense to exist.
A paladin isn't supposed to have the idea of premeditating an act that would cause them to fall, which is what this spell would be.
The spell is added as a spontaneous casting option. The idea is that the spell won't be premeditated, it's that when the Paladin ends up in a situation where he may fall, the Paladin has the option of hiding the event from their God in that split-second.
JoeElf wrote:
If you are looking to create a mechanic that's a one-and-done type of thing, but not as readily available as a potion or scroll (and would work for a spell of level 5), you could create a Manual of Atonement. Like stat-boosting books use the line "Once the book is read, the magic disappears from the pages and it becomes a normal book." Add enough GP cost, and this would most likely be a once-per-lifetime limitation.
This is a much better option for an after-the-fact. I want them to be more tempted in the moment. For example, a paladin player may not commit an evil act at the cost of their morality, but given a get-out-of-jail free option, they might be tempted to use it in these moments where they otherwise wouldn't.
I'll consider this type of item after a Paladin falls when they don't expect to. But I'm still looking for that split-second temptation.
JoeElf wrote:
3. Paladins don't get spells until 4th level. If you are going to allow a "get out of jail free" type of opportunity, it should really apply at level 1, or at least very early in the career.
I could make it a virulent once-ever ability that they can gain at any level. The idea is that the temptation comes later specifically because the moral high-ground is easy to keep in the early levels. In later levels, the scale is grander and PCs are going to be dealing with far greyer matters than "Protect our village from obvious threats."
Blind Eye of Heaven
Abjuration
Personal
Casting Time 1 round
Duration 10 minute + 1 round or until discharged
You are temporarily cut off from any of your deities, orders, and vows. You may not use any abilities or benefit from any features associated with a divine spellcasting class or any class whose abilities are taken away upon breaching an oath or vow. Any actions you take while casting this spell and while under the effects of this spell will not incur an alignment shift and cannot be witnessed by divination effects from good creatures. Further, any pact, vow, or moral obligation that would be affected by your actions are considered otherwise kept, unless another creature bears witness. When the spell ends, any abilities or benefits from class features suppressed by this spell are returned unless otherwise revoked.
You may choose to end the spell early. If you do, roll a Will save or be subjected to Memory Lapse as the spell except that you forget the events of the entire duration of the spell. You cannot take an automatic failure on this roll.
This spell is not on the Paladin's spell list until the Paladin witnesses another spellcaster under its effects. Once witnessed, the Paladin learns everything about the spell and can cast it spontaneously in place of a spell of the same level. After casting this spell, permanently remove it from your Known spells list. The Paladin can only cast this spell once in their lifetime. Reincarnation, resurrection, and magic items do not grant additional castings. Learning this spell intentionally can be considered a breach of the oath with the Paladin's deity and should be done with utmost secrecy.
-----------
So, why this spell? I was considering adding moral temptations to a future campaign and I thought I start with Paladin, as the obvious beacon of LG. The idea behind this spell is that a Paladin player may find themselves in a position where they witness a falling paladin under the effects of the spell and then the spell instantly becomes an "option" to the player.
They get one freebie. One chance to be as bad as they possibly could be. Think of it like a The Purge moment. This will test their faith quite well. On one side, it looks like a low-risk high-reward button. On the other, they're actually faced with a high-risk scenario. After utilizing the spell, they're likely to have been noticed by their party doing something bad. If confronted or if the witness prays to their god, the shows over. You've been caught. Worse yet is that the paladin will not be able to lie about the events that transpire if they remember them.
Considered another way, this allows a Paladin to use an evil means to a good end. One that would normally be unavailable to them. Such as pulling the lever at a railway fork to kill one person instead of five, lying to and deceiving the big-bad, or utilizing necromancy in a way that desecrates a dead body.
Is including such a spell a bad idea? Is going about baiting these types of moral quandaries from players too much?
A Human Paladin gets the amazing benefit of the Favored Class Bonus.
Archives of Nethys wrote:
Traits
Unscathed
Source Ultimate Campaign pg. 58 (Amazon)
Category Basic (Magic)
You are amazingly resistant to energy attacks because of either your upbringing or magical experimentation. Each type of energy resistance you have (if any) increases by 2 points.
