First of all, let me say that Jade Regent is well suited for Ameiko to be a main PC and may perhaps work better that way.
As written there are a few potential scenarios where Ameiko is treated as a damsel. However it is possible for those to be re-written fairly easily or have another pre-made NPC take that position.
The main spot that is assumed to happen occurs in book 1. Without trying to give away any spoiler, Ameiko is assumed to be put into a coma and utter clues in an unconcious state. However this could happen to a different NPC, or happen to PC Ameiko as moments of unconciousness and dreams. Very easy to adjust.
I'd also love some hints on the Swords of Sin. One of my players is a blade-bound magus and I am planning of having his swords special purpose to be an opponent of the swords and their users.
I did the exact same thing with the bladebound back in Shattered Star for his story! It was awesome.
We're going to have a retcon rerun soon to play Rise, Shattered and Return for a Runelord Trilogy campaign featuring several of our original characters. I'll finally be able to get the other runelords now!
Yeah, ignoring high level deaths that can be reversed:
Shattered Star had "that trap" and then later a TPK for four deaths. After that, high level deaths happened on occasion but were generally reversible without too much trouble.
You may find the obituary threads in each AP forum a useful tool for this, or at least finding the lethal chokepoints in an AP.
First Floor. Basic. Entrance into B2. The shaft continues to rise.
Second Floor. Hidden. Two windows (openings in the stone) lead into room B23 from the shaft. Only accessible by climbing or shenanigans typically. Windows are covered by illusions walls to sight from both sides, but sound makes them easier to notice from within B23. The shaft continues to rise.
Third Floor. Hidden. One window to B19. Same situation as Second Floor. The shaft continues to rise.
Fourth Floor. Tricky. The ledge refers to the small area above the water on the east side of B9, above the boat entry way into B1 below. Not likely to be of great consequence unless shenanigans. The main concept is that in the middle of B9, hanging 10 feet from the top of the shaft, a 5' square wooden platform is suspended by ropes and pitons from the ceiling. This platform is also anchored with ropes to the ledge from B8. This platform should probably be visible from B1, or be so from the results of perception.
In the ceiling, above the suspended platform, is a trap door. This trap door leads into a tunnel network that deposits into B10.
Forewords are something that are admittedly hit or miss. I do always read them, and sometimes they are invaluably excellent and can prove very useful in adding in some additional content or aids (the soundtracks for Carrion Crown for example). Othertimes they are just a neat bit of meta-design which I read but I don't know if they add 'value'
Personally I would prefer the two pages provide a bit of that developer outside perspective and occasional nugget of enhancement, versus two extra pages of adventure content. However that preference is not so strong that, if they are a difficult chore to produce, that I would throw up arms if they left permanently.
Of course, I don't necessarily plan to purchase PF2 APs, so perhaps my opinion on this is irrelevant as I'm no longer a long-term customer.
Any chance we can get a sidebar in each installment with suggestions for upscaling to Mythic? Since the Whispering Tyrant was statted out with Mythic rules, it would be nice for those of us still running those rules to get a tad bit of help from the publisher.
Something as simple as the Militia sidebars in Ironfang Invasion would suffice. Example: Add two Mythic Ogres to the encounter with Bishop Evil. Add four mythic tiers to Admiral Winterdeath along with mythic ombat reflexes and backlash.
I don't think Paizo has been shy about including enemies with Mythic abilities in APs when appropriate. But the official stance has been not to design the APs assuming the PCs have mythic powers.
So I would bet that we will see enemies with Mythic Ranks in this AP that GM's could use as challenges to provide mythic advancement to PCs, however the adventure will not be designed with mythic PCs in mind.
While it would be a boon if Paizo offered such suggestions, I don't think it should be expected. Just like we would not expect Paizo to include side bars for running with a group of 6 PCs instead of 4. Such a situation is outside the expected and declared parameters of the initial design, and up to individual GMs to adjust as best fits their own groups.
Personally, I wove Waking Rune into my Shattered Star campaign, something I highly recommend (Give the Sihedron a trial run).
Oooh, that sounds cool!
Some small notes on it for others interested:
Spoiler:
Essentially, I assumed all the Lissala vs. Pathfinder lodge happened in background while the group was collecting shards, and actually the start of it was what clued Sheila into her Sihedron research because it seemed Krune's rise may be eminent and a defense was needed.
So, when stuff happens after the Sihedron Reunification, Sheila's mind jumps to Krune waking Up. She gathers the Sihedron heros and makes the choice to use their limited number of tokens to teleport them straight to Krune's lair. Decemvirate plays the bad guy and demands the spear and rod for use of Pathfinder assets in Varisia's personal troubles.
Change wise, I buffed the encounters to be more appropriate to higher level group with the Sihedron, altered the runes to be not as severe debuffs and a bit harder to manage, and wasn't afraid to abuse summoning tricks to challenge the group a bit because as written Waking Rune is fairly easy for a group fresh with the Sihedron to challenge.
I suppose if there's interest I could put together my notes on increasing the challenge of the PFS scenario in the Shattered Star forum or somethign.
