Christopher Buckley's page

In my game, one of my PCs was an alchemist. He poured one of his mutagens into one of the bottles of green liquor and discarded the rest of the bottles. The party showed up at the Stag Lord's fort disguised in the outfits of the slain bandits with one bottle of green liquor in hand. The Stag Lord drank it and failed his fort save, thus rendering him nauseated for one hour. Needless to say, this made things much easier for the PCs. The Stag Lord never got to take a standard action before he was put to the sword.

The difference is that while they are equal at exactly 50% chance of hitting, a flat AC bonus becomes more valuable if that chance of hitting decreases, and a miss chance becomes more valauable if that chance of hitting increases.

Against a monster that hits only on a 16+, an AC bonus is better.
Against a monster that hits on a 6+, the miss chance is better.

Under which of these circumstances does the fighter REALLy need a defensive boost?

Your point is well-taken. But wouldn't it be a reasonable assumption that a monster who can hit the party's fighter on a 6+ straight up probably also has Power Attack? Under this typical circumstance, wouldn't you rather have the AC bonus?

Taking damage is inevitable, but dying from damage is usually the result of poor play or bad luck. When I play this game, I try my best not to take damage, but I really, really try not to die due to poor play.

Assuming you are a quality player, what's the most likely way to get killed in a fight (not including death spells)? Answer: bad luck when a big monster with power attack crits you for massive damage. In this circumstance where this monster rolls a natural 20 against you, would you rather have the all-or-nothing miss chance or the the AC bonus that also applies against the critical confirmation roll? When I thought about things in these terms, I came around to your side of the argument.

If combat expertise gave a 10% miss chance for every point of BAB you lost, I think fighters would be all over it.

Upping one's AC by 1 is essentially making it 5% harder to be hit by one's opponent, all things being equal. You're decreasing the odds that your opponent can hit you. By "all things being equal," I mean let's assume your opponent is an equal match and must roll an 11 or better to hit you without any circumstance modifiers (cover, flanking, etc.).

Essentially, under this assumption, you always have a 50% miss chance in a sense because your opponent has a 50% chance to hit you. If you added a 10% miss chance for Combat Expertise for every -1 to attack, your opponent's chance to hit would become 45% (50% chance to hit in the first place X 90% chance to not miss due to miss chance). Thus, a +1 to AC is already tantamount to a 10% miss chance per -1 attack.

How do you like Combat Expertise now?

People who don't care about getting hit by sharp objects are not good players (unless you have significant DR or some other special mechanic that lets you not have to care about hit points).

Here's my two cents:

1) CE wasn't invented specifically with fighters in mind, but if you want to build a maneuver-based fighter, the fighter can most afford this "feat tax" (as others have pointed out).

2) In my opinion, if you think CE sucks, you're not good at D&D/Pathfinder.

Atheism is definitely a faith; I don't know about a religion. I mean, there's really no church to go to. There is plenty of "scripture," though (e.g. Richard Dawkins).

Question in the post name.

I just read this entire thread, and I'm disappointed to find not a single comment by one of the game designers.

I'm starting in a new campaign this coming weekend, and I'd wanted to make a net and trident fighter. These feats are very cool and just need a little clarification on a few points. ProfPotts in particular made almost everything crystal clear to me, and his interpretations mostly match my own.

The question that still plaques me is why the Net & Trident feat needs to exist (besides the secondary +2 benefit). I mean, why do you need a feat to let you dual wield with a weapon that was made into a melee weapon by a prerequisite feat? And even if you use the net as a ranged weapon instead, how is this not already covered by TWF rules? Nothing in the rules say you can't combine melee and ranged attacks within the same full attack (assuming you have Quick Draw).

I think, according to the letter of the law, you are required to tell the player who is scried on that he/she "felt a tingle" or "felt the hairs on the back of his/her neck stand up" based on the general rule that says all PCs and NPCs alike are supposed to know when they've been targeted by a spell.