Archives of Nethys wrote:
Favored Class Options
Human (Advanced Race Guide pg. 1 (Amazon), Advanced Player's Guide pg. 23 (Amazon)): Add +1 to the paladin’s energy resistance to one kind of energy (maximum +10).
At every level, put one point into every element plus one point in negative energy. At Level 5, you'll have 5 types of energy resistance 3.
Don't think you can get energy resistance against force (it isn't an energy, right?) but if you could, that could effectively give your paladin almost-immunity to Magic Missile.
This post isn't directly related to the Deathless Tree, but moreso with being able to eat damage and live.
When rolled, this barrel gives off a Ghost Sound of drums being rapidly beaten until it stops. After which, a cymbal is heard. After one use, the barrel becomes mundane.
Book of Many Topics
Book is blank on most of it's pages. Whenever the user would make a knowledge check, they may consult a blank page in the book for assistance. The page becomes filled with information about the topic and provides a +2 circumstance bonus to knowledge checks on that topic to all future readers. Many copies of this book exist, most of which are already filled cover-to-cover with an eclectic assortment topics. Finding a fresh copy could be quite valuable.
Play a Tiefling. Either ask the DM to allow you to choose a special ability OR take the Fiendish Heritage feat. Get #16, the oversized limbs. You can now wield Large weapons without penalty.
Except that it's Huge, not Large. Tiefling wouldn't work as written.
Also, Titan Mauler/Fighter doesn't work because they specify weapons which are one size too large. Huge Aklys are two sizes too big.
I'd definitely get Arcane Strike as you've been planning. If you plan to stay mobile instead of going for iterative attacks, you could probably do Power Attack or Deadly Aim (or both if you plan to switch-hit) without missing much. At this point, you're already getting 2+CL/4+1+CL/5+2+2*(BAB/4) extra damage.
Totaling up your bonus damage from those features per level gives you the following table.
Under oversized weapon rules, a Huge Aklys can be wielded by a medium creature as a two-handed weapon. However, given that it's two tiers above the appropriate size for the creature, that gives it a -4 penalty.
On top of that, there's very few races and classes proficient in this exotic weapon (if any at all), so the wielder likely incurs another -4 penalty to hit with it.
To mitigate the -8 penalty to use, a character would need at least the following:
I'm also starting to notice that a majority of these questions are a result of items from the Ranged Tactics Toolbox book. Maybe there exists some errata for this book that corrects these questions.
At this point, it's clear to me there's no explicit ruling on this. The TWF ruling seems to just be for the sake of giving TWF throwers a known accuracy value.
My understanding is that an oversized ammunition item would still count as an ammunition item, regardless of it's size. For example, a medium creature can use a small bow and small arrow, the arrow still counts as ammunition. Therefore, size-tiers don't change it's item class from ammunition, meaning a Colossal shuriken should still be ammunition to a medium creature.
If the monk can draw a shuriken as free action because it's ammunition, then he still can if it's inappropriately sized. Shuriken seem to be this wacky exception because they're an ammunition for the purpose of drawing, but then they become a ranged weapon in all other cases.
So, you can whip out this giant thing, but throwing it still isn't clear. Since it's a ranged weapon, inappropriate size rules only really cover the case where a two-handed range weapon will elevate to unusable.
How does the oversize rule handle things like the Javelin? It is considered a Ranged weapon, but you're expected to throw them with one hand. How does a medium creature interact with a Large or larger Javelin?
A Bard and an Archaeologist walk into a bar. The Bard's waving a Flag while his buddy is recruiting two other members for an adventure.
Who should they invite if they want to maximize the benefit of a Bard and Archaeologist while still having a pretty balanced party?
As of right now, there are three effects guaranteed to see play. The Bard will be singing and waving a flag, so that's +1 competence to attack and damage, and +1 morale to attack and damage. The Archaeologist will most likely be Fate's Favored for +2 luck to attack and damage. With the Archaeologist as a primary striker/hammer and the Bard being the off-striker or back-row controller, the party is already dishing out some big hits at high accuracy early on.