This is something that Paizo tried very hard to avoid with previous APs.
Return of the Runelords is the third entry in an AP 'trilogy' and have the same assumptions that Shattered Star had that certain adventure paths had reached certain conclusions.
So, if you have not run Rise of the Runelords, then there will be some spoilers for players if you play Shattered Star or Return first. However the spoilers are of the most general nature, and the vast majority of the campaigns are still playable with the same group, and in fact may garner more appreciation for nuggets of Thassilon information that was threaded in earlier.
Personally, I wove Waking Rune into my Shattered Star campaign, something I highly recommend (Give the Sihedron a trial run). But I didn't run Rise before Shattered Star. However I'm fine with the idea of Running Return right out of Shattered Star, and then coming back to Rise as a sort've, victory lap thing.
A way to think of it is, most people read Lord of the Rings before the Silmarillion. This establishes certain things, Sauron being the right-hand man of Fallen Morgoth, the fall of a human empire of Numenor, etc. However it doesn't make reading the Silmarillion redundant, and in fact enhances interest in it because the reader can see how expectations fits into the detail of earlier history.
So, reading over the Return of the Runelords Timeline, a question occurred to me regarding an inconsistency or two between the timeline and Books 5 & 6 of Shattered Star:
Spoiler:
In Book 5 of Shattered Star, Mesmalatu is indicated to be working with Karzoug in creating the Guiltspur. There's no mention of this being a solo project almost 1,000 years after earthfall. I thought that they were in fact trapped there after earthfall, unable to dig their way out and the wards prevented teleportation and other ways of escape.
In Book 6 of Shattered Star, it was indicated that Xin made the Ghost Iron Scimitar in an attempt to imitate the 7 swords of sin, however according to the timeline it appears those swords were crafted well after Xin's death.
Nitpicks really, but the first just seems an odd incocsistency and the second it is made out to be a big Failure of Xin's in Shattered Star 6.
I believe that it's mentioned that a solid alloy can be made, and that the shard is constructed in such a way. Book 6 contains a chair made of such an alloy.
I’m a little fidgety that PF1 isn’t going to conclude on AP150. That would have brought me a sense of satisfaction. 144 is a perfect square, so all is not lost.
Still kind of bugs me that issue 150 is going to be buried somewhat in the launch of the second AP. I was really excited for issue 100 but that seemed to come and go with barely a mention on the forums. I think milestones are worth celebrating.
I'd hardly call being the Finale to the first PF2 AP being "buried". Sounds like an opportunity for some extra articles or content or who knows. Unless Paizo decides they only want to celebrate 100s.
There was a fair amount of talk about 100, but that was buried in an AP, the fourth book as I recall. More difficult to purchase as a stand alone. First or last are probably best options for stand-alones, because you're either buying a new start or a capstone to a campaign. But I'm quite happy with the extra materials and such.
Hmmm, this is dusty in my mind and I should probably re-check the book. But as I recall they're linked to the Sinspawn, with their skulls/heads/remains being described at it's lair. So technically it is expanded upon, but certainly if you'd change it that is fine and up to you. It might be good to emphasize the faceless stalkers to give more fore-shadowing to Proudstump's situation if you want to change things.
As a note, while it is only for the base classes and I can't speak for the effectiveness of the 'builds' This is why the Strategy Guide was made, as I believe it is a much more palatable breakdown of the system and character creation for Newbies who have no background knowledge to get them started.
Race: Half-Elf
Classes/levels: Arcane Sorcerer 6
Adventure: The Asylum Stone
Location: The catwalk of the Hanging Manse
Catalyst: Berkanin Ardoc's spell, black tentacles
The Gory Details: The party confronted Berkanin. Unfortunately, they released the troll. Combined with the 2 clockwork soldiers, they were getting hurt really bad. The party tank and the rogue led the withdrawal across the catwalk. Maddeva only made it halfway across the catwalk when Berkanin cast black tentacles. Maddeva got grabbed and squished. The party managed to take her body when they fled but are not planning to resurrect her (the player is moving away).
Name: Degnar
Race: Dwarf
Classes/levels: Monk 6
Adventure: The Asylum Stone
Location: The hallway on the east side of the catwalk of the Hanging Manse
Catalyst: Fireball
The Gory Details: After Maddeva got squished, everyone else continued to try to flee. Degnar was actually able to avoid being grappled by the tentacles and get to the other side of the catwalk. However, Berkanin, hoping to get Degnar as well as the party tank and the rogue who were nearby, cast Fireball into the hallway. The two other characters managed to be far enough away from the point of impact but Degnar got fried. Currently, his body is with the group but they have no plans, and not enough money, to resurrect him.
Berkanin is a deceptively (I didn't realize before I ran it) deadly encounter. A lot of nice spells, minions, and terrain advantage with flight. Black Tentacles....
I would think Carrion Crown would seem ideal. Apart from having a literal trial that requires investigating in book 2, pretty much the entire path is something of tracking down and investigating who is behind the starting murder in book 1 and why, and doing this by solving small mystery adventures along the way.