I do believe you are doing the right thing by secretly rolling behind the screen to prevent metagaming. Also remember that a single casting of the spell allows the caster to scry on a single target, not a group, but success allows you to see and hear anything the sensor will allow (such as the group) as described in the spell. Obviously that means you should be scrying on the person in the party with the crappiest will save, with all appropriate modifiers factored in of course. The last thing to remember is that any player scried on, successfully or not, who is trained in spellcraft can make a DC 25 + spell level check to identify the spell being cast on them. This is under the use of spellcraft that allows for the possible identification of any spell after having to make a saving throw against the spell.

On a final note, I'll say that the spell detect scrying is one of the most underrated spells in the game, and it is often overlooked even by good players. I would like the spell well enough if it just allowed you to know when you're being scried on, but the fact that it gives the caster of the spell a chance to "reverse scry" the original scrier is super cool. A single casting also lasts 24 hours FTW.

I see what you mean about Oleg's. One can clearly see the detail of the "small size" version when compared to the others.

How about a map of the Stag Lord's Fort or the Varnhold Stockade? If you'd like to see one of a more "natural variety," we could send you a map of the Thorn River Camp or Sootscale Caverns.

And thanks for pointing me in the right direction in terms of licensing.

If the plotter printed a run of several copies of the same map, it could probably do 8-10 copies in one hour.

I totally understand your concern with quality. That's why we all love Paizo so much! What I'm trying to say, however, is that the maps we've made (with very little effort) are far less pixellated than you might imagine. I don't know that I have the technical know-how to explain why this is the case, but it seems to me that the original map artwork is of a sufficiently high quality that not so much detail is lost when it gets enlarged to 1-sq-inch grid size.

This might be a good way to compare quality:
Paizo has a Game Mastery flip mat of Oleg's Trading Post from Kingmaker (which I purchased). What if I printed out an enlarged copy of Oleg's from the pdf of The Stolen Lands (i.e. an attempted copy of the official Paizo product) and sent it to you for you to compare quality?

Also, I fully understand that I don't have the right to sell Paizo intellectual property. I would be interested in the possibility of obtaining a license to do so if Paizo has no plans to make these sorts of maps.

Well, I withheld the details in my first post, the most important of which is that my friend has a giant map plotter/printer that prints out sheets 44 inches wide. That's why it's been relatively easy to just enlarge the maps in the pdf versions of the APs (we've used Adobe Illustrator) and print them out to 1 sq.-inch scale. Granted, the quality is maybe not exactly what Paizo would want to sell, but it's pretty darned good and would more than satisfy most players and GMs.

Before my friend got this huge printer (which was supposed to be for his business!), I used the method described by Andrew Betts. The primary reason for me responding to this thread was that I was hoping that there might be some possibility of being able to sell the maps my friend and I make without violating Paizo intellectual property. I think the maps we make would sell, and I think such maps should be made available until such time Paizo decides to produce them. There's clearly a market for this. I was hoping there could be some way to do this while paying Paizo royalties or something.

Dear Mr. Jacobs,

My friends and I have devised a way to easily print out high-quality 1"-square maps from the pdf versions of various Paizo Adventure Paths. We use them all the time, and everyone loves this addition to our gaming table.

I would be happy to share with you and your staff how we do this. I can be reached at christopher@buckley.net

Thank you all for the comments and clarifications. I'm glad I opted not to take the AoO in my session (even though it was for the wrong reasons). The rule is clear to me now.

An unusual situation arose in a session I was GMing last night.

One of the PCs (a conjurer wizard) was in the middle of casting summon monster IV, a spell with a 1-round casting time. The BBEG's turn in the initiative order was immediately before this PC's turn. I had the BBEG cast dimension door in the round after the PC wizard began casting the spell (but before it was completed) and placed said BBEG within 10 feet of the PC wizard (BBEG was large sized and had 10-ft. reach). BBEG's turn is now over and the PC wizard's turn is next.

