Search Posts
The enemy the party killed was not the Villain himself, but a nearly perfect golem-copy. The PCs find clues reach this determination, and it shows them just how close your villain is to perfecting his dastardly scheme. This is the GM's opportunity to bring the "real" villain back with a vengeance, having been able to study the PCs tactics and prepare his defenses against them.
Games workshop dice pull 1s almost 30 percent of the time. Saw an article on it recently, you are best off with vegas dice for d6s.As I recall, the Game Science dice didn't do much better. As I also recall, there were questions about the rolling method, and issues with repeatability of those results. :P For what it's worth, I performed an analysis of my Gamescience D20 die rolls over the course of six game sessions in early 2013. I recorded the result of each roll I made (225 rolls total) over those six sessions, and determined a frequency-weighted average die roll. That is, I determined the average value that my die would roll, weighted by the frequency of each result. My end result was that the Game Science D20 had a frequency-weighted average value of 10.56, which is pretty close to perfect. Here's a link to my data if anyone is interested, however I will caution that it probably shouldn't be viewed while tired, driving, or operating machinery. Link
Sure, efficient use of limited resources is a factor, just like any other class with abilities you can only use so many times per day... But when you blow away a room full of undead baddies in a single round, it makes it all seem worthwhile.
I've been playing a channeling-heavy Cleric through 9 levels of Carrion Crown. Mine so far is a Cleric 8/Holy Vindicator 1, who worships Sarenrae. His domains are Heroism (sub-domain of Glory) and Sun. This works especially well for an undead-blasting channeling Cleric because of two features of the domain choices: Granted Powers: You are infused with the glory of the divine, and are a true foe of the undead. In addition, when you channel positive energy to harm undead creatures, the save DC to halve the damage is increased by 2. And...
So, by taking these two domains, any undead you decide you need to lay low have to face a tougher save DC (the same as Improved Channeling, but it didn't require a feat), they do not get to add their channel resistance to the save (which ensures that you are doing as damage as possible, since Channel Resistance can be fairly large), AND you hit them for a static Cleric Level damage on top of the d6 channel rolls. Layer that on top of Nimbus of Light, and you've got a powerful way to demolish any undead within 30 feet of you. Consider an 8th level Cleric with Glory/Sun domains, and Quick Channel, CHA 14, and throw in a Phylactery of Positive Channeling for good measure: Surprise Round (if you get one):
Round 1:
So, in the space of a surprise round and a single round, you could nuke any undead within the 30 foot radius who make both of their saves with 50 damage, and any who miss both of their saves for 86 damage. Of course, this is using all average numbers, the true range damage range is from 30 (rolling all 1s on those d6, and the target saves twice) to 104 (rolling all 6s and the target fails its save twice), to all undead in a 30-foot radius.
My reading of it is that Grayflame adds +1d6 of damage, similar to the "divine power" portion of the damage from Flame Strike. A flame strike evokes a vertical column of divine fire. The spell deals 1d6 points of damage per caster level (maximum 15d6). Half the damage is fire damage, but the other half results directly from divine power and is therefore not subject to being reduced by resistance to fire-based attacks. Emphasis mine. The point is that it's not fire damage (i.e. subject to Fire Resitance/Immunity), but Divine damage. The reference to Flame Strike isn't anything more than demonstrating the difference between Fire damage and divine damage. The target is not subject to a Reflex save for half.
The domains I chose were Heroism (sub-domain of Glory) and Sun. My stats (we decided on a 25 point buy, for whatever reason) are STR 14 (+2 human bonus)
The DC for Channeling is plenty high, and most of the enemies I've faced were not able to make the save. Many of the mook-level enemies were blown away with one channel, while the higher CR bosses took several, in concert with the rest of the party. In my experience so far I haven't felt the urge for additional save DC, but I have noticed already that the healing potential of the Channel is beginning to decrease as we play higher in level (and enemies focus fire on certain characters, versus spreading the hurt throughout the entire party). The variant channeling definitely seems like it could be useful, however it didn't fit with my concept (I played very close to the Sarenrae theme, opting for a concept-driven versus mechanics-driven character generation approach).