Now, there may be some struggles with dealing with haunts and undead without a proper divine and what not that might require some alteration or tossing the party a bone especially if they're creative. But if the idea is investigation, it's probably the best option off the top of my head.
You are telling me that I should accept this because the oranges (crit multipliers and mechanics from PF1) were a problem for you previously?
Hey now, I never said any mechanics from PF1 were a problem for me, I'm just trying to understand the extend of you're planning.
If your concern is avoiding enemies one shotting PCs, it should still be possible to calculate enemy damage such that the maximum with a crit is not sufficient to damage your PCs. As has been mentioned, enemy builds will use different methods than PCs. I imagine the quick build instructions will provide a damage range or average for CRs for different roles. and you can determine whether to come at the average from a higher static or variable component.
Ok, flip the coin, you're designing an NPC combatant and need to know whether or not you are going to one-shot the PC but cannot reliably calculate this?
I know the parties max HP. I am able build the encounter so that the max damage output and enemy can do in a round does not exceed the max HP of the lowest Hp party member. That is not how I prep but it can be done that way.
I am curious, do you calculate for critical hits in your planning? Any enemies using Greataxes or Scythes, those x3 and x4 crits, and do you make sure that their damage potential is low enough that if you happen to roll double 20s that the max crit is still not enough that one-shot a PC? The extreme corner cases you appear to be concerned with exist in base pathfinder already.
Even if you metagame, it can be worth risking one attack of opportunity where risking two or three would be suicidal.
I think the question is moreso...The group has a Fighter, and a Barbarian that cannot make AoOs. Will a GM, even just subconsciously, have enemies make actions that are 'riskier' for AoOs when just threatened by the Barbarian? Meanwhile enemies by the Fighter might subconsciously act more cautiously and in a way that avoids AoOs, even if the Fighter hasn't confirmed having the ability? It is a concern that, best of intentions to play enemies with characters, a GM might fall into a more strategic outlook with Metagame knowledge players won't have. To say nothing of poorer GMs who embrace the imbalance without regard.
Side Note: Is Mark's comment first confirmation we have that damage from an AoO can still disrupt a Spellcaster's spell?
I would like to see an actual rules tag, say Distracting, which can be right there next in parenthesis next to the name of an action in the combat / Gameplay chapter. Then you can tell just by looking at the name of an action whether or not it will provoke an attack of opportunity.
I like the concept, but now this is getting into another weird thing with changing AoOs from default to limited. How much rule design and text is going to be committed to what is an ability that no players may actually possess? Will all the text be in the Fighter ability, or spread throughout the rules because the concept could be more relevant with enemies or other classes taken AoO opportunities.
Well, hax aura starts to get kinda silly and forced I think. I know the game isn't suppsoed to be that super realistic, but AOO was pretty elegant in that it achieved the goal without specifically mentioning it, while also remaining thematic to melee combat and "mundane".
See, I would disagree with elegant. If you consider introducing a new player to the 3.5/P system set, it's quite the complex thing to explain, and basically required a long list of examples with indications whether such an action provoked or not. Very rarely, even with experienced players, when I mention "that will provoke" do they seem aware that it did and were willing to take the attack to complete the action they had planned. It leads to more time spent on turns to find the specific combo that works for the intended action (You move and then cast shocking grasp, but that provokes. You could cast defensively and risk moving the spell. Or you could cast first out of threaten, move, and then make the touch attack without provoking) It worked for the sticky and threaten but it's clunky and complex and not streamlined for teaching.
Edit: As long as the 'aura' is based on the Fighter's melee reach, and is equated to being able to move freely to harass those nearby, it groks for me explanation wise. Or have an action to activate to imply a specific action taking. But that might be my personal vision.
I'd still like to see all Martials (barbarian, fighter, paladin, ranger, rogue) get AoO even if it's restricted to a feat for everyone else. Just make it better for the fighter. Then you still at least have a good mental sense from the description of an opponent whether they're likely to be able to do it or not, and other Martials don't lose out on the ability to help control the battlefield.
And as for stepping back 5 feet to avoid them, I mentioned this elsewhere, but I'd love an early-available AoO upgrade feat to be letting you step 5 feet to take an AoO against someone taking a provoking action just outside your reach... >:3
The first part is kinda why I would like a Dev to pop in and confirm if the AoO threatening is a known or unknown factor. If it's unknown, than even if they don't have AoO other martials may find themselves being treated as such if the GM runs enemies with a consistent metaknowledge. If that's the case, martials will find they possess a soft control anyway still.
I like the idea of options to increase potency of AoOs, but depending on the design desire, I wouldn't want it to be a feat tax if you wanted to be the guy that's dangerous to be close to that you can't just tiptoe away from.
Hopefully it isn't too much of an opportunity cost to pick this up on the frontliners that wanna use it, or it's gonna become a "tax".
Indeed, it would be good to avoid any trap or tax options if possible.
Recognizing AoOs meaning to lock-down as primary function, would you be opposed to the ability turning into an action tax aura on the fighter to simplify, or do you prefer the option to eat the AoO to escape remain?