A wizard wouldn't actually be a waste due to bringing Ray of Frost to the party and dealing 1d3+3 (bard, flag, focus) at touch early on and Scorching Ray later on, while also bringing the power of a wizard's varied Conflict Resolution Textbook (spellbook).
Still, it seems like with a Bard and an Archaeologist on the roster, this party is already skewed into glass cannonry. Adding even more squish seems rather haphazard and irresponsible.
I would value a spell-slot perpetually filled with this spell at over 2,000 gp, the price of a Ring of Sustenance. Being able to keep a beefy defender awake eternally to do nightwatch for the party is a must in many campaigns.
"Oh, we only have one person with ranks in perception?"
"Oh, we only have one person with darkvision?"
"Oh, we only have one person with enough AC to dodge a surprise attack?"
Essentially, you're preparing that good ol' Cocaine Marching Powder for your night-tank and he's going to keep very good watch over your party, forever. Even better on a spellcaster that needs that extra 8 hours to do some Spellbook scribing from all the dropped Spellbooks of their fallen foes.
The spell states that if you are stunned it is only for a 1 round and the spell ends. Just because something is constant does not mean you can’t turn it off. Sight is constant, but I can close my eyes.
But then wouldn't their detect evil reactivate? If it doesn't, how long does it stay down?
If you are of good alignment, and the strongest evil aura's power is overwhelming (see below), and the HD or level of the aura's source is at least twice your character level, you are stunned for 1 round and the spell ends.
Should have specified, the character is Overwhelmingly Evil.
Let's say that a player has an overwhelming evil aura and recalls that there was a forest in which a village of pixies all had constant Detect Evil, at all times. He then decides it would be easy money to go into the woods and just collect stunned pixies by walking up to them and tying them up.
He is far higher level than twice that of any of other pixies. So, they should all be stunned as soon as they see him, right? Is there anything the pixies can do to avoid being permanently stunned while he collects them?
According to Chemlak, spells you cannot see you know their was an affect on you that failed to affect you, charm person, circle of death and the like. You don't know the name of the effect that was cast on you.
The castor knows the spells failed on a successfull saving throw with effects that cannot be seen. Spells with effects that you cannot see you know if they failed their saving throw. That is somewhere else though in the rules.
That didn't answer my questions, though.
I was asking for clarification on what counted as a "targeted spell".
It's built into spellcasting. There are ways around that, like specific magic items (e.g. Seducer's Bane), but generally you know if a target failed their save or not.
Chemlak wrote:
Only for targeted spells
So, an area spell that affects up to X HD doesn't give that little ping?
Let's say that you cast an illusion spell and a creature interacts with it and succeeds their save. In this case, it's quite obvious if the creature succeeds their save because they'll walk through illusory walls, walk over not-actually-broken bridges, or ignore Optimus Prime's ranged attacks.
These cases I'm not concerned with. However, cases such as enchantment are less obvious. Let's say that you were to give someone a Suggestion. This lasts for a minimum of 3 hours (corruption subdomain). That's a fairly large amount of minimum time during which someone would be considering that Suggestion. They could do it immediately or they could take all 3 hours to do what you've "expertly recommended".
During those 3 hours, you're not necessarily aware if it worked. The target could have saved against the spell, been aware that you used the spell Suggestion, and been acting in a way that doesn't necessarily dismiss the possibility that they're suggested.
Are there any feats, spells, traits, class features, magic items, etc. that allow you to know with certainty when a creature fails a save?
The ferocity ability and the unlimited use enlarge person are nothing to sneeze at, either.
If anything, those abilities are the saving grace of the item. However, they're not worth 40k.
On someone with a reach weapon, being able to leverage AoOs, iterative attacks, and special attack actions (cleave, mirror strike, etc) make for a great pairing with the Enlarge at-will.
Adding in Deadly Juggernaut would sweeten the deal by allowing a ramp-up if it had a more timely activation and lower power-up time.
There's also this inherent issue with missed opportunities, there's no guarantee that your character will get the last hit on two enemies during the combat.
There's too much overhead to use this item as intended.
You even specified a procedure that would take way more turns to properly benefit from the item.