I'm midway through book 2 of Carrion Crown also playing a Channel-focused Cleric of Sarenrae. You're going to absolutely SMOKE any undead you come across, but I would caution against putting all your eggs in the "channel Positive to harm Undead" basket; while many of the enemies you will be fighting will be undead, you can't count on Undead being your only adversaries. I did not take Selective Channel at level 1, 3, or 5; I'm level 6 now and regretting the heck out of it. I would suggest that you not bother with Improved Channel at level 1, and instead take, or consider taking very soon, Selective Channel. First off, you are already getting +2 to the Will Save DC from the Glory Domain, and secondly Undead do not get to add their Channel Resistance against your channels due to the Sun domain. Finally, since you're adding your Cleric Level to channel damage to undead, those lucky few that manage to make the will save for half are still getting hit with a nasty amount of damage (plus your CHA bonus to the Will Save DC is significantly higher than most). The variant channeling Disease to heal party members is likely going to come in handy, as my party is currently struggling with effectively dealing with stat damage/drain (we are likely going to invest in a wand of Lesser Restoration when we get back into town).
I think these sort of Alignment issues, especially for Divine spellcasters, need to be thought of in the context of the Deity that the character is a follower of. Some gods are all about redemption and forgiveness. Shelyn, for example, dictates that her followers not take a life unless absolutely necessary to prevent further loss of life. Sarenrae preaches redemption for those willing to accept it. If the Cleric followed a deity of redemption, his/her actions may not be viewed very favorably by their deity. Other gods take the more stern view of Judgement, Justice, and Vengeance. Iomedae comes to mind as a god which would probably not mind when a cleric in her service slays a known evil-doer, and may even applaud such a follower for exacting punishment/vengeance/justice. Other deities just have their own agendas which may come into play. Desna has a long-standing grudge against Lamashtu, "the Mother of Monsters". It seems reasonable that a Cleric of Desna would have little moral trouble with the idea of ridding the world of another misshapen fiend, whether it was helpless or not. And still other deities might just not care at all, one way or another. Gorum, the god of War, for instance, would likely not mind, and if the killing was for the greater good, I'd imagine that the character could reconcile it to him/her self. So was it an Evil act? Maybe, but maybe not. I think the better question is, "Was the act within the realm of what a deity might find acceptable for their clergy?"
Interesting. Do you have a citation for that? (I looked in the FAQ and saw nothing, though admittedly I didn't search the forums or anything.) The RAW suggests otherwise, but if this has been clarified by the devs, then I would stand corrected.stuffYou still get the domain slots and spells as far as I recall. I'm not sure if someone else posted a citation to this, but here goes: "A cleric gains one domain spell slot for each level of cleric spell she can cast, from 1st on up. Each day, a cleric can prepare one of the spells from her two domains in that slot." http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/classes/cleric.html#_domains Each of the domains list the Domain spells which can be prepared in the Cleric's Domain Spell slots, and tie those spells to the Spell Level, never to character level. By my reading, the ability to cast Domain spells granted to a Cleric is not based on their Cleric Level, but based on their ability to cast from each level of spell. The outcome of this discussion is of particular interest to me, since I'm heavily favoring a four-level dip into Holy Vindicator PrC (which does advance spellcasting ability from previous classes). If my reading is wrong, I won't gain access to "Righteous Might" as a Domain Spell at Character Level 10, which would put up a big roadblock by significantly limiting the other spells I could/would cast at Spell Level 5, and would likely impact my decision to go into the Holy Vindicator PrC at all.
5) Question: The FAQ states that the drinker of a falsely labeled cure potion would still get a save against any harmful effects. Presumably they are not forced to save against non-harmful effects, so how is it they know the difference? How does this affect the answer to number 4? Given that characters unknowingly drinking a harmful potion get a save against the harmful effects, I think it's clear that a character bluffed into thinking they were accepting a Cure spell but were instead accepting an Inflict spell would get a save against the Inflict spell's effects; however, I don't think that there is no value to the caster of going through the motions of bluffing the target. If you cast a cure spell on a willing target, the caster does not need to make a melee touch attack. It seems reasonable to me, therefore, that if you bluff your target into willingly accepting what it thinks is a cure spell you should not have to make a melee touch attack to deliver the inflict spell, and you would not incur an AOO from the target. Sure, the target still gets to save for half, but you don't have to worry about making the touch attack or taking an AOO.