QuidEst wrote:
Amusing metagame implications- Fighters and Paladins want to be mistaken for each other.
AOO is the strongest when you don't have to use it. The OP is a great analysis of how this mechanic actually plays out: It limits the opponent's options and "locks them down" with a melee guy. If you take measures to avoid it, you are losing out on actions, so there's a lot to gain from risking it if you evaluate the situation correctly. It's one of the most interesitng tactical variables in Pathfinder.
If you have AOO and are next to an enemy, you are already oppressing them and controlling their actions even if you never actually swing the sword. The fear of free hit can be more powerful than the damage it would deal anyways.
It is both buffed and nerfed in this edition. On one hand, the 5-step is not "free", it's an action called "Guarded Step" and using it is as costly as any attack or ability you want to use so they can't 5-step and full-attack at 100%. This means you can more reliably slow down reach-weapons (though it slows you down as well). Punishing mages is a mixed bag since they can still step back and cast 1 spell and you dont get all 3 attacks against them, but they also run out of actions at that point and can't draw a wand or other things they could also do in 1e.
Punishing people for moving around seems about the same. Unless it's changed to "leaves your reach", in which case that would be a big downgrade in tanking since they can just kinda run a circle around you for free.
My appreciation. I do recognize that AoOs, as implemented in 1E, do serve the purpose of a low-level stickiness and has found it's way to a good balance.
With it becoming a non-default, and something of a Signature for Fighters, I feel it is an opportunity to simplify it and dig down into what the desired effect is. Is the design desire to have out of turn offense, or to lock-down? Is a sword&board melee build ineffective as a fighter because using your reaction for shields means that signature ability is basically useless for you? Does guarded step have any purpose other than to be an option everyone has to shut down this Fighter Signature ability? Do other signature reactions have such a hard counter?
If I play a fighter because of that Signature ability, I may be disappointed if it turns out that I'm limiting opponent action economy instead of actually getting off reaction attacks or entirely locking down certain effects (movement/spellcasting).
Just concerns, and hopes, for making Fighters a good base in new edition.
Magic Missile might cost more than one action to do, so that's not potentially possible, meaning the Wizard has to either burn his 3rd action to not move out, or to just run and complete one of the spell components.
I believe information has confirmed that Magic missile is a single action, with additional actions possible for extra missile? Of course I may be confused. Nonetheless, the Wizard could still five foot step and target a party member other than the Fighter who does not have a shield. My main point that the Shiny AoO ability has been negated still stands. And now even worse the fighter may have wasted an action to give him options that may not apply (I don't know if it's been clear if shield reduce magic damage) if no melee or ranged weapon targets him.
An attack of opportunity is just one option for your reaction. If your enemy avoids provoking, you can always use Shield Block to negate some damage from their attack, or other unrevealed options.
Playing against a fighter, you might try to bait them into using their reaction to shield block so you can retreat safely. The fighter then takes the calculated risk of either blocking damage or continuing to threaten an opportunistic attack. I really like that dynamic.
This is a fair idea of balance, but it sounds very unfun for a fighter, because he is wasting actions to gain options and still doesn't have a guarantee that he can use what is essentially the Fighter's signature ability.
Let's say, Fighter closes to wizard/cleric.
Fighter Action 1: Move
Fighter Action 2: Attack
Wizard Reaction: Shield (no counter or avoidance to this so far as we know)
Fighter Action 3: Ready Shield
Cleric Response:
Action 1: Attack (Fighter may shield here, but wants to get his AoO and chooses not to)
Action 2: Five-foot-step
Action 3: Self-heal (I believe this is at 1 action?)
Fighter has possibly been damaged once, and the damage he dealt may have been healed. The fighter will have to use one of three actions to approach again next turn.
Wizard Response:
Action 1: Attack (Fighter may shield here, but wants to get his AoO and chooses not to)
Action 2: Five-foot-step
Action 3: Magic Missile
Fighter has possibly been damaged twice, and have only damaged wizard once, and will have to use one of three actions to approach again next turn.
Even if the fighter chooses a second attack instead of readying shield, it's at a -5, not the -2 of the AoO, and still the AoO can be avoided.
That's just the nature of the game, and of risks, gambling, and adventuring in general.
I'm not arguing that there isn't an inherent risk to being an adventurer. Moreso, I'm trying to forward the idea that the implementation doesn't fit the desired effect.
Making attacks of opportunity a limited resource puts it on a pedestal. This is a reaction, and if you level in Fighter or take it as a other-class feat, you want to use it. You want to be able to attack outside of your turn.
Spoiler:
Current game, when everyone has it, it's not that important if your AoO doesn't get used or not unless you specialize, and chances are if you specialize you will be able to get it
But, unless something has changed (and considering the five-foot-step has been mentioned I'm inclined to think they haven't), the game is being set up for it to never be used and instead players and enemies will take decreased action economy to avoid the threat.
And let's be clear. An AoO is something to be avoided. With only a -2 penalty, it is much better to avoid an AoO and instead allow a full attack, because the default -5 second attack and -10 third attack are significantly less accurate.