Turn 1: Dropping large arrows, activating Enlarge, picking them up.
Turn 2: Equipping Bow, casting Gravity Bow.
Turn 3: Firing your first arrow, plus other stuff.
Turn 4: Likely being the earliest you could benefit from Deadly Juggernaut at this point, assuming you killed someone on Turn 3.
Now consider the following:
You've other people in your party who are acting on Turns 1, 2, and 3.
Those people are contributing damage and ending the encounter. It's kind of their job, as it is yours.
You'll likely not benefit from your spent charge of Deadly Juggernaut from that item before then.
These massive pauldrons take the shape of a pair of clenched fists made of beaten bronze. They bestow a +4 bonus on CMD, and grant the wearer the ferocity ability. On command, the wearer can increase its size, as though subject to an enlarge person spell, and can revert to regular size with another command. Three times per day, as an immediate action after the pauldrons’ wearer kills an opponent, the wearer gains the benefit of the deadly juggernaut spell for 1 minute.
The language here seems to imply that this effect is not optional.
It is not written as follows:
Quote:
Three times per day, as an immediate action after the pauldrons' wearer kills an opponent, the wearer may gain the benefits of the deadly juggernaut spell for 1 minute.
Not only that, but the trigger activation is potentially prohibitive. If the wearer kills any meaningless mooks earlier in the day for which Deadly Juggernaut would not apply due to its HD restriction. Effectively, wasting a charge in a situation in which they would not benefit.
A separate question regarding the effect:
Does activating the effect from killing an enemy count as having killed one enemy during the effect?
The wording "after" seems to indicate that the death will not count, but there seems to be a huge difference between RAI and RAW with this item already. It would seem rather underpowered if the mandatory effect would activate after any kill and, even when the kill meets the HD restriction, not count towards the accumulated bonus.
It becomes further underpowered when you consider that this requires at least two kills to even benefit from the effect, which likely amounts to two turns and one less swift action on the first turn. By the third turn when you're benefiting from the bonus, you're likely not going to need it anymore because combat is either over or decided without the +1 and 2/- DR needing to be considered.
The only real benefits from this item would be the At-Will enlargement and ferocity, which doesn't truly warrant a 40k price point by itself.
The APL+4 CR encounters are supposed to be equivalent to fighting a group of adventurers of the same level. This is similar to the Linear Guild of The Order of the Stick comic. That's not just a boss-fight, that's a no-holds barred fight against an equal threat.
Also, you missed out on a similar discussion I had brought up where many users weighed in quite well. You can find that discussion here.
I know you probably want all your feats for other things, but +2 naked is pretty good. I'm surprised no one has said it yet.
Get Improved Iron Will to reroll once per day, which means your average roll increases by about +3 for one roll. When that roll is really crucial, like on a nat 1, it's going to seem like +a-whole-lot-more.
Still, that's a two-feat dip, so it's likely too expensive in terms of character customization, but it saves you crazy amounts of dosh.
I'm well-aware that it's not good practice to put encounters out that contain "kill now or die now" elements. But it's not necessarily clear what the reasonable expectations are of a level 1 party?
There are none. As noted, level 1 is really swingy. Luck of the rolls matters more than stats by quite a bit at that point.
At what level would you consider there to be a reasonable expectation of party strength? Some people have recommended somewhere between 3-6 as the moment when it's reasonable to expect players to handle harder than average encounters.
If I can't expect players at low levels to be capable of handling the hard encounters, then it may not be even worth pursuing difficulty at this stage in their progression.
However, I would love to find a way to really put lower level characters to the test, even at these nebulous levels, but I do not just want to be an unrighteous murder-crazed GM.
So my first question is: Am I right in planning for them as if they're APL-5?
My second question is how to design an encounter that will stress them without breaking them.
Your first question might deserve its own thread, as the context (your party) seems really important in answering it, but your second question is in-between my goals and the standard CR guidelines pathfinder sets out.
My goal is to break the players if they falter. I want them to be on edge the whole time with serious stakes at each turn.
