Cheezgrater's page

This relates to my original question, if you had to decide beforehand scenario / adventure / path - then what are the consequences of that choice?

There is only one consequence at present. Technically, even if you complete each scenario in an adventure, if you were not "playing the adventure" you would not get the reward for completing the adventure.

This also creates some future design space where the adventure or adventure path cards could have some persistent rules alteration (e.g. whenever you would discard a card bury it instead, or add 1 to all checks to recharge spells) that would persist for the entire course of the adventure. By choosing to be on the adventure, you put that card in play. I don't recall that this has happened yet, but having it written in the rules gives the devs the opportunity to use it in the future.

I would buy the errata'd card deck from drivethru

(would still appreciate a PDF though).

QuantumNinja wrote:

Tracker1 wrote:

I think you modified skill is always going to be included in the check, unless a card tells you otherwise.

I agree with this completely, and it doesn't contradict anything I've already said.

Okay, I guess I don't know what the issue is anymore.

To use the great-axe modified/unmodified.

Does Lini's Power (discard a card for 1d10 as strength die) replace her Modified or Unmodified Strength die.

If she has taken a +1 to strength skill feat, if she uses her power does she roll 1d10 or 1d10+1.

Quantum argues that it replaces her modified strength die, thus her power gives her 1d10.

I argue that it replaces her unmodified strength die, thus she would roll 1d10+1.

If Sajan's unarmed power counts as a dexterity check as far as Blessing of Erastil is concerned, then why wouldn't using the Arcane die, (defined by Vic as being an Arcane check) include the arcane trait?

Edit: I note that I really screwed up the location name. Sorry about that.

Checks and Traits are two different things.

Sajan's unarmed power is a dexterity check - it does not have the "Dexterity" trait.

Valeros's default attack (without a weapon) does not include the blunt/piercing/slashing traits.

A Disable Check does not automatically have the "Disable Device" trait.

Just because the check uses the Arcane dice does not mean it has the Arcane trait - you have to play a card that gives it the Arcane trait, which Seoni's power does not.

Cheezgrater wrote:

QuantumNinja, you're interpretation of "what is a die" conflicts with the designers stated interpretation.

Based on your interpretation, then if Lini played a BotG, she should get a bonus 1d4+2 since her strength die is 1d4+2. This has been established to be false.

Her strength "die" is 1d4. She gets a +2 bonus when she makes a strength check.

Using her power would change her strength "die" to 1d10, but would not change the bonus. Thus 1d10+2.

I kind of explained this in this post.

Short answer is, no, under my interpretation, if Lini used her power to give her a d10 for her strength check, and then used a Blessing, the blessing would give her additional d10s, not d4s.

I think you misread my comment. Switch to Valeros for a second, just set aside the confusion over Lini's power...

If he takes a feat to get +1 to his strength die.

By the accepted (and confirmed by devs) interpretation, if Valeros uses a BotG on a strength check, he rolls 2d10 +1.

However, based on your interpretation, he would get 2d10 + 2

To maintain consistency between the above example, Lini's power, and all other bonuses:

A character's stat dice is static, and always static. Valeros' strength die is a d10. Ezren's Intelligence is d12.

Feats that add a bonus to the stat should be read as "Whenever you roll your (stat) die, add (bonus) to the roll". They *do not* change the value of the die itself. Valeros's Strength die does not change to 1d10+1 when he takes a feat - it is still 1d10, and he gets a +1 bonus to all checks that use his (1d10) strength die.

Thus, when Lini uses her power to change the actual base stat die from a d4 to a d10, the "Whenever you roll your (stat) die, add X to the roll" takes place afterwards, making her Strength a d10+(Feat bonuses). The same would apply if the Strength spell were cast on Lini. She would be able to roll 1d10 + 3 (strength) + (feat bonus).

QuantumNinja, you're interpretation of "what is a die" conflicts with the designers stated interpretation.

Based on your interpretation, then if Lini played a BotG, she should get a bonus 1d4+2 since her strength die is 1d4+2. This has been established to be false.