Dotted.
Dotted.
Nevermind, I managed to find it myself! Core Rulebook, "Getting Started", listed in the "Common Terms" section under "Base Attack Bonus". "When a creature's base attack bonus reaches +6, +11, or +16, he receives an additional attack in combat when he takes a full-attack action"
Thanks, Majorat & Akerlof, thinking of it that way definitely helps. One last question, is there a link to the RAW or an official FAQ you can point me to which states this? My group tends to rules-lawyer quite a bit, and we've come across several rules in the past where discussion did not end until we actually looked it up in the rulebook/errata/FAQ. It would be nice to be able to come prepared with that in the (likely) event of a challenge. Thanks for all your help!
Just so I'm understanding clearly, once I've taken all the levels of Holy Vindicator that I want and am ready to return to the standard Cleric progression, I would resolve the BAB by adding the Holy Vindicator BAB to the Cleric progression, correct? For example, the BAB for my last level I take of Holy Vindicator (Cleric 8/Holy Vindicator 4) would be:
BAB for Cleric 9/Holy Vindicator 4 is the same as above since Cleric 9 doesn't get a BAB increase, but would Cleric 10/Holy Vindicator 4 be +11/+6 (i.e. +7/+1 with an additional +4 tacked on), or +11/+6/+1 (since we've hit the next iteration of 5 BAB)?
Without getting into a discussion of the merits of multiclassing a cleric, I need some help wrapping my head around the actual mechanics of how multiclassing works, specifically with my concept of a Cleric/Holy Vindicator. I plan to take 8 levels of Cleric (to get the sweet 8th level domain powers), then take 4 levels of Holy Vindicator before returning to a cleric progression. My first question can be extrapolated to all multiclassing:
My next set of questions are specific to Cleric/Holy Vindicator:
Assuming full-stacking of channel #d6s, etc, what happens when you return to the cleric progression from your dip in Holy Vindicator? For example, would a Cleric 9, Holy Vindicator 4 channel energy as if he were a Cleric level 13, but cast spells as if he were a Cleric level 12 (due to the loss of one caster level from Holy Vindicator)? Furthermore, how would you resolve the increase in iterative attack BAB from Cleric Level 9 (ties in with how the first question is answered)?
I'm going to disagree again, however I'll admit that your points are totally valid, that it's credible that the developers (if they were to make a ruling) could come down either way, and that no matter which way it operates the ability is reasonably balanced. So at this point, I'm disagreeing on a strictly academic basis, "the game is made up and the points don't matter." I also think that the rule is somewhat poorly written, because it is neither clear that Channel Smite is necessary to activate the special ability, nor that the weapon property allows you to channel energy through the weapon as a swift action. My interpretation is predicated upon the sentence, "When the wielder spends a swift action to channel energy through the weapon..." I'll contend that my interpretation is closer to RAW because I see that sentence as a clear If/Then statement: IF you channel energy through your weapon as a swift action THEN you get the benefits of the weapon property. Unless there are other ways to channel energy through a weapon as a swift action, I see Channel Smite as the only way of activating this weapon property. Similar to your argument against needing a feat, if the weapon property gives you the ability to do something that you would not otherwise be able to do, it should say so in the description. The way the rules are currently written, the grayflame property does not specifically give the wielder the ability to channel energy through the weapon, that conclusion is reached separately. A possible thought process to reach such a conclusion might be, "This weapon property is activated when I channel energy through it as a swift action. I can't usually channel energy through a weapon as a swift action without the Channel Smite feat, but that feat is not specifically called out as being necessary. The weapon property must give me the ability to channel energy into the weapon as a swift action." I think that if my way were correct, it SHOULD be written as follows:
Spoiler:
Grayflame: This weapon responds to channeled positive or negative energy. When the wielder uses the Channel Smite feat to spend a swift action to channel energy through the weapon, it ignites with a strange gray flame... etc I think that if your way is correct, it SHOULD be written as follows:
Spoiler:
Grayflame: This weapon responds to channeled positive or negative energy. The wielder may spend a swift action to channel energy through the weapon, if he/she does, it ignites with a strange gray flame... etc I'll close with the assertion that I think it's conceivable that the Developers intended for this weapon property to be used with the Channel Smite feat, but decided to leave the wording more open to allow for future potential feats which channel energy into a weapon as a swift action to also make use of this weapon property.