Even if the ability is unknown, the default ability and default action of five-foot-step implies that the common knowledge of the game world is that some warriors are able to do it, and when facing a big melee creature or warrior, you should be careful backing away. Players and not-dumb NPCs use five-foot-steps and an AoO remains a rare occurrence, and this Big Shiny no longer seems so important or fun.
It either needs to have no counter to let those who pick it be able to use it. Or, a simpler version should be implemented that just decreases action economy for non-attacks on adjacent enemies.
I suppose, in general, If this is a reaction that is equivalent to a feat, it should have few counters, and counters should also require a feat. If everyone has access to the five-foot-step counter, this is a poor value class ability or feat and adds unneeded complexity to what could be much simpler.
I could see it split into three feats/abilities, that don't have a counter, keeping it simple and worthwhile.
Distracting: As an action, the character threatens those who don't engage them in combat. Opponents who start their turn within the reach of the Fighter's melee weapon must spend an additional action to move out of the Fighter's reach or cast a spell while within the fighter's reach.
Pros: Doesn't use up your valuable reaction action, decreases action economy for those trying to flee or cast spells beside you.
Disruptive: As a reaction, you may make an attack at a -2 penalty against an opponent who casts a spell within reach of your melee weapon.
Pros: Guaranteed attack, focusses on being a trouble to casters.
Harrying: As a reaction, you may make an attack at a -2 penalty against an opponent who moves out of the reach of your melee weapon.
Pros: Guaranteed attack, focusses on being sticky.
The tactics as presented have the enemies separate the party with walls of force. Based on context I imagine they are floor to ceiling (Text mention burst effects getting cut off by the walls) and the easiest way to do this is often vertically as the room is quite wide, so north to south. However, a large dining table with chairs bisect the room, and one of my players pointed out (he had correctly rolled the skill to identify the spell): "The wall must be continuous and unbroken when formed. If its surface is broken by any object or creature, the spell fails."
On the fly, I ruled that the wall succeeded (we were a round or two in at that point) however the space under the table was still open to allow them to crawl to each section and use spells and what not. Overall it seemed to work fine, though this is one heck of an encounter. If you don't get blinded, you likely go insane. The party retreated short order.
Just a note for GMs on this one, the tactics regarding the Wall of Force may be hard to implement as written.
So, it's been clear that AoOs are not going to be the default for everyone. Fighters can have them, other classes may be able to gain access, and enemies may vary. However, from what has been revealed so far, I have concerns that the implementation is too similar and doesn't offer any improvement considering the opportunity that a second edition has to improve it.
My two questions are, will players be aware of who can perform AoOs, or will it be unknown? And will the "five-foot-step" still ignore AoOs?
If players are aware, my concern is that, much as I experience in my current games, AoOs will never happen. From my understanding the five-foot-step still exists, as an action admittedly but if it still avoids AoOs (and what other use would it have with AoOs being limited now instead of default?). While yes, players and certain enemies may choose to be risky and provoke, my experience is that provoking rarely happens when a players and reasonably smart enemies can take an action to be safe. In this situation, it becomes almost a nonability, you don't actually use AoOs the ability just makes you stickier and costs action economy of retreating opponents as per old system (see below)
If players are unaware, it would make sense, you don't necessarily know a creature's ability until it happens. However now you play the paranoia game. In my opinion, players do not like 'Gotchas' and after the first couple times it happens, will probably err to the side of caution and five-foot-step anyway when it seems likely an enemy can AoO. Even worse, a GM is aware of what players can AoO and, willingly or not, may metagame the system to the players disadvantage. So we end up with players still safe-stepping to avoid, possibly sourly because it might be a wasted safe-step, and a set-up that favors GMs who cannot resist the meta-game.
In current Pathfinder, Attacks of Opportunity serve the niche of being a base way to be 'Sticky' and threatening. It allows the fighter to close with an enemy and that enemy suddenly finds it trickier to leave the melee and target the squishy. Most often this manifests in taking a five-foot-step to slowly position or cast a spell safely, or full retreat to reposition in melee with the squishy who now finds themselves in the threatening spot. The attack isn't often actually taken, unless investment has been built up to allow it anyway. It provides the stickiness but at the cost of each turn, reminding players about the potential AoO, dancing around, in general making things complicated and messing up the smooth flow of combat. My concern is that, even limiting this ability, enough people CAN have it, or the threat of enemies POSSIBLY having it, will end up with it still playing the same and I would like combat smoother than that.
I shall see what full playtest reveals. However, currently it is sounding like it either needs to be more threatening (remove five-foot-step safety option) or simplified to what the end results will be with the current system (Make movement or spell-casting starting within the Fighter's range cost one additional action from being harried, perhaps costing the fighter one of their actions to manifest the ability). Or, follow both paths as either separate options or options that can stack so the fighter can become very very sticky. If moving costs two actions AND still provokes, that enemy is very stuck, which would be a nice path for Fighters to really have.
Bit of a ramble. But I really want paizo to simplify and improve Melee Stickiness and Threaten abilities without the five-foot-step/AoO setup of the current edition.