Her strength "die" is 1d4. She gets a +2 bonus when she makes a strength check.

Using her power would change her strength "die" to 1d10, but would not change the bonus. Thus 1d10+2.

I am soloing with 4 characters without much issue. (Granted I have played over 100 games of Sentinels of the Multiverse soloing 4-5 heroes, so YMMV)

My farthest along play is a 4-player solo. I have just cleared "Trouble", and am looking at around 50%-ish win rate. My losses are due to the blessings deck running out.

In total, I have 8 separate campaigns going with different groups/sizes, and we have had 2 character deaths in about 30-ish games, so a little less than 1-in-10 character death. We've also had a couple *really* close calls (If this card I'm about to flip isn't the villain or I don't beat him, I'm dead because I won't be able to refresh my hand at the end of this turn.)

Charles, when you run adventure #2 (skinsaw murders), you should still have the adventure 1 (burnt offerings) cards mixed in. You aren't supposed to take them back out

I would also point out that, depending on the sleeves, the insert may still work reasonably well.

I have everything in Ultra-Pro Matte sleeves except for the character/location/scenario cards which I have in DragonShield clear sleeves.

Everything to date fits in the correct slots in the insert, some (Henchman/Villain/Loot) with room to spare.

I do have 4 character decks made and slid into the character deck slots, so that may be what is making it work, but the insert holds up for the base box and character add-on even when sleeved.

The second problem is that the box contains a tray that's designed to hold all of the cards, and using the tray dramatically speeds up the setup process. If you sleeve your cards, they'd no longer fit in the tray, so storing, organizing, and setting up the game would all become dramatically suckier... unless you're crafty enough to build your own jumbo replacement tray, which would need to be *very* large.

A good point, Vic.

For the sleevers out there, I will point out that the game box is perfectly sized to hold 3 of the 660 count white card boxes. If you cut off the tops of the boxes ( so that they stay open) and print some dividers ( there are already a couple sets on BGG), you can still use the nice box and it works for sleeves cards *almost* as well as the insert works for unsleeved cards.

I appreciate all the work that went into making a functional box insert (honestly, probably the best box insert ever). However, I feel that sleeving is mandatory for me. I use my personal copies of games to run demos at my flgs, and people aren't always as careful as I would like.....

A game earning its sleeves is a big deal - if it's good enough to demo, it gets sleeves.

(As an aside - I demo'd it tonight. Based on how well the demo went, we are going to start up a weekly pathfinder acg session to play the entire adventure path. My one little box is now going to be running 4 weekly games, not counting my solo plays...)

A. The rules state that when you rebuild your deck you have to use the ones to finished the scenario with and you can trade with the other people. You can't just say you don't want a card and banish it for another. So, if you don't get a replacement, your stuck with that card.

True.

However, if I am not being "too picky" during a scenario, I can almost always guarantee grabbing at least one of a specific type of boon. It may take grinding through the first Hook Mountain Scenario a couple times to thin down the decks (any cards left at a location when it is closed are banished), but you could almost certainly nab a new weapon to replace your basic mace.

I also have a sneaking suspicion that if you start HMM with many basic cards still in your deck, you will have a hard time making it out alive. Try to get rid of as many as you can with Elite/1/2 cards before you reach that point.

Thanks for the clarification. I thought it was stated on the boards not the rule book.

So what do you do if you have a Basic Boon card that you can't Banish but you want to get rid of it.

My understanding is that, when you rebuild decks after a scenario, any cards that are not used in a character deck are then banished, so you could get rid of it that way.

I don't think anyone is saying that Lini is OP, but she is a good Solo character to use. Personally, I parred her up with Amiri and they tore through all the scenarios.

I think the commentary on Lini's OP is actually more a commentary on the OP-ness of "Cure". Sythion noted plans to houserule Cure to be a Bury instead of a Recharge.

Don't get me wrong. I am glad he is here and answering questions and not revealing too much. Just noticed a big difference between the way Vic & Mike reply, Vic is more likely to explain the intent of the rule, the reason for that intent and so in that provides greater in site for a fantastic game that many of us even those who played the beta still working out the kinks.