Could a cleric actually use this weapon? The text for grayflame reads "When the wielder spends a swift action to channel energy. . ." (emphasis mine). Clerics can channel energy as a standard or move action (with the Quick Channel feat). Does the weapon allow the wielder to channel energy as swift action?Yes. No one can innately channel energy as a swift action. I disagree. By my reading the Grayflame ability has to be used in conjunction with the Channel Smite feat. I'll admit that the description for Grayflame says nothing about requiring the Channel Smite feat to activate the ability, but it also doesn't say that having a Grayflame weapon allows you to channel energy as a swift action. Furthermore, the Channel Smite feat is required for crafting a Grayflame-enhanced weapon, and the Channel Smite feat does allow you to "spend one use of your channel energy ability as a swift action." Finally, a standard channel does not allow you to channel energy through a weapon, whereas the flavor text of the Channel Smite feat specifically does: "You can channel your divine energy through a melee weapon you wield." Spoiler:
Grayflame: This weapon responds to channeled positive or negative energy. When the wielder spends a swift action to channel energy through the weapon, it ignites with a strange gray flame that sheds light as a torch, increases the weapon's enhancement bonus by +1, and deals +1d6 damage (as the divine power from flame strike) to creatures struck by the weapon. This flame lasts for 1 round for every d6 damage or healing the channeling normally provides. When charged with positive energy, the flame is a silvery gray, good creatures are immune to the weapon's extra damage, and the weapon counts as a good and silver weapon for the purpose of bypassing damage reduction. When charged with negative energy, the flame is an ashen gray, evil creatures are immune to the weapon's extra damage, and the weapon counts as an evil and cold iron weapon for the purpose of bypassing damage reduction.
Moderate transmutation; CL 6th; Craft Magic Arms and Armor, Channel Smite, align weapon; Price +1 bonus. Spoiler: Channel Smite (Combat)
You can channel your divine energy through a melee weapon you wield. Prerequisite: Channel energy class feature. Benefit: Before you make a melee attack roll, you can choose to spend one use of your channel energy ability as a swift action. If you channel positive energy and you hit an undead creature, that creature takes an amount of additional damage equal to the damage dealt by your channel positive energy ability. If you channel negative energy and you hit a living creature, that creature takes an amount of additional damage equal to the damage dealt by your channel negative energy ability. Your target can make a Will save, as normal, to halve this additional damage. If your attack misses, the channel energy ability is still expended with no effect.
If it's difficult terrain you should be able to charge through it with Dragon Style. The feat doesn't care how the difficult terrain came to be.
So I think I decided to "split the baby" as far as allocating points goes. My point buy will be as follows: STR 14 (5), +2 human racial (total of 16)
This leaves some wiggle-room, since at level 4 I can either put the point into DEX or into CHA if I find that I really do need selective channeling.
Not to do too much metagaming, but I figure I can probably manage without taking Selective Channeling because the majority of enemies in Carrion Crown are undead (at least that's the impression I get from the flavor of the adventure path). I'm pretty married to the idea of using the Scimitar, from a flavor standpoint. The longspear is probably a superior weapon, but I just like the flavor of the scimitar so much better (my character will be from Qadira acting as a missionary). With our party makeup, I suspect that I'm going to actually be in combat more often than not, so I can definitely see the very tangible benefits of a higher DEX, and I can also see how the higher CHA would help by way of channeling. I also want to keep a focus on Strength to (eventually) realize synergies with Righteous Might, which is a Heroism domain spell (otherwise I would totally go for Dervish Dance). So, which would you all do, pump DEX or pump CHA?