What you seem to have is party imbalance, as well. Your optimized player is likely doing a Spell Crit build, if I'm guessing correctly. This has the opportunity to output significant single-target damage. I recommend you through more smaller level creatures at the party so that this player is not spotlight hogging while still being able to wreck to their heart's content.
In regards to the rest of the group, they each seem to have been given additional action economy through extra characters. Definitely factor these into your new APL (before, you were getting a -1 from having 3 players, now you have 5, even though only 3 human beings are involved. APL should be increased by 1 in this case).
More creatures of lower CR is the expected method for Pathfinder encounters, otherwise you end up with a boss monster that may resist and evade most abilities and attacks of your less optimized players. This could mean only the Bladebound Magus will be contributing to at-APL encounters of single creatures (and maybe not even he can handle it). If you've noticed this type of thing happening, then APL-5 CR creatures are not the way to go. You want more creatures that add up to APL+0 CR, but not so many that each creature involved is CR 1/3 or that they have too much more action economy than the party.
Again, that's the Pathfinder expectation for fair encounters (where players win 75%[?] of the time).
If you want more perspectives on your situation, it's likely this thread may give you insight to the more brutal flavor of your problem, but it may not contain the right insight into your specific case. I recommend you make another thread but keep reading this one.
Since my overall goal is to design a table of encounters that can be randomly pulled from as needed, I was hoping there were some better guidelines than "don't do this" and "try not to do this".
I'm well-aware that it's not good practice to put encounters out that contain "kill now or die now" elements. But it's not necessarily clear what the reasonable expectations are of a level 1 party?
In regards to the balanced day vs. balanced encounter discussion (4-5 encounters per day, resource expenses, etc), I can't safely say I know what resources the average slightly-optimized group is capable of. The first table I'm working on is for satisfying traveling random encounters. The players are traveling between cities and have a chance of running into a variety of different bands and packs.
If I expect the players to have the classical group, that means I'm expecting them to have about 5 spells to cast, a fighter and archer for damage output, and some sort of emergency healing which they should not expect to be using in battle.
This means that I can push them to use the spell casters' best spell (singular) in the first round, and potentially run clean-up the next in an at-APL encounter. But in a Hard encounter, does this necessarily mean that I need them to spend more resources?
Is there a way to make an encounter scarier/deadlier without necessarily forcing the resource-dependent characters to blow their load?
How do I make an encounter scarier/deadlier so that I don't accidentally give it a "kill now or die now" element while not making the encounter trounceable.
In that encounter, if the fighter had hit with his braced attack, or the follow-up, that could've been a very different battle. Sometimes the dice just kill people. In those instances, when GMing, I fudge the numbers a bit.
For the kind of game I'm hoping to run, I want player death to still be a very real threat. In the past, I'd rewound space-time to prevent stupid deaths like a flask of Alchemical Fire dealing a full 7 damage to a downed player because that's where the miss-1d8-roll landed.
But I generally don't feel like a deadly encounter should have it's deadly dice rolls fiatted away just because they would kill the player.
Now, I've been thinking about the brace, you're right, the 50/50 chance the Fighter had to deal double damage (with an extra chance to AoO that missed, if I remember correctly). The expectation was that the fighter would deal 1.5 of their weapon damage in response to that charge. Up to 3 times weapon damage without crits (up to 6 times with) on a 25% chance.
However, the Gladiator wouldn't have gone down in the average case and a player would still be down in the first turn of combat. This much would have been a guarantee.
We've yet to run more play tests of this encounter due to some life events getting in the way. However, unless the Fighter could kill the Gladiator in the first bit of combat, I don't know well the remaining players would be able to deal with the Gladiator retreating to his healer just to rinse and repeat.
Also, as a separate point from my request for guidelines, I think I see where things may have failed against the Pathfinder CR metric:
When the Cleric was killed before the first player turn (not counting Fighter bracing), the party consisted only of 3 Level 1 players. This means the remaining group was APL was 0 and that this was an APL+3 encounter of Epic for the remaining players.
Would it make sense to consider excluding encounters that have a real chance depending on initiative to immediately alter APL before players' first turn?
Generally, I don't want such an encounter to exist as this means a player is immediately removed from the combat and does nothing for the remainder of the time.