The purple cover is a cover mock-up Paizo releases for new listed products when the final version hasn't been finalized art wise. Amazon often takes these mock-ups and continues to use them after the final art is released. There is only the one version of the covers.
I feel Shattered Star is a good 'easy' GM difficulty AP. Part of that comes from probably the same reason Mummy's mask is considered easier, high Dungeon Crawl content. But it is also quite well written, a lot of good tactics write-outs and good short but descriptive character motivations to bring NPCs to life without too much effort. The only GM difficult part are the amount of creatures that may charm or Dominate PCs and how to handle that without being devastating. Fortunately, hopefully players see the prevalence early on and defend themselves enough that it isn't as much of a concern. Seducer's bane and hat of Free thinker for all? XP
The purpose of this thread is to clarify questions arising in this adventure. This is a SPOILER filled zone, do not venture further if you do not wish the adventure to be spoiled for you, and spoiler tags are not required when posting here.
This thread is a GM Reference thread for Part 1 of the War for the Crown Adventure Path. Links for the individual threads for each part are as follows:
The purpose of this thread is to clarify questions arising in this adventure. This is a SPOILER filled zone, do not venture further if you do not wish the adventure to be spoiled for you, and spoiler tags are not required when posting here.
This thread is a GM Reference thread for Part 2 of the War for the Crown Adventure Path. Links for the individual threads for each part are as follows:
The purpose of this thread is to clarify questions arising in this adventure. This is a SPOILER filled zone, do not venture further if you do not wish the adventure to be spoiled for you, and spoiler tags are not required when posting here.
This thread is a GM Reference thread for Part 3 of the War for the Crown Adventure Path. Links for the individual threads for each part are as follows:
The purpose of this thread is to clarify questions arising in this adventure. This is a SPOILER filled zone, do not venture further if you do not wish the adventure to be spoiled for you, and spoiler tags are not required when posting here.
This thread is a GM Reference thread for Part 4 of the War for the Crown Adventure Path. Links for the individual threads for each part are as follows:
The purpose of this thread is to clarify questions arising in this adventure. This is a SPOILER filled zone, do not venture further if you do not wish the adventure to be spoiled for you, and spoiler tags are not required when posting here.
This thread is a GM Reference thread for Part 5 of the War for the Crown Adventure Path. Links for the individual threads for each part are as follows:
The purpose of this thread is to clarify questions arising in this adventure. This is a SPOILER filled zone, do not venture further if you do not wish the adventure to be spoiled for you, and spoiler tags are not required when posting here.
This thread is a GM Reference thread for Part 6 of the War for the Crown Adventure Path. Links for the individual threads for each part are as follows:
If I recall, there was an adventure module, or path, that had an NPC doing something similar because they were forced to attend to some project.
If I recall, it's used twice in Shattered Star, one time in Book 1 with potions (though I am less sure of this) and one time in book 4 regarding a ritual that required staying awake.
I can't recall if it was written in or improvised by myself, but my group also recruited Skygni from Book 2 into service to join at least until the crown of the world was crossed. It did involve using a Tetsubo blood oath to ensure his loyalty, but was a contingency for letting him free from the cell.
When it says you can't attack it, it is saying you have to attack the square and hope the miss chance is in your favor. It is not saying you can not make the attack at all. That is why it mentions the square. If you could not even generate an attack attempt against someone who had total concealment there would not even be a miss chance at all.
I'm sorry, but you are making an interpretation and not staying to the text of the condition and I would require a errata or developer citation to take that as correct interpretation.
It clearly says in Total Concealment that you cannot attack a creature with it. You can instead attack a space, and if that space happens to contain the creature, there is a 50% miss chance to strike the creature as well, but the target is the space and not the creature. However, if Total Concealment is ignored, which is the text of trick shot, the creature may be attacked directly, and the direct attack no longer carries the miss chance of attacking a space.
wraithstrike wrote:
You seem to not realize that not all the rules are written by the exact same person, and while it is annoying different people will use different verbage. If they wanted to say "you don't have to know the square they are in", they would have said it.
Likewise, if they meant anything other than ignoring total concealment, which includes all stipulations of the ability included the targeting of random squares, I believe they would have written that. They chose the word ignore. As you've shown, if they meant specifically just the miss chance, they would have written that, as evidenced in True Strike and Great Precise Shot.
wraithstrike wrote:
A "target" is the "intended victim". It doesn't mean you ignore any effect that might make you miss. As an example "mirror image" uses the word target, but you can definitely not hit the intended target. The same applies here.
Mirror Image does not grant concealment or total concealment. Just like invisibility grants the invisibility status instead of purely total concealment. As it is not stated that Trick shot overcomes these effects, they are valid defenses. However, the fact that these defenses remains doesn't mean that trick shot is foiled by the defensive abilities it explicitly ignores.
wraithstrike wrote:
In addition there is also truestrike.