My group and I are about to start on the Carrion Crown adventure path in two weeks, and I'd like some advice on my Battle Cleric of Sarenrae. I had planned out a 20 point-buy, and had a 15 point-buy on standby, but my DM threw us a curveball by allowing us a 25 point-buy and I simply have no idea where to put my extra 5 points. My 20 point stat-block is as follows:
I was considering bumping CHA to a 14, and taking the Bravery/Valor variant channeling, however I have doubts that the bonus to AC, etc., is going to be worth losing half the healing potential of each channel, especially at higher levels (10+). I've never played a character past level 5, nor have I played as or with a character who used variant channeling, so I have no idea how effective those channel bonuses are. I could bump STR up to 16 (i.e. 18 after the racial bonus), but I feel that those points would go to more use somewhere else, since I'm not going to be the primary front-line damage dealer. Another reasonable allocation would be to bump DEX to a 14 to get the extra AC, initiative, and Reflex save. Finally, an alternate use might be to bump DEX and CHA to 12 each, and put the last point into either one of those, or into INT in preparation for the 4th-level stat boost. Some additional information to help:
I'm going for the Good and Heroism Domains, and plan to wield a scimitar primarily one-handed, use a buckler on the off hand to bump AC a little while still having the hand available for manipulating the holy symbol and/or material components or wielding the scimitar two-handed as necessary.
My build focuses on maxing Strength and going for more of a straightforward damage route. I use Unarmed Strikes with the Dragon Style Feat chain in concert with Drunken Strength to really max out my damage per attack as much as possible. If it helps any, my gaming group just kind of ignores the drinking rules, and it hasn't been an issue since I try not to abuse it too egregiously. I also roleplay being constantly drunk, which helps explain the 7 Charisma in in-game terms (it's also a lot of fun). Definitely some good suggestions from Arassuil.
Here is the outline of my build that I've been running. I used the "Dual Talent" Human Racial Attribute to overcome MAD, and didn't really mind doing so because some of the Combat Feats that other front-liners would take at 1st level require +1 BAB (like Power Attack). If I had to do it all over again, I'd substitute "Toughness" in for "Deflect Arrows", since "Deflect Arrows" hardly ever comes up in the my game and I frequently wish I had some extra HP when I do get hit. I'd also swap "Improved Trip" with "Improved Grapple", since I've found that Grapple tends to be more situationally useful than Trip. Also, just because you're going for Drunken Master doesn't mean you should ignore the Qinggong Monk archetype. Since the FAQ where Paizo staff explicitly stated that Qinggong and other Monk Archetypes can be used together there's no reason NOT to mix. In short, had I known when I was initially making my Monk what I know now, I'd go with something like this:
I get 8.53125 but yeah, looks like you've got it. I rounded for the sake of significant figures. Thanks for the assistance.
Can someone give me a crash course in calculating DPR? Ultimately I'd like to be able to calculate the difference in expected DPR from opening a Monk Flurry of Blows with a Trip attempt, versus a standard all-attacks Flurry.You mean a monk attempting to trip on his first attack, and then making normal(non-trip) attacks? That's the general idea. This character is for PFS, so there is a higher proportion of bipedal enemies without CMDs through the roof. My thought was open the flurry with a trip, and reap the benefits of an effective +4 to attack for the rest of my flurry attacks, as well as putting the enemy prone for my teammates to abuse as well.
Hit chance being related to Attack Bonus and Die roll needed to overcome foe's AC? For example:
Therefore:
Am I on the right track?
Can someone give me a crash course in calculating DPR? Ultimately I'd like to be able to calculate the difference in expected DPR from opening a Monk Flurry of Blows with a Trip attempt, versus a standard all-attacks Flurry.
