Kobold Devilspeaker

Ckorik's page

Organized Play Member. 1,716 posts. 1 review. No lists. No wishlists. 2 Organized Play characters.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Saw a discussion about possibly seeing a 12 part AP - I'm not sure about that but thought a good topic could be discussed around it.

While I'm not really interested in a 12 part AP - I would ... really be interested in four, three part AP's which had a meta plot that ran through all of them wrapped up in the last volume.

Could this be done? Dunno. I'll admit - the biggest weak spot of past and current AP's (in my experience running them) is the link between volumes - there always seems to be at least one good hiccup where goals, locations, or whatever require a good bit of finesse to work through. Thinking of getting smooth transitions between 4 separate 3 part adventures would be tough.

My vision (for what it's worth) would be 4 separate 3 part AP's - that could be enjoyed on their own - but had clues and meta plot points in each that supported the others if played in series.... even optional clues that would give the players a motivation to continue to the next location without being a 'the world will end' thing - giving players and GM's the option to move on if they wanted - etc.

Anyway - thoughts - I know they are always looking for good feedback on the formats - so with the discussion in the product thread getting a few good replies this is my attempt to prod that.

Now that Paizo has moved away from keeping the rules and the setting in different realms...

Why on earth don't we have more lore in the spells?

I want to cast Zutha's fleshwarp, Jatembe's 7 facets, etc.

*The* most memorable thing about spells of old were the names - I mean... floating disk will always be Tensor's in my world - it's just part of the cool factor.

*edit* on post I realized my title was vague.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

This is just a love letter to the devs, sometimes in the RPG world you don't really start to feel just how influential a product is until several years down road when it's had a chance to digest and assimilate.

So 4 out of 4 people made new characters for a run I'm doing - all from the Advanced Class Guide - and despite the clamor and (cough) rough editing, this book has come to dominate the table and I can't think of a game I've played in for the past 2 years where there wasn't at least one person was using this book.

That is a home run in my opinion. So kudos - I'll toss in that (with fixes) the shifter has been a great character in another campaign we are playing in.

The ACG though, I think in some ways may be the high water mark of Pathfinder v1 design.

43 people marked this as a favorite.

Our group - after last nights session - decided to bow out of the playtest.

Relevant comments for the devs:

Because every monster has the same attacks/saves/hit points roughly they all feel the same - they all have small blurbs of special but roughly feel the same in how they play (GM was saying this).

Don't like the 'must bring a cleric' - even with treat wounds. (everyone)

Casting feels lackluster and worthless (everyone).

Combat feels like 'get into position and whack' (everyone).

Monsters sometimes get things like shortbows that do 2d6 even though they aren't magical - 'just because' - it feels wrong. (GM)

Feats all feel like they don't do anything worthwhile (everyone).

Why am I rolling the dice for all your abilities? (GM)

Watching you try to help him in the quicksand almost killed him - seems like it's safer to never ask for help (GM).

There is no guidance for what kind of false information to hand out (GM)

Whats the DC to dispel an item? (everyone - we still don't know)

Don't fire into melee - I don't want to have to look that up in the book (GM)

I don't have the kit to do that because I forgot to get it (everyone at least once).

Does that bonus stack? I dunno lets just say it does we've already spent too much time looking stuff up tonight (multiple times - GM).

We'll fill out the surveys for what we were able to accomplish - but we only play for 3 hours a week and as each combat was taking up the entire night - we didn't get very far. Going back to PF1. Personal notes:

I don't mind a lethal system (I like OSRIC for instance) but lethal systems I've played in all had easy character creation rules - and a character would fit on an index card to start.

My comments on the playtest forum will end with this thread - I'll check things out on the flip side - we just don't have the desire to play this system any more - as it wasn't fun for us. Ciao!

Having played in countless adventures and GM'd as many - I'd like to spot focus on sense motive for a moment. I don't like to generalize but I do feel like every table has this moment:

NPC tells you "something important"

Player A - I sense motive

GM: You think they are truthful

Players (collective): Stare blankly

GM: So.... do you have any questions?

Players (collective): "oh... do you have any good cookie recopies?"

Look I've also been at tables where I've seen people memorize a list of standard questions and rattle them off machine gun style at every NPC - I don't find either of these situations fun (personally).

Suggestion: Change to sense motive - You can make a roll against a target DC (difficulty depends on how friendly a NPC is to you) - if you beat the check you notice inflections in the speaker that suggest further topics that may reveal more information - by every 5 you beat the DC you get another topic or hint.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Brief: PF1 had abilities that worked like thus:

Clear Mind (Ex): A barbarian may reroll a Will save. This power is used as an immediate action after the first save is attempted, but before the results are revealed by the GM.

PFv2 has no powers like this. This seems deliberate. Further we have powers like this:


Trigger You or an ally within range fails an attack roll, saving throw, or skill check by 1 and did not benefit from a conditional bonus.