Again, this is not equivalent wording. It is not an equivalent effect. Please find another ability that states it ignores concealment and total concealment and has been clarified to require pinpoint targeting and I will take that as a sufficient ruling. What you are trying to do is like using the rules for armor bonuses to explain that a dodge bonus to AC doesn't stack, they are different and Paizo has sufficient standards in abilities and the chance to errata this ability that I trust the written ability is the intention.
wraithstrike wrote:
As you can see a target(intended victim) can be concealed. You can't target them normally, but they are still targets for the purpose of the attack.
As for your argument of using 3 ki points that version only needs line of effect, not line of sight since there is no other way to make it work.
So, you will admit that the 3 ki ability doesn't require the exact space to be known? Then really your objection is that a Zen Archer could overcome the Black Butterfly's ability by having to spend 3 points instead of just 2 per attack round? That still seems a sufficiently easy counter.
Only skimmed some of this thread but...would a Zen Archer's trick shot pretty much negate the Silence Between bit?
Nope. The ability in question doesn't actually give her concealment or cover, it just makes it so you don't know where she is (via Stealth). Even a Zen Archer needs to know his target's location to target them with an attack.
Unless there's a rule clarification I'm unaware of, I beg to differ. A successful stealth check provides total concealment. Trick shot says it ignores total concealment, not just the miss chance (such as the wording of improved precise shot regarding regular concealment), but the entire effect. Considering that the ability also allows unrealistic homing arrows to avoid total cover at a enhanced version, I don't see why it couldn't also home arrows towards an otherwise unseeable target.
Concealment just means "no line of sight" which is what a stealth check does, so if he can find the right square he should be ok, but he still needs to know which square to aim at. He can't just knock his bow, and have the arrow home in on the right square, just other abilities that ignore concealment cant just auto-target the correct square.
edit: As an example the True Strike spell lets you ignore the miss chance for concealment when dealing with a target, but it doesn't help you choose the right square.
Again though, it's not equivalent. True strike ignores Miss chance, but not the underlying concealment condition. Trick shot ignores concealment and total concealment, and homing in on the target is exactly what it's defined to do in the total cover scenario.
Edit: To add onto the point, the terminology of 'ignore concealment' is the exact wording when used to define a creature that has concealment from a condition, such as darkvision ignoring the total concealment of no light.
The creature standing in the darkness has total concealment. A dwarf with darkvision can ignore the total concealment to attack normally, and can see the target. The Zen archer can also ignore the total concealment even though they lack darkvision, and can attack normally with trick shot, though they lack vision and wouldn't be able to say, describe the creature after the encounter. The dichotomy of how they can attack what they can't see is covered by the mystic power of ki guiding the arrow, and is taken to the example that it can even guide an arrow around corners.
'Aware' in the colloquial or the mechanical sense?
I mean, unless you can provide an actual game term definition, there really is only colloquial. This isn't a keyword like "confused" or something with a specific effect. It's unrealistic to have a party act 'unaware' after being sniped just because nobody made the perception check. This isn't a video game where guards suddenly forget about the arrow in their shoulder because they can't see the attacker for a minute.
Were I to be pendantic I was going to request you provide me an example of a creature that a party was "not aware of" that lacked invisibility or total concealment and explain to me why the party couldn't attack it at that point. In my mind, the 'and' is a joining word that makes the phrase read "Creatures that fail to beat your Stealth check are not aware of you [and this is mechanically treated] as if you had total concealment." I could also say "We're having a strawberry and cream cake for dessert" and it makes sense that I am referring to a cake containing strawberry and cream, rather than a single strawberry and a cream cake. It isn't two separate effects, but the flavor tied to a specific mechanic.
But I digress, subjective differences of interpretation.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Carter Lockhart wrote:
I would argue that after awareness has been made, the stealther can only cling to being unobserved or obscured in a way that allows total concealment. And with only total concealment, that can be ignored by Trick Shot.
That's not a mechanically supported position, though. At least, I don't think it is.
I could give a whack at it.
Breaking Stealth: When you start your turn using Stealth, you can leave cover or concealment and remain unobserved as long as you succeed at a Stealth check and end your turn in cover or concealment. Your Stealth immediately ends after you make an attack roll, whether or not the attack is successful (except when sniping as noted below).
Sniping: If you’ve already successfully used Stealth at least 10 feet from your target, you can make one ranged attack and then immediately use Stealth again. You take a –20 penalty on your Stealth check to maintain your obscured location.
Both of these refer to purely visual terminology which is in line with the Total Concealment status. Neither give reference to remaining 'unaware' But again, this is really purely pendanticism and I bow to difference of interpretation.
Unless you can provide a reference from the designers that says otherwise, I would have to argue your skepticism does not agree with the rules.
If the intention was to ignore the miss chance, I believe the designers would have been specific in that regard as they were with the text of Improved Precise Shot. I would also argue that if a specific target space is required, it renders the ability highly situational to the point of very minor value. For example, how often is a character going to be able to target a square around a corner into an otherwise unseen room? Yet the text basically outlines this as a usage.
Oh, it ignores normal limits on targeting them (such as around walls or while invisible) but I see nothing in the ability that allows one to know something is there in the first place. If you know it's there you can shoot it...but you need to know its there, and with a successful Stealth check, the Monk knows no such thing.