My current character is a Drunken Master Monk, and he is a blast to roleplay (used Charisma as a dump stat, so he's a filthy reeking drunkard who prefers to pass out in the gutters of Absalom versus spending the night in an inn and is just plain awful at social interaction). As for whether the drinking rules as laid out in the Gamemaster's Guide apply, you'll have to chat with your DM. One one hand there's nothing in RAW to suggest that you SHOULDN'T be subject to the drinking rules, while on the other hand the drinking rules are kind of awful (in particular they're very restrictive as to how much you can drink at a time, and there is no explicitly listed timeframe for how often a character can drink before penalties set in, so it's open to GM interpretation) so if you go strictly by RAW you'll likely have a difficult time keeping Drunken Ki available prior to combat. "Just like drugs, alcohol can be abused and have significant negative effects. In general, a character can consume a number of alcoholic beverages equal to 1 plus double his Constitution modifier before being sickened for 1 hour equal to the number of drinks above this maximum. Particularly exotic or strong forms of alcohol might be treated as normal drugs. Those who regularly abuse alcohol might eventually develop a moderate addiction." (From the GMG: http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/mastery/drugsAndAddiction.html) For the sake of example, my Monk has 12 Con for a +1 Con modifier. If the GM interprets the drinking rules as "Maximum per day = 1+(2)(CON)" then my Monk would only be able to drink 3 drinks per day before facing penalties; however if the GM interprets the drinking rules as "Maximum per hour = 1+(2)(CON)" then you're able to be much more liberal with your character's drinking habits. I personally think that the "per hour" timeframe makes more sense, however, since it's not explicitly written, expect table variation.
I have a question regarding Qinggong Monk archetype that probably doesn't need its own thread, so I'll just pile on here: I'm interested in adding Qinggong powers to my existing Drunken Master Monk (currently at level 5, but I'm starting to plan out to/past level 7). Specifically, I'd like to replace "Wholeness of Body" with a Qinggong power, however I'm not sure if that's legal. Since "Diamond Body" and "Diamond Soul" were replaced with "Drunken Courage" and "Drunken Resilience", am I still able to access the Qinggong Monk archetype? My current reasoning would be "yes", since the two relevant class features which are removed by the Drunken Master archetype aren't NECESSARILY also changed by the Qinggong archetype.
Or you can play a character with low mental stats and blissfully walk into traps, ambushes and plots that you, the player, are well aware of. It is actually great fun and quite refreshing. The first character I made when we started playing Pathfinder was a lower-wisdom Paladin whose first act as an adventurer was to walk up to the ominous tower, yell "My name is Brynden Steelsong, Paladin of Iomedae, and I am here to smite evil!". I then proceeded to break through every door, run directly into every trap, and trust 100% the word of any NPC who did not detect as evil because "why would they lie?" That character was a blast, and since our game was a mixture between serious and ridiculous our group had a great time shaking their heads and digging the dumbass paladin out of trouble.
Not correct. You need the "Agile Maneuvers" feat to use your DEX bonus to calculate your CMB instead of STR. Unless you have the feat which allows you to swap a certain modifier, CMB is always calculated using your STR modifer. As far as I know, there is no feat to use WIS for CMB instead of STR, but I may be wrong.
In my group we have two very seasoned D&D and Pathfinder veterans, along with the rest of us who all started playing about a year ago. I'd say approximately once per game session, gameplay will grind to a halt as the veterans argue over rules. We've devised the following system to keep gameplay going in spite of rule disputes by putting them on the "back burner" while play continues, and instituting a risk vs reward mechanic if the players feel that play needs to be interrupted while the rule is looked up: Text of the Rules Dispute system:
In the event of a rule dispute, the matter will be settled in one of two ways: 1) GM Ruling or, 2) Player Dispute.
1) GM Ruling: Without disrupting the flow of the game, the GM adjudicates on the disputed rule; Players may look up the rule in question while not acting (as in a Combat round, or during Roleplay). If the GM ruling is shown to be incorrect, all gameplay and outcomes related to the rule already played will stand, however gameplay going forward will use the correct rules. The player who finds the correct rule will be awarded a re-roll on any single die roll (be it for an attack roll, skill check, damage roll, or saving throw) to use during the game session. 2) Player Dispute: Gameplay temporarily ceases while the correct rules are found; this can take the form of a) Player vs GM dispute, and b) Player vs Player dispute. Once the dispute has been resolved, play will continue, using the correct rule.
Our system encourages disputes to be settled without disrupting the game with a minor but useful boon, while discouraging disruptive disputes by instituting a high risk/reward ratio.
I LOVE this idea. I'm totally going to steal it! Do you have any other suggestions for categories to put on such cards?