I ruled that (in general) as soon as BBEG's turn was over, he gets an attack of opportunity on the wizard who is still in the process of casting his 1-round spell (i.e. still engaged in performing a distracting act). This was also a crucial moment in the encounter, as the AoO by the BBEG would be an almost guaranteed hit and an almost guaranteed disruption of the spell. I felt my judgment was 100% correct except for the unusual circumstance that the PC wizard's turn began immediately after BBEG's turn ended, and spells with a 1-round casting time complete "immediately before the beginning of the caster's turn."

The explanation I gave to my players was that I felt completely confident that the BBEG would definitely get an AoO on the wizard in any circumstance other than the specific circumstance of the wizard's initiative being immediately after the BBEG's. Had there been even one player between the BBEG and the wizard, I believe an AoO was in order. In other words, I felt there was no clearly defined amount of time that existed between the end of BBEG's turn and "immediately before the beginning" of the PC wizard's turn. Therefore, I ultimately decided not to take the AoO.

So, am I right or wrong in general (as far as taking an AoO in the general case of placing an attacker in melee threatening reach of a caster currently engaged in casting a 1-round spell), and did I make the correct decision in this specific instance? Thank you in advance for your comments and input.

Great question Thunder_Child! I would have also ruled as your DM did.

Why do I feel like people who crap on skillful classes like Ranger and Rogue while singing the praises of Fighter do not actually play D&D/Pathfinder? I mean, how long does one have to play this game before realizing that it's not just about combat ability? I can only speak for myself, but it didn't take me very long.

I used to get in arguments all the time with people over the 3.5 Ranger vs. 3.5 Fighter. I say 3.5 because there are now even more compelling reasons to at least consider playing a PF Ranger. Ranger, IMHO, has always been an under-appreciated class. I'm so tired of the argument "you can make a superior archer with the fighter build." Who cares? That's beside the point. A halfway-decent D&D/Pathfinder campaign should involve crucial skill checks and saving throws much of the time. Advantage: Ranger. A DM/GM worth their salt should be able to kill a Fighter more easily than a Ranger with any opponent other than the "I smash you to bits" motif.

One thing Pathfinder should get credit for is that they made every PC class more "obviously playable." I personally believe that the 3.5 versions were all worth playing under the RAW (except Sorcerer), but the subtlety of certain classes seemed to often escape players. As a result, Pathfinder had to overcompensate to get players to consider playing all of the base classes because the conventional wisdom was that certain classes, like Ranger, sucked. In the end, we got a game that gives you very powerful PCs with tons of character options, and that's fine. I just find it funny that most of the augmentations weren't really necessary unless power-gaming is somehow required for your cells to perform aerobic respiration.

Light Dragon, I really like your ideas for additional kingdom leadership roles. I'm going to consider incorporating these into my PC's kingdom.

If my advice helps any, my PC's started out very conservatively as well. Their kingdom was only 11 or 12 hexes by the end of Rivers Run Red. I had originally planned on giving them a year (without telling them, of course) to build up to the 50+ hexes recommended in VV. When I could tell they weren't even going to get close to that mark within a year's time, I decided to give them however much time it would take to get close to 50 hexes. I figured it was fine this way too because the players had no idea at what point I would say "stop." I would have wanted to move forward through the AP with a kingdom that was way too undersized. In the end, it took them 2 years and 2 months to get up to size 47 from size 12, and I started VV halfway through the month that will see them get to the 50 mark.

And thank you to the advice and comparisons given by other GMs.

Apologies if this is a little off topic (regarding the final encounter in VV). My group of 4 PCs have just begun VV, and we've all enjoyed the AP very much so far. My question is in regards to the PCs kingdom at this point in the campaign.