I'm trying to design a series of tables of Hard encounters (APL+2) for each level. However, I've already hit a brick wall in the playtesting of some of the encounters I've already made.
Some of you may have seen my questions about encounter design before, involving positioning having a non-negligible impact on an encounter.
Further, the combinations of what goes into an encounter tend to be so drastically unwieldy compared to the individual enemies by themselves.
For example, let's consider one of the Level 1 encounters I threw together for testing:
Player Party of Level 1s consisted of Wizard, Fighter, Archer, Cleric
Below is the play-by-play of how devastating the encounter was. I honestly can't say what the players could have done better.
Spoiler:
In testing, the Acolyte used Touch of Law on the Gladiator and the Gladiator charged and one-shot the party Cleric with only having needed to roll damage. Cleric bled out eventually. The party had a longspear fighter braced against the barbarian, but he missed. He then proceeded to miss on his next turn with his spear.
Since the fighter was now in melee with the Gladiator, the party archer couldn't reliably hit the biggest threat with the penalty for combatants in melee, so he aimed for the Acolyte. It was then that we noticed the Acolyte had 17 AC. The Archer missed.
The enemy bandit didn't actually contribute much. It held its turn until after the cleric, received a touch of law, but still couldn't hit on a 11+4 against anyone in the party. After this, the bandit just tried relentlessly to drop arrows from afar, to no success.
But before that, the party Wizard had a to inhibit the Barbarian. Had Grease and Color Spray prepared. Barbarian was still Touch of Law'd and would automatically succeed the will save without rolling. With a range of 25 ft., he couldn't target the Acolyte and the Bandit. Wizard actually forwent Grease because the Gladiator only needed to beat a DC 14 Reflex and that meant a 35% chance to do nothing and it was unlikely the barbarian could be tricked into walking through the same square a second time if it failed the first. Wizard used crossbow to hit Bandit, except didn't hit the Bandit. We then realized that the Bandit also had 17 AC. Wizard did not contribute anything that turn.
Wizard had backed up out of the Gladiator's reach ending well-behind the fighter, forcing the Barbarian to charge through the Fighter's threatened squares to reach him. The fighter backed up and braced against the Gladiator, ending right in front of the Wizard. Gladiator moved up to next to the fighter instead of charging, proc'ing AoOs which it ignored and CLEAVED. The Wizard went down instantly. The fighter was brutally injured.
The Archer then focused on damaging the Gladiator while inching closer to the enemy group. Managing to land the first damage against the Gladiator all game.
The Bandit shot an inconsequential arrow.
The Acolyte moved in to try and Touch of Law the Gladiator again, but was too far. Instead, charges at the fighter. The fighter manages to take down the Cleric with a non-brace AoO.
Fighter steps back to attack the Gladiator and manages to hit. Deals max damage to the Gladiator, a whopping 14.
It was around here that the Cleric bled out, but I forgot exactly where in the turn order they were, given that they never got a turn.
Gladiator ices the Fighter with a Power Attack.
Party archer keeps back-peddling and shooting until the Barbarian lands a final blow.
Bandit does nothing important but becomes the only survivor. Acolyte bled out. Gladiator's rage ended and they bled out. None of the party managed to stabilize. That inconsequential bandit got all the loot and is living it up somewhere in Absalom.
Clearly, I need to be more careful when constructing synergy for my encounters, pushing a CR+2 to CR+2+. Looking at the raw numbers and the flow of battle, there was absolutely nothing my players could have done without knowing exactly what each unit had at their disposal. Even when recognizing Touch of Law, they were incapable of doing anything at level 1 against this group.
It's what me and a few friends are using as our new benchmark encounter for Level 1 players. We've put playtesting on pause until we can figure if there's a reasonable expectation that a newly-formed group should have the ability to defeat these guys. Clearly, the Classical Group failed spectacularly.
I'd like some better guidelines for encounter designing. There's this huge leap between what I see available and what I'm looking for. I want to design fair encounters but I want the players to feel like their choices matter.