Insite can help with interpretation. (Coming from a person that write commentary in volumes to help people interpret very generalized building code legislation).

I can't find the link right now, but I believe Mike said he would try to refrain from posting much regarding rules interpretations since a lot of the rules changed so many times and he wanted to avoid accidentally giving a ruling based on a pre-release version of the game.

In the same post, Mike said that if he and Vic both posted on a rules issue, Vic's ruling would override Mike's.

(Can someone find the link for that, or am I just going crazy?)

Per the text on Ambush, you shuffle the other revealed cards back into the location deck

The Ambush card instructs you to reveal from the top of the location deck until you hit a monster.

Some other cards that have similar functions (can't think of the name off the top of my head - don't have my cards with me) will instruct you to look for a monster *other than a villain or henchman*.

Since Ambush does not contain the "other than a villain or henchman", does that mean that if the villain or henchman has the Type:Monster tag, then it is a valid target for Ambush?

I agree with the "each power once" interpretation - otherwise lini's secondary power becomes too weak. Why would I discard a card to trade 2d4 for 1d10? It relegates her second power to a "I have no other option", instead of it being an interesting/useful option

Another alternative - turn your discard deck upside down, fan it out, and just grab cards at random ( or have another player do it)

I was watching Tox's video (part III) and he used the Staff of Minor Healing (Recharge this card to recharge a random card from your discard pile) several times and each time shuffled his deck to get a random card.

Now the rulebook is SO explicit on this not being right, it says it twice in the same paragraph on pg 10. It says "do not change the order of the cards in the discard pile," and "never shuffle any stack of cards unless instructed to."

My question is, does the word 'random' mean 'shuffle this pile'? I could see a case being made for the word 'randomize' but not really 'random'. Or is there another intended way to randomize your discards, such as using the smallest die able to cover the amount of discards? If you are meant to use a die, what happens when you get 20-25 cards in your deck/discards?

I'm curious BECAUSE the rules are so adamant about it. What is the method of determining a random card if you aren't allowed to shuffle?

I can see this argument going two different ways:

1.) The rules say that if a card's text conflicts with the printed rules, the card's text is to be seen as overriding the rulebook. You could argue that this is occurring, and the card instructions to recover a "random" card from the discards overrides the "do-not-shuffle-the-discards" rules. Shuffle the discard pile.

2.) The card does not specify shuffling the discard, therefore it does not trump the "do-not-shuffle" rule. Generate a random number by rolling an appropriate sized dice (need to add a d20 to the box for this. (Or randomize by other means. If you want to cart around a laptop and use an excel spreadsheet with an =RandBetween formula, feel free).

Your concern about dice not being sufficient when the discard pile exceeds 20 cards is more of a corner-case. It takes 10 card feats to get a character to 25 cards in their starting deck. If no character has ever taken a Hand Size increase when they got a power feat...

Only 4 characters are "still alive" when the discard stack hits 21. Seelah, Sajan, Amiri, and Valeros could have a 21 card discard and a 4 card hand, thus still being alive. As soon as they have to discard something....they are dead on the next hand reset.

Kyra, Lini, Merisiel, and Harsk hit that situation at 20 cards in discard/5 in hand. Seoni, Ezren, and Lem all break at 19 discard / 6 hand.

Of course, by the time you have acquired 10 card feats, you almost certainly have taken 1 or two hand size increases, which pulls those numbers down and makes the discard stack exceeding 20 even more unlikely.

I don't see discard stacks >20 cards occurring often enough to worry about if you want to use a d20 to randomize the discard pile for healing if you want to go that route.

I am doing relatively well with Lini. She plays like a slightly more offensive version of Lem. Her biggest problem is that she is a bit more dependent on having a solid "adventuring partner" than some others. If Valeros, Harsk, or Lem are not in the party, she suffers somewhat.

I play her as primarily support/healer while still being able to pass basic combat checks and throw one or two big hits.

Spell selection (Primarily Heal/Support):
Guidance, Find Traps, Cure (2-3), Holy Light.