I'm going to preface this with the fact that the furthest I've gotten with my Monk so far is 4th level, but it seems to me that one of the major complaints is that the Monk can't move and use Flurry on the same turn. Couple this with the idea that the Monk should be a skirmisher, and the idea that the Monk should deal damage in a number of small attacks (versus a single Two-handed greatsword). What I think would be a fair compromise would be to move Abundant Step forward in the leveling progression to level 6 (given that I'm not sure how this would affect game balance between classes). The mid-level Monk would then have the Dimensional Agility tree of feats; Dimensional Agility and Dimensional Assault would be available right away, with Dimensional Dervish available at/after 8th level, and Dimensional Savant available at/after 12th level (assuming 3/4 BAB). This allows the Monk to really fill the "skirmisher" role: setting up flanking for the party rogue/ninja or any other martial class, as well as helping to harry the enemy spellcasters. Just my 2 cp...
One of the things I like to do when I GM is to allow the Players to ATTEMPT just about anything provided they can explain how they want to do it, then make them roll the skill checks accordingly. To illustrate my point, I was GMing The Frostfur Captives PFS scenario, during which the PCs arrive at two guarded watchtowers. One of the PCs plays a Ninja, who was sneaking around the watchtowers, and trying to scale the walls to get up to the top. To make a long story short, the enemies, which had been up on top of the watchtower were now at the base of the tower, while this ninja player had climbed about 30 feet high. The ninja decided that he wanted to jump off the side of the building, perform a flying attack on the enemy, then use the enemy as a cushion to break his fall. What I decided was that he would need to pass: 1) A DC 15 Acrobatics check to jump the 15 feet in the horizontal direction to be over his target (he was considered to have a running start per Ninja Ki Pool), if he didn't pass this, then he wouldn't be able to make an attack or attempt to land on the enemy due to not getting enough distance; then, 2) perform an attack roll versus the enemy's AC (the enemy was aware of him), if he missed he could still attempt to land on the enemy; then 3) perform an attack roll, using the ranged attack rules, against the enemy's Touch AC (think of this as the player "throwing themselves" onto the enemy) to fall onto the enemy instead of the ground. Had the player been successful, he would have been on the ground, gotten to attack, imparted the falling damage he would have otherwise taken onto the enemy, and have looked totally badass. The player rolled a 1 on his Acrobatics check, botched the jump, landed prone next to the enemy, incurred an attack of opportunity, and took all applicable falling damage. He proceeded to play dead using an opposed Bluff check to fool the enemy into not attacking him further. What I am trying to get at here, and I deeply apologize for my long-windedness, is to use the rules as written as guidelines instead of law. Your players will greatly enjoy the feeling of success when one of their ridiculous plans works out, and everyone gets a good laugh when it blows up in their faces.
I think you need to have the group reevaluate their expectations of the GM situation. If they've come into the group with the expectation that they'll never have to GM, then they will be less likely to step up and take over the reigns when you need a break. The group that I've been playing weekly with for the last nine months rotates GMs every two or three Pathfinder Society scenarios. Thus far almost everyone has had a turn as GM, and everyone gets a fair amount of Player and GM time.
Thanks folks! I think I'll go with Sewer Dragons of Absolom followed by some other scenario to get my group up to level four, then go do Fostfur Captives.
My group and I GM Society scenarios on a rotating basis, and it is now my turn. I want to GM the 3rd Season Level 1-5 scenario "The Frostfur Captives", and while there are two sub-tiers explicitly written out, the party I'm running this for are all level 3 (4-5 players). My quandary is that there are no guidlines for a level 3 party. Playing sub-tier 1-2 looks too easy and the monetary rewards seem somewhat lacking, whereas sub-tier 4-5 looks a bit tough for the party. I was thinking of "splitting the difference" for encounters by assigning some creatures from each sub-tier, which would probably work mechanically however which mission rewards would I award? I would likely have to "split the difference" for Skill Check DCs and various saving throws, correct? Would I be better off just going through a different mission with a sub-tier 3 specifically written? I'm still pretty new to GM-ing, so any tips and tricks are greatly appreciated. |