If a player chose to cast Sleep on a group of goblins and another player decided to start coup de gracing them during combat instead of dealing with other more pressing foes, I want that to be a point of failure in the strategy of the party that will naturally be exploited by the encounter. They should be on the ball, rolling with the punches, and pushing for victory, each and every time.
However, this is going to be a table, designed for posing such a threat to nearly every group that faces it (barring overly optimized murderhobos). I can't design these encounters on the fly to aptly push these buttons against the party. Generally At-APL encounters are definitely possible on the fly, but with APL+2 (the Pathfinder "Hard"), I risk wiping the group with an unfair encounter.
The goal is to eventually run a Hard Mode Campaign where XP will only be granted for quality RP and life-threatening battles and anything else you'd see in an action movie from the 80's and later.
There's been some iffy readings of the base rules for starting combat amongst one of my groups.
When combat starts, there's a surprise round if not everyone is aware that combat has started.
During that round, actors who are aware can only make half-actions (standard or move, but not both).
Now, let's say we have the Rogue in Invisibility. He runs up to a guy, waits for him to stop moving, and then unleashes a full attack of at least five attacks. The question now is 'does he'?
One interpretation is that the Rogue is initiating combat, so he acts first in the surprise round. So, he's not allowed to make a full attack. Even worse so, the move action spent to get next to the target was their action during the surprise round. He rolls initiative and has a chance to go immediately after (given his astronomical stealth). He gets to do a full attack when his turn starts.
The second interpretation is that as soon as the first attack hits, combat starts. So whatever they were doing is interrupted because it wasn't a combat action, so it wasn't even a "full-round" action. He rolls initiative and has a chance to go immediately after (given his astronomical stealth). If everyone's aware, instead he gets to do the full attack.
The third interpretation is that he gets to finish making his full attack and THEN the surprise round happens. He rolls initiative and has a chance to go immediately after (given his astronomical stealth). If everyone's aware, instead he gets to do another full attack right after the first one.
In the first case, the rogue must initiate combat before unleashing a full attack. It's in their best interest to spend their surprise round getting next to their target who may move away in the proceeding round. They may miss the perfect opportunity as a result.
In the second case, the rogue must allow the enemies a chance to respond (by detecting that combat has begun since the rogue's first attack), but then immediately the rogue is visible and has dealt only one of many attacks. Generally, popping the invisibility during the combat during a full attack would have been a better use of their invisibility.
In the third case, it's a more than perfect world for the rogue. The rogue gets a free five hits from the full attack and then gets to do it immediately after in a likely case.
To be fair, Frost Giants might perform sacrifices on their wedding days. You failed the check so you have no idea.
Honestly, my interpretation is that you have to remember a memory to share it with yourself. If you don't remember, you can't share it as part of the spell.
At the same time, this interpretation prevents you from gleaning forgotten thoughts from a target, so if someone's forgotten something, it's lost to this spell.
One of the difficulties of persuading evil to good is that evil motivations are simple. Kill, destroy, maim, crush, get money.
What you need to do is induce an opportunity cost that they can't recoup if they don't change their ways.
Making an antipaladin feed the poor and shelter the homeless is that they're probably doing it for some other incentive. They're not acting selflessly, so an alignment shift wouldn't happen.
For example, a Chaotic Evil character can follow the laws and do good deeds in favor of not getting arrested by police and diverting suspicion of crimes away from themselves, but their genuine tendencies are to commit heinous actions of their own will with no regard for morality or ethics.
They have to have something they truly care about. Something they're willing to change for. Goddity mentioned love, but not everyone has that. Generally, an evil character will have themselves. You need to make them choose between themselves and absolutely nothing, but by choosing themselves, you put them in a position where they NEED redemption. Where it's personally in their best interest to become a good human being for real, not as a mask or cover identity.
You need to give them raw incentives for becoming good. One of those things is the promise of "cookies." Generally, this is associated with "Join the Dark Side", but it can just as easily be used by the Light. Putting an Antipaladin in a position to become a stronger Paladin than an Antipaladin is one of the biggest challenges they'll face internally. While struggling with it, they'll be caught in turmoil. Am I doing this for Power? Or am I doing this because I genuinely want to?