Range 30 feet
You tilt the scales of luck slightly, adding a +1 conditional bonus to the check retroactively, thus making the check a success.

emphasis in both cases mine. The 2nd power only works if you *know* you failed by 1. This assumes that you *know* the AC of the target exactly. This is a rather large paradigm shift for the game and I wanted to ask if this is intentional - and what information players should be expected to *know* at the table.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

For this thread I'd like to present an example of the 'hard to read' complaint I have about the playtest book. I'd like conversation to be about this topic on replies, or further examples that demonstrate issues that help the devs understand what you mean.

My first example:

Spell: Dispel Magic - my friend was in a playtest group - and they couldn't figure out how to dispel an item - he asked me if I could figure it out - I did (I think, but I still have questions) but I have complaints about the process:

The spell is located on Page 216. It says - see page 197.

Page 197 says: make a counteract check - see page 319

Page 319 says: a spell's counteract level is equal to it's spell level- and "see Table 9–3 (page 320) for the counteract levels of other

Page 320 (mind you - a one page difference - but not in the same '2 page spread' - so you had to turn the page to see the table) - has a list of Ability or effect level with the counteract level to the right of it.

Now - based on the information given - it wasn't readily apparent what this table really was meant to convey. It wasn't until I noted that the 'counteract level' was limited to 10 levels (the same as spells) when the lightbulb went on and I realized that all 'counteract' abilities were tied to a 10 point system to match dispel magic - and so the table was meant to show the graduated DC for each level. Ok.

Questions that linger: You have to roll against the 'DC of the effect' - what is the DC for the effect? Is the DC the 'ability or effect level'?

I assume for a spell it's the DC of the spell? Do you add anything to your counteract check? If so there isn't any text that says you do - so if you are going off the DC of the spell then it will be *very* hard to actually overcome that DC off a flat d20 roll.

What is the DC for an item? I'm *assuming* the item's level.

Ok final point: To dispel an item I had to look at 4 different pages of the book - in 3 different *sections* - and I still have questions that were not answered in any of the sections about dispelling (that I could find).

Dispel Magic was complicated in Pathfinder - I have to read the spell every time I use it - this *seems* like it will be easier once I have it down - but the book didn't make it easy to figure out, and this is one example of 'having to flip all over the book' that people are talking about.

Thanks for reading my feedback.

7 people marked this as a favorite.

Simple request here:

Please consider revising your policy on FAQ's and Errata so that we can get corrections or clarifications prior to a products reprint.

I don't know how much this would affect publishing costs - but if it makes the changing of the text easier I'd even love to see 2-3 blank pages at the back of any book that allow for text changes in future versions without a complete reformat of the original. (This is - publish the FAQ on reprints in the back instead of altering the text).

All that said I, as a customer, would prefer to see a coherent policy that didn't handcuff you from fixing a mistake because of publishing issues - I think in a system that is based off of rules would benefit from this change.

13 people marked this as a favorite.

From the PRD on "Cave Fisher"

PRD wrote:
A cave fisher produces its filament from glands in its body; when it reels in a victim, it generally eats the filament along with its meal. It's impossible to harvest new filaments from a dead cave fisher, but filaments harvested from living ones are incredibly light and strong, functioning as silk rope once the sticky adhesive on a length decomposes (which generally takes 3d6 minutes). A cave fisher's filament glands are useful in constructing sovereign glue and similar sticky magical items. A single cave fisher's glands count as 100 gp worth of raw materials, offsetting the total cost of the item's final creation.

Link : http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/bestiary/caveFisher.html

I'd like to see way more of this please - the number of times I've been asked if there is something they can harvest from a monster... We are re-doing the bestiaries right? Can we get notes like this on critters - especially when it's fun or appropriate? Extra-especially when it's fun *and* appropriate? :)

That's it - this thread is for this request - please feel free to vote with your comment ;)

2 people marked this as a favorite.


The A = a as in apple, not A as in Ape.

Rations = R'ah-she-ons

Jason is a fiend and I can no longer support these rules. This is almost as horrible as hearing 'yo-ma-die'....

10 people marked this as a favorite.

Quote here

James Jacobs wrote:

I often see this type of sentiment on the internet, and it frustrates the hell out of me.

The ONLY person who gets to decide if something is insulting is the person being insulted by it. If someone says something that ends up offending someone else, the responsible and mature solution is not to justify their insulting/offensive actions by trying to describe how they don't see it's insulting. That just digs their hole deeper and makes them condiscending as well as insulting to the person who's offended.

The right solution is to either nod your head and stop using that sort of offensive behavior (preferably altogether, but certainly when speaking to the person you, perhaps inadvertently, offended).

This is why alignment needs to go. Any other part of the game that causes as much hurt at the table as alignment is gone over with a fine tooth comb or given BIG WARNINGS ABOUT CONSENT (such as in the horror rules book).

Morality is SUBJECTIVE and as such has no place being used as a game mechanic. The rules of pathfinder are crunchy - morality rules are squicky, moist, and libel to smell like last week's cheese.