I want to get a couple more support-type spells in and not run quite as many heals. Unfortunately the only thing I have come across is Strength, which is not really what I am looking for. I want to switch the Guidance for Aid, and drop two of the cures for another Aid and a Fiery Weapon.

Always adventure with a partner. Either stick close to Valeros (best choice) or Lem, or keep Harsk at another location. Any one of the three of them can provide you with a 1d4 bonus on your combats (only Valeros can do it for completely free, though.
If multiple potential partners are in your party, coordinate with as many of them as possible.

I got lucky and found an Amulet of Mighty Fists (not running with a Sajan so it is shuffled into the item deck). (If you custom build, Mighty Fists is a basic item so is fair game to start your deck with).

Potential Combat checks *without* discarding a card
1d4 Strength
1d4 Reveal Amulet
1d4 Reveal an animal Ally
1d4 Valeros *or* Harsk passive bonus

A 4d4 is as good as a Wand of Force Missile (4 - 16, average check 10), and can take out a lot of things. As long as she stays coordinated with her partner, she can dish that out all day long without it costing her anything.

If she casts Holy Light, that can go 1d10 (Wis) + 2d6 (Spell) + 2d4 (Valeros or Harsk & Reveal an Animal Ally) + 1 (Divine Bonus). 6 - 31 Average check 18. That is pretty good odds to take down even a lot of villains/henchmen.

If she doesn't have a spell in hand and needs to go heavier, you can get an extra d4 or d6 by recharging a snake/tiger ally.

Discarding a card to get the d10 die for strength for a combat check is generally not a great trade-off. A d4 will roll an average 2.5, while a d10 will roll an average 5.5. You are essentially discarding a card for a +3 bonus, when there are multiple ways to get better bonuses without discarding.

*Without* discarding any cards or casting any spells, and assuming that Lem and Harsk both recharge a card to help, Lini's best possible check:

6d4+1d6 (Recharge Tiger Ally) or 7d4 (Recharge Snake Ally)

Average check 18, with NO discarded cards by anyone in the party, including blessings. Discarding a card for the d10 strength die would only raise the average to 21.

Now, if someone is going to play a blessing for your check, by all means discard a card to switch your dice. That will switch the bonus from the blessing from a d4 to a d10 as well, giving you a base 2d10 on the check.

Regarding spell choice:

Find Traps is a fantastic spell, since you can add the bonus to any character dealing with any barrier - essentially, as long as Lini has one of those in hand, there isn't much to fear from barriers.

Guidance is nice for small nudges on tight checks (Difficulty 6 charisma check for a character that only has a d6 charisma dice? Guidance just doubled their chances!). If you have an animal ally to reveal, Guidance is also a nearly guaranteed recharge (Divine 4, with 1d10+1d4+1) Aid is a better guidance (I just cant seem to get ahold of a copy - the only time one has come up, Amiri was alone at the location and botched the check!).

Fiery Weapon / Fire Sneeze if you can get it - more solid supportiness.

I will admit that my current 3-cure build is excessive, but it has prevented character death a time or two (Cure two party members, and then cure self if the recharge checks failed - as long as you never let all three cures sit in the trash, you can cure every round if needed).

The only way I can see running Lini as more offensive would be to stack Inflict/Holy Light more heavily. She could tear through things, but the recharges on those can be a bit tight sometimes.

Or yeah - I could do that.

Thank you internets for pointing out the (stupidly obvious) solution!

Now off to go facepalm for having missed that.

Paizo has made large-format character sheets available as a free download, and they cover all of the material given on the character cards and advanced character cards, as well as a decklist.

However, they are much larger than the original cards, and thus take up a lot more space at the table.

Since the free-download character sheets contain all of the gameplay elements from the PACG, including the character art, would it be considered a problem if someone were to scan the character cards and make the images available on a site such as BGG in a size/format suitable for reprinting?

It would be significantly easier, at least for my gaming group (and I assume others' groups as well), if we could print new/proxy copies of the character cards for use at the table instead of using the large-format sheets during gameplay.