If they genuinely want to, they'll get the power. If they're just doing it for the power, they won't get the power.
The reverse is a much easier road. A paladin falling to the Dark Side doesn't care.
Quote:
You're telling me I just have to murder some Younglings and I'm in?
Even if they're doing it just for the power, that's the point. Even if they're not doing it for the power, they've fallen. There's no excuse for committing that heinous act.
You've got a long road ahead of you for forcing antipaladins to rise.
You're an Antipaladin hired by a mercenary troupe do odd jobs for money. The money's good and the work is easy. You stick around and make friends with this rag-tag group of murder hobos.
Eventually, the troupe gets a job that's just too good to pass up. Ends up getting sent into Taldor to assassinate a mutual enemy of your client and the church of Sarenrae, the Goddess of second chances. Things go poorly and your team is slaughtered, and you're on the verge of death.
However, you're given an opportunity. Sarenrae comes to you in your fading moments. She says that you'd have been the last hope of defeating the enemy had you not fallen. She gives you a choice: redemption. You can swear away your evil ways and take a step towards the good and righteous path, becoming Chaotic Neutral in exchange for an impromptu heavenly favor. Or you can die as you were, missing out on the best pay of your life and losing your closest comrades along with it.
The best choice is the compromise: your profane powers in exchange for money and life, your second chance at the hands of the Dawnflower.
As your party rises again, you rise in dim glow, as a Fighter, an Antipaladin nevermore.
A barbarian can call upon inner reserves of strength and ferocity, granting her additional combat prowess. Starting at 1st level, a barbarian can rage for a number of rounds per day equal to 4 + her Constitution modifier. At each level after 1st, she can rage for 2 additional rounds. Temporary increases to Constitution, such as those gained from rage and spells like bear's endurance, do not increase the total number of rounds that a barbarian can rage per day. A barbarian can enter rage as a free action. The total number of rounds of rage per day is renewed after resting for 8 hours, although these hours do not need to be consecutive.
While in rage, a barbarian gains a +4 morale bonus to her Strength and Constitution, as well as a +2 morale bonus on Will saves. In addition, she takes a –2 penalty to Armor Class. The increase to Constitution grants the barbarian 2 hit points per Hit Dice, but these disappear when the rage ends and are not lost first like temporary hit points. While in rage, a barbarian cannot use any Charisma-, Dexterity-, or Intelligence-based skills (except Acrobatics, Fly, Intimidate, and Ride) or any ability that requires patience or concentration.
A barbarian can end her rage as a free action and is fatigued after rage for a number of rounds equal to 2 times the number of rounds spent in the rage. A barbarian cannot enter a new rage while fatigued or exhausted but can otherwise enter rage multiple times during a single encounter or combat. If a barbarian falls unconscious, her rage immediately ends, placing her in peril of death.
Constructed Race Trait wrote:
For the purposes of effects targeting creatures by type (such as a ranger's favored enemy and bane weapons), androids count as both humanoids and constructs. Androids gain a +4 racial bonus on all saving throws against mind-affecting effects, paralysis, poison, and stun effects, are not subject to fatigue or exhaustion, and are immune to disease and sleep effects. Androids can never gain morale bonuses, and are immune to fear effects and all emotion-based effects
Nowhere in Rage does it ever call the state of Rage an emotional effect. It can also be seen as simply a mentally tasking trance-like state that corresponds to a sudden burst of strength. The only thing that really indicates emotion at all is the term "Rage", but nowhere mechanically is it stated that creatures immune to emotion effects cannot enter this state.
Is Rage inherently emotional? Can Android's rage?
If they can, we've unleashed some monster upon the world. Androids, while incapable of benefiting from the STR and CON bonuses, would be able to enter Rage whenever they wanted and leave it the same turn. Never experiencing the negative effects of it or of leaving it.
This means that an Android Barbarian can use their once-per-rage powers once per round. An Android Barbarian can learn the Beast Totem tree and become a thing out of Five Nights at Freddy's.
What otherwise looks like a poor choice in optimization becomes a true nightmare. A peaceable-looking droid one second, and then a monstrous beast plunging towards you the next.