Their kingdom's stats are as follows:

Age: 3 years, 4 months
Size: 47 hexes
Cities: 6 (capital city has 2 districts)
Monthly Magic Item Generation: 6 medium, 2 major
Average Monthly BP Generation: 90 BP

My group and I were wondering how their kingdom stacked up with the kingdoms from other games. The only major house rule I've implemented so far is placing a stricter limitation on withdrawing funds from the kingdom's treasury because the PCs demonstrated to me that they could skim serious GP "off the top" without incurring any real unrest problems. Specifically, I'm wondering if their kingdom is unusually successful or is it as to be expected?

It should also be noted that they currently succeed on all Command checks on anything over a '1.'

Thank you.

As a GM for a Kingmaker game which includes a cavalier, a (ranged) ranger, and an alchemist, the ranger has far more damage capacity per turn for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is the greater number of full attacks on average (don't forget that an archer can make a full attack on horseback while his mount moves). You would think a charging cavalier would dish out the most damage in open space, but instead it's the ranger with all his broken feats doing retarded damage from 110 ft. away.

The fact that you guys are still debating this issue is beyond me when it's been clearly demonstrated that a ranged fighter or ranger can dish out more damage than a melee fighter or ranger, and from 110 ft. away no less. It would be bad enough if the ranged build could dish out damage even approaching that of a melee combatant. What ever happened to risk vs. reward?

IMHO, Deadly Aim and Pathfinder's version of Manyshot broke the game. I feel like this is the result of years of crying from players who love ranged builds clamoring for more damage equity between melee and ranged damage dealers. Ranged attackers should do significantly less damage than melee attackers. END OF STORY. If you don't think the spell Enervation is broken, then you're probably fine with Deadly Aim and Pathfinder Manyshot too.

Lastly, comparing a ranged fighter versus a melee fighter creates a situation where you can argue that the ranged version must use more feats to achieve damage parity. But what about a ranged ranger versus a melee fighter? The ranger gets Manyshot and Rapid Shot as bonus feats plus favored enemy, way more class skills and skill points, the same d10 hit die (complete B.S.), two good saves, and some cool class abilities. What ever happened to choosing ranger over fighter so you could be a more versatile PC who tracks, stealths, sticks fingers in Drizz't Do'Urden's poo to find out what he ate for breakfast, etc. in exchange for doing less damage and having less HP? Now you can have you cake and eat it too. Welcome to Pathfinder.

I'm laughing reading this because I was also a PC in Darkshroud, and I remember the famous Conch Shell Incident slightly differently. I remember it basically as Rarzor described except for two important points:

a) I wasn't in the room when the setup was described. I was in the kitchen making a snack!

b) Moox told us that "what you see is what you get" in terms of the Conch shell, terrain, etc. From where me and the 3rd player (not Rarzor) were sitting, in the failing light of the late afternoon, it was nigh impossible to tell that the slight opening between the curvature of the shell and the flat game mat was indeed meaningful.

I'll never forget the 3rd player, our polearm fighter, standing in front of what he thought was the opening to the Conch Shell, threatening a 10-ft. radius of bad-ass guisarme trip insurance, sure as sure could be that the pissant NPC would never be able to get into the giant Conch Shell and alert the Sea Dragon. We were indeed flabbergasted when said pissant NPC simply walked about 15-20 ft. to the right of guisarme-ville, dropped prone, and slid under the narrow curved opening between the bottom of the shell and the game mat. That, my friends, is "getting conched!"

Moox's point is well-taken, and sometimes the PCs just don't get it despite the best efforts of the GM. Darkshroud was an amazing campaign, and the memory of the Conch Shell Incident will be a lasting (and hilarious) one.

Hello again everyone, I was just curious, is Oleg's Post in Brevoy or the Stolen Lands?

To the best of my knowledge, it's technically in Brevoy due to the fact that it is located along the South Rostland Road and Rostland is part of Brevoy. However, where Brevoy ends and the "Stolen Lands" begin is somewhat up for debate.