If there is an issue with a third-party entity providing these, would it instead be possible for Paizo to provide copies of the character cards for download/printing?

Thazar wrote:

My plan is to keep them all mixed together all the time. I then set the game up however I am playing it. If I happen to get a card that is from a set that I do not want in this particular game I will pull it and draw a new random card to replace it.

This way I do not have to constantly rebuild the box... and if something does pop up it is easy to deal with at the time it happens. I just need to make sure everyone at the table agrees that any "2" that comes up before the end of Burnt Offerings is redrawn at the time of encounter.

This is a good solution, but it won't exactly duplicate the effect of removing cards when you advance to later adventures. By the standard rules, you'd continue to play Basic cards until they get banished, at which time they are permanently removed from the game. Using your method, you're not going to play Basic cards at all from that point forward.

I'm not sure I understand the problem you are describing, DrSnooze.

I believe that what Thazar is referring to is the process for building Location decks when playing previous scenarios, or when starting a new character/campaign.

This procedure would not be applied to character decks when advancing - basic cards in the character deck would stay in until they were banished. It would only apply to things that require random draws from the box. When drawing randoms from the box later in the campaign, rather than removing cards from the stacks, just redraw any random draws that yield "level-inappropriate" material (either too high level or too low level).

Can you clarify the problem you are seeing, possibly with an example? I am also considering doing this to simplify setup and running multiple campaigns. If there is some pitfall I am not perceiving, I would like to understand it so that I can avoid it.

Cheezgrater wrote:

Eric W wrote:

Having said that, I believe you when you say that skills themselves don't have traits. That makes sense mechanically, although not thematically. After all, what is a character doing when he or she is making a Divine or Arcane check if not some sort of magic?

Knowledge: Arcana?

Heh. Except that Knowledge is an explicitly different skill than Arcana (as per Ezren's character card.)

Sorry, my reply was a little tongue-in-cheek without having closely examined the character cards.

I think the arcane/divine checks are meant to mimic the "spellcraft" skill from P&P, but the skill has been separated into two different elements.

Understanding a working of magic is much different from interacting with it, thus why the Arcane/Divine checks are potentially different than using Arcane/Divine Magic.

If this is the case, thematically, I approve. In P&P, spellcraft was a skill I did not really like having around. Arcane and Divine magic are supposed to be vastly different from each other, but a wizard who has studied nothing but arcane magic can, by virtue of all of his study of arcane magic immediately comprehend and identify divine magics?

Mike Riley 302 wrote:

A Divine check does not automatically have the Magic trait. Compare that to Kyra's power (Add 1d8 with the Magic trait to your check to defeat a bane with the Undead trait.)

Checks by themselves don't have Traits. Traits come from cards or powers of a character.

Sorry, I don't understand your argument. What does Kyra's power to add the Magic trait to any check to defeat undead have to do with whether or not the Divine and Arcane skills are inherently magical?

Having said that, I believe you when you say that skills themselves don't have traits. That makes sense mechanically, although not thematically. After all, what is a character doing when he or she is making a Divine or Arcane check if not some sort of magic?

Knowledge: Arcana?

Thematically, increasing hand size works thematically well and (I think) captures the feeling of the standard pen-and-paper format.

When levelling in pen-and-paper, your character can select options to increase damage output (cleave, combat feats, improved spellcasting feats, bonuses to str/int, etc.) *or* options that improve survivability (toughness, improved armor feats, increased dex/con, etc.)

When a pen-and-paper character selects damage instead of survivability, they fall behind a "percentage" curve compared to monsters. Each hit from a monster appropriate for the new level will do slightly more damage to the "damage" character than it would to a "survivability" focused character.

A pen-and-paper character focused on survivability will not have the same number of options and ways to do damage as a damage-focused character would.

In the card game, increasing hand size vs increasing deck size reflects this rather well. Increasing hand size is analogous to taking damage-focus feats in P&P - you have more options to do damage and the larger hand size makes you more able to do devastating combos, but you suffer from more of a "glass-cannon" syndrome. Increased deck size is more akin to feats like Toughness that boost your survivability, but do not (necessarily) boost your damage output per turn.