Actually, I would disagree on invisibility, as that is a specific status effect of it's own that does call out it requires pinpoint targeting. Trick shot does not ignore invisibility. Invisibility is just a status that also happens to grant greater concealment. A Zen archer would have to pin point an invisible creature first, prior to using trick shot to ignore the concealment.
Since we are just talking about Total Concealment, let's go a bit further into details so it doesn't get confused with invisibility.
SRD wrote:
Total Concealment
If you have line of effect to a target but not line of sight, he is considered to have total concealment from you. You can’t attack an opponent that has total concealment, though you can attack into a square that you think he occupies. A successful attack into a square occupied by an enemy with total concealment has a 50% miss chance (instead of the normal 20% miss chance for an opponent with concealment).
So, normally a creature cannot even attack a target with Total Concealment. However the wording of Trick Shot specifically calls out these terms
SRD wrote:
Trick Shot
At 11th level, a zen archer may hit targets that he might otherwise miss. By spending 1 point from his ki pool as a swift action, the zen archer can ignore concealment. By spending 2 points, he can ignore total concealment or cover. By spending 3 points, he can ignore total cover, even firing arrows around corners. The arrow must still be able to reach the target; a target inside a closed building with no open doors or windows cannot be attacked. These effects last for 1 round.
The text clearly makes reference to directly attacking a target. If total concealment was still in effect in any capacity, it would not be possible to directly attack a target at all. As the text references it though, it is only logical that trick shot ignores total concealment in its entirety, allowing a Zen Archer to directly attack an opponent with total concealment without having to guess a space and without miss chance.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Let's look at how Stealth reads, shall we?
Stealth Rules wrote:
Your Stealth check is opposed by the Perception check of anyone who might notice you. Creatures that fail to beat your Stealth check are not aware of youand treat you as if you had total concealment.
Emphasis mine. Trick Shot lets you ignore that second part (which is separated by an 'and', making it entirely separate from the first), but does not let you ignore the first. And the first prevents targeting.
Now, this is somewhat where things get subjective to common sense. If a creature is stealthed and the party just walk by and never get encountered, then I would agree that the party is never aware of them. However, certainly if a creature attacks or is interacted with and then stealths, the group is still aware of them regardless from that point on until an actual retreat ends the scene. Do you still argue the party is unaware of the creature at this point?
I would argue that after awareness has been made, the stealther can only cling to being unobserved or obscured in a way that allows total concealment. And with only total concealment, that can be ignored by Trick Shot.
If the debate is only on the benefit of "are not aware of you" from stealth imparts, I don't believe I can continue any further as that is going to be purely subjective I feel. If you can find further details regarding Total Concealment and clarification on Trick Shot, I would be interested to hear them.
Unless there's a rule clarification I'm unaware of, I beg to differ. A successful stealth check provides total concealment. Trick shot says it ignores total concealment, not just the miss chance (such as the wording of improved precise shot regarding regular concealment), but the entire effect. Considering that the ability also allows unrealistic homing arrows to avoid total cover at a enhanced version, I don't see why it couldn't also home arrows towards an otherwise unseeable target.
I'm very skeptical that ignoring total concealment means you don't have to know what square you're targeting.
Unless you can provide a reference from the designers that says otherwise, I would have to argue your skepticism does not agree with the rules.
If the intention was to ignore the miss chance, I believe the designers would have been specific in that regard as they were with the text of Improved Precise Shot. I would also argue that if a specific target space is required, it renders the ability highly situational to the point of very minor value. For example, how often is a character going to be able to target a square around a corner into an otherwise unseen room? Yet the text basically outlines this as a usage.
Only skimmed some of this thread but...would a Zen Archer's trick shot pretty much negate the Silence Between bit?
Nope. The ability in question doesn't actually give her concealment or cover, it just makes it so you don't know where she is (via Stealth). Even a Zen Archer needs to know his target's location to target them with an attack.
Unless there's a rule clarification I'm unaware of, I beg to differ. A successful stealth check provides total concealment. Trick shot says it ignores total concealment, not just the miss chance (such as the wording of improved precise shot regarding regular concealment), but the entire effect. Considering that the ability also allows unrealistic homing arrows to avoid total cover at a enhanced version, I don't see why it couldn't also home arrows towards an otherwise unseeable target.
I am in contact with Canada customs and border agencies that performs the actual assessments. They made a mistake in applying SK PST to my previously reported order and my recently received copy of FGG's The Blight. This is a mistake as SK PST does not apply to books, so partly to be a pain to them for being a pain to be, I'm chasing my $1.20 refund.
I have discovered that while they don't deny making a mistake, their minimum refund is $2. This seems unfair as they pursue values that will result in assessments below that and they are capable of making mistakes that should be refunded.
Mostly unrelated to the actual concern here but, if I'm lucky and somehow impactful in my follow up, I hope at least their policy will ignore values below $40 so that their refund policy is in line with the minimum mistake they are capable of making.