Also keep in mind that a d12 barbarian might have hundreds more hit points than the d4 wizard by level 20, however in the card game both characters will have the same (or similar) number of cards. A defensive vs an offensive fighter will have significantly different amounts of HP and armor in a P&P game, but will end up with very similar card counts in the ACG.

The question of hand size does a fairly reasonable job of approximating this in the ACG which has (relatively) static HP. A character who took increased hand size will be more vulnerable to damage but also be much more likely to be able to draw into powerful card combos or draw up the perfect card to deal with a situation.

I have greatly enjoyed my Adventure Path and Modules subscriptions and have no complaints.

However, with my gaming group reduced to playing once or twice a year, it will take us forever to make it through the content I have already received.

Thank you for your time.

Two ideas i have toyed with are the dice increase you mentioned or reducing the dice siz and adding a flat bonus.

Powerful sneak reduces the dice to a d4+2 deadly makes it a d4+4.

Hmm.....

The d4+2 / d6+1 option would also create the same average damage increase as increasing sneak attack dice to d8s.

(Note: d6 > d8 is the exact same increase as increasing a d6 weapon by 1 size category).

This opens the option of Deadly Sneak going from d8 > d10 (increase average damage from 4.5 > 5.5) Which would match a single size category increase on a d8 weapon.

I think this may be the most attractive improvement not counting mechanical benefits (we'll need some DPR math to be sure on that). Simplicity of play is possibly the greatest advantage of this change.
You do not need to track flat bonus for multiple sneak attack die (1d6+2, 2d6+4, etc.) It will also not increase player turn-time through rerolls (oops a 1, reroll, 1 again, reroll, etc.).

It also maintains the probability curve of normal dice rolls (Deadly Sneak for example, creates a 50% probability of a 3 on a sneak attack dice).

So, if Powerful sneak increases to D8 and Deadly increases to d10, the following balance questions remain:
Should the attack bonus penalty be reduced or removed?
Should use of the talent remain restricted to full-attack only?

I am a long-term pen and paper vet. I started with AD&D, played 2e, 3e, 3.5e, and 4e, as well as numerous other systems like World of Darkness, Fudge, and Call of Cthulhu (and other BRP games), as well as dabbling in many others.

For my gaming group, 3.5 was our favorite choice because it struck a perfect balance. Systems like WoD and even too vague in many mechanical areas (as one of my players put it, "too much role-ing and not enough rolling), While systems like 4e had the exact opposite problem (too much breakdown of roleplay in favor of mechanics-laden simulations). 3.5e triumphed over 2e just because of the awesome functionality and simplicity of the d20 system.

So, what pushed our group from 3.5 to Pathfinder? Well, two things, something WotC did "wrong" (note wrong in quotes. This is not a judgement of WotC or their actions, merely an analysis of the impact of their actions on my particular gaming group), and two things Paizo did awesomely right.

WotC - With only the PHB to go with in 3.5, player options are severely limited. WotC's answer to this was a massive number of supplements and splatbooks like the complete series, which added several new classes and an uncountable number of prestige classes. The resulting rules bloat and power creep made creating something like a balanced encounter nearly impossible.

PAIZO:
1) Player options without excessive power creep. Archetypes vs prestige classes allow tons of player options without the multiclass insanity. Additionally, each of the supplement books released so far (APG, UM, and UC) have maintained approximately the same level of balance without invalidating or degrading existing content (the only exception that springs to mind is the ninja nearly invalidating the rogue, but that is a special case since it is often argued that the original rogue was underbalanced).

2) This is the most important reason we as a group switched to Pathfinder. ADVENTURE PATHS!!!!! Although we still game, many other things in our lives have changed. As a DM, I have gone from a high school student to a college student to a married man to a father (and yes, the core of our group has stayed the same that entire time, including my wife). Those changes mean that I don't have the time I used to have to devote to creating wholly original campaigns from scratch. The awesomeness of the Paizo APs has enabled us to continue gaming, since I can run an amazing and successful game with significantly less time investment as compared to original campaigns. If not for Adventure Paths, our group would probably have quit playing RPGs altogether.

Powerful Sneak** (Ex): Whenever a rogue with this talent takes a full attack action, she can elect to take a –2 penalty on all attack rolls until the start of her next turn. If an attack during this time is a sneak attack, she treats all 1s on the sneak attack damage dice as 2s.

Deadly Sneak** (Ex): Whenever a rogue with this talent uses the powerful sneak rogue talent, she treats all 1s and 2s on the sneak attack damage dice as 3s. A rogue must have the powerful sneak rogue talent before choosing this talent.

The math on the effect of these talents has been done to death in other threads, and it is consistently proven to be a suboptimal choice, significantly *reducing* damage output in all but corner cases (where any roll but a 1 results in a hit after the -2 penalty).

Please, for the sake of this thread, accept as a given that powerful/deadly sneak is underpowered. If you disagree, please suspend that disagreement for the duration of this thread. Thank you.

I would like to implement a houserule to improve these talents since rogues in campaigns I run are consistently sub-par in DPR.

I am formally requesting the assistance of those on the forums who are better at the optimization maths than I am to help me determine the most balanced and effective way to improve these talents without over-improving them.

Options I have considered:
PENALTY REDUCTIONS:
A.) Remove the -2 penalty (Possibly add other considerations listed below)
B.) Change the penalty to -1 and implement one of the other considerations below.
C.) Reduce the Powerful Sneak penalty to -1. Deadly Sneak eliminates the penalty entirely.
(alternatively, use any of the damage improvements listed below).

DAMAGE IMPROVEMENTS:
1) Instead of treating 1s (or 1s and 2s) as 2 (or 3), reroll sneak attack dice until they no longer show 1s (or 2s).
2) Increase sneak attack die to d8s (deadly sneak would allow rerolls of 1s (as Damage Improvement 1) or treat 1s as 2s (like the current Powerful Sneak))
3) Powerful/Deadly function as RAW, but also allow sneak attack damage to be DOUBLED on a crit (Deadly would allow use of the weapon's own critical multiplier).

(I am pretty sure #3 is a bit much, but am hoping someone better at the maths can help me figure out the DPR and other relevant numbers
What adjustment(or combination of adjustments) would best transform Powerful/Deadly sneak into a balanced, desirable damage increasing Rogue Talent. I don't want to make it so powerful that taking it is a no-brainer, but I also don't like the fact that, in its current form, it is completely non-usable.

I absolutely love the Knowledge skills.

They provide a character with an academic background a more solid representation within game. (Not that this depends largely on roleplay. Do you just call for a knowledge check and then read off the block, or hand a note to the player and let them handle the reveal "Guys, I remember reading about this in a book I read last summer.....")

A recommendation to potentially enhance the value of knowledge checks is to make the roll *for* the player from behind the screen, so they don't even know a knowledge check was rolled. Note that I personally do not favor this method, since it takes away control of the character from the player.

The Carrion Crown AP provides multiple points where Knowledge checks/Research are borderline necessary to advance the plot. However, the AP also provides multiple methods to ensure that the vital knowledge checks can be made. Many of these can be used as baseline techniques for GMs to ensure information does not get locked up behind knowledge checks (Also listed are some others I have found to be useful):

1) Multiple skills. All of the plot-centric knowledge checks in CC have more than one Knowledge skill keyed to them. Researching the ruins the party is going to investigate could be a K(Local), K(History), or even a K(Geography). Allowing multiple different skills to access the same information makes it more likely that someone in the party will have ranks in a skill that allows for a roll.

2) Access to quality research materials. If performing the knowledge check as part of ongoing research, access to a suitable library can provide a bonus on the check. Alternatively, in place of a bonus, the library can be used to allow a character to make a relevant knowledge check *even if he or she has no ranks in the skill*. Finding ways to allow untrained Knowledge checks can also help prevent information lock-up.

3) Diplomacy as Gather Information can allow access to some knowledge checks, or could potentially be used for Aid Another.

4) If no player can get access to the information, dropping an NPC informant who charges an outrageous fee can distribute information the PCs fail to gain through checks (for a price). This can also open additional roleplay opportunities (instead of paying him off, do the PCs try to stage a distraction while the party rogue pickpockets his notebook?)

Knowledge skills are an amazingly useful part of the game, when handled well by the GM and roleplayed by the players.

cibet44 wrote:

Summary:
Take 10 on initial free check: yes
Take 10 on research after 1 day: yes
Take 20 on initial free check: no
Take 20 on research after 20 days: yes

I totally agree with your analysis of the RAW. Vis-a-vis taking 20, I agree with your RAW ruling of 20 days, since researching for a full day is the precondition for getting an opportunity to re-roll and taking twenty presupposes at least 20 re-rolls (so you can eventually roll a 20). Personally, I would not allow the PCs to take 10 on the free check, but I would allow them to take 10 if they spent the day researching. Not based on RAW, but based on what I think makes sense for knowledge checks in the context of this module.

Two issues that I have with allowing people to take 20 on knowledge checks:

1 - Knowledge skills (per the PRD) CANNOT be rerolled, so the "rolling until you hit 20" cannot apply.
2 - The Oracle's Lore Mystery Final Revelation grants the ability to take 20 on Knowledge rolls. If you could already take 20 on knowledge checks, why bother creating an (level 20) ability which specifically allows something that is, by your argument, already allowed?

Taking 20 on Knowledge checks should not be possible (unless you are a level 20 oracle of lore).

I love this program and have been using it to manage combats for several sessions. I especially like the ability to add SRD monsters "on-the-fly" to combats (as reinforcements arrive, orcs wander over from the EvilCafeteria to investigate the noise, etc.)

I, unfortunately, DM for a rather variable group. I could have anywhere from 2-9 players for any given session. This has resulted in my having to rebalance encounters on the fly, often through hp manipulation.

As a feature request, I would love to see the ability to quickly modify monsters on the fly in order to increase or decrease their difficulty level slightly.

To clarify, there is currently an option "Roll Monster HP" which uses the dice roller to randomize the hitpoints of each monster added to the combat rather than simply using the baseline average. I would love to see a similar option, something like:
Set monster HP to (%) of maximum, where 100% would generate the maximum possible hp, and 0% would give the creature 1 HP. A slider could work, or even just radio buttons for 25/50/75/100% (50% is not really necessary, as this is essentially the current functionality of the baseline hitpoints).

To make slightly easier monsters more challenging or to make monsters that are too hard, I often find myself maxing hit points or cutting hp totals. I would love to see this added to combat manager if at all possible. Even adding a second checkbox ("Max Monster HP") next to "Roll Monster HP" would be a huge benefit.

Thank you so much for your time in creating this awesomely useful tool.

This list is awesome! Thank you riptide777!

I just want to throw out a question for the HoH list:
I have managed to find every song except for

16 Restless Dead: The Professor’s Return: Night Of The Living Dead (30th Anniversary) OST – Resurrection

Does anyone have a recommendation for a good replacement or substitute?

Please cancel my subscriptions.

Change in income means I need to cut back on expenses.

Thank you.

Read the book "The Name of the Wind" by Patrick Rothfuss. He uses the old iconic figure of the traveling gypsy/merchant as his model for his world's "Tinkers".

At one point, a teaching-rhyme is quoted
"A tinker's debt is always paid:
Once for any simple trade
Twice for freely given aid
Thrice for any insult made"

I could easily see this kind of concept fitting with a male witch.

Slightly eccentric semi-merchant who specializes in carrying not what people think they want, but what they really need (If a tinker offers to trade you an umbrella on a sunny day, you had better take it).

If you befriend him or do him a kindness, you find yourself receiving an unexpected blessing (the Fortune or Ward hex, maybe?)

If you insult him or offend him, misfortunes may haunt you (seriously, witch-hexes fit this style of character well I think).