When the creative director (and company honestly) understand why trying to explain away why something is insulting/offensive is in fact just digging in deeper - after so many years of anguish about alignment and codes and evil spells and how it ruin's peoples games why is this still a core mechanic?

New edition - time for alignment to go - at least for player characters who should have sole authority over a subjective category that two reasonable college professors who spent lives studying ethics and morality could argue all day over.

So arcane sight - lets you know the number and location of all auras within your vision's range - Does it work through arcane eye?

I assume it does - so the sensor is noticed by an int check (any creature with a 12 or higher int can make a int check (DC 20) to notice the censor - it can be dispelled - would the dispel magic being cast show up as an aura before the dispel hit? Or does the act of casting produce an aura before the spell is actually cast - ignore the spellcraft rules for a moment (for this discussion) and assume that there is cover and normally wouldn't be detectable if the person was standing in the room (sans arcane sight).

Arcane sight (based on the spell description) ignores cover and isn't subject to the 'lead, stone, etc.' restrictions - it's 'all auras, within 120 feet' So based on that does the act of casting a spell produce an aura before the spell is actually cast?

Ok - assume the room in question has numerous NPCs, equipment, running spells and such - and all of them can turn gaseous as a SU ability - would a followup look at the room show any auras if all the creatures were gaseous?

Does the 'gaseous form' show an aura as an SU ability? Would the equipment/spells active/etc. still show in the gaseous state?

So I promised my players I would take them to 20 on this run - none of us have ever played a campaign to 20 and it's been 4 years to get here but we are now 'off the rails' so to speak - I chose book 5 and 6 as the outliers - the other books had natural level progression and books 5 and 6 just couldn't pack enough into them to make it to 20... and seriously I made the promise because as a player myself when I looked at the last level up saying 18 - I just felt like it needed a small shove to justify a 20 cap and playing the 'ultimate' level.

With all that out of the way reading some other threads about people wondering how to adjust the fights and such in an AP for mythic and or higher level I'm going to go ahead and post my adjustments here.

My party is 4 players and an NPC follower from leadership.

My group is currently level 16 MR 2 after forging runeforged weapons - they were able to ask the right divination questions to hit the correct wings and forge the runeforged weapons first - they are now clearing out the remainder of the runeforge. As a result I'm changing the runeforge remainder a bit to keep them challenged.

1 Wizard (conjurer)
1 Cavalier (halfling on dog)
1 Ranger (beast master, archery focus with bear)
1 Slayer (mobility focus with spring attack - I disallow mythic power attack and vital strike - but do allow him to vital strike on a spring attack (because I didn't realize it didn't work until he had used it for too long to change my mind honestly))
1 NPC oracle of life - that keeps the party alive generally - she is 2 levels behind the party but has been with them through all mythic ascension events and so is also MR 2

I will use this thread to post changes to fights or what I leave alone along with notes on how the combat went for future GM's to possibly use to help them plan their game, I am going to focus on fights as of the level up to 16 MR 2 - because Runeforge itself handles a party of level 15 players as written and MR 1 while sometimes makes a fight a breeze doesn't change the game enough to justify much difference IMO. When they leave runeforge they will level to 17 - in the last book I plan to take them to 20 - and expect them to hit 20 around the same time they enter the last 'dungeon' so they can play with capstones.

31 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 2 people marked this as a favorite.

FAQ question:

How do spells without a defined area (such as blade barrier) interact with a combat grid? Looking back on this question it has been asked over and over on the forums from the very beginning of Pathfinder. Please support this FAQ.

Detail: As the combat grid is an optional (but heavily used) part of the game we have rules for how area effect spells (line, cone, spread) work with the grid and rules for determining which squares they inhabit. When casting fireball we can (from the point of origin) get a perfect grid layout of where it is and every square within it's area is considered 'affected' by the spell.

Spells such as blade barrier or even shape-able spells may or may not act the same way - using blade barrier as the example:

One viewpoint: The spell uses intersecting grid points to define the wall and the wall is drawn along the gridline as per this line in the rules:

"The point of origin of a spell is always a grid intersection. When determining whether a given creature is within the area of a spell, count out the distance from the point of origin in squares just as you do when moving a character or when determining the range for a ranged attack. The only difference is that instead of counting from the center of one square to the center of the next, you count from intersection to intersection."

Opposing viewpoint: These rules are for area effect spells and don't apply to a spell such as blade barrier because it has a custom effect description which doesn't specify this interaction. The spell also states that you can create the barrier on top of a creature which then gets a save and must 'choose a side'.

If using the grid interaction this offensive use of the spell (and others like it) is worthless - also the spell has no width meaning that if it's created on a grid line there is no good rule interaction for if both sides of the barrier are considered 'affected' or if neither are.

If any of my players happen to find this post - stop reading it or any replies.

question in the spoiler.


How have you handled what happens when a player is banished from a plane back to their home plane?

The following spells can be used offensively against a player on a separate plane:

Holy Word (and it's opposite)
plane shift

I'm just curious as there is no rule, suggestion, or guidance on how this works and where the player ends up. I know for a monster it really doesn't matter - but if I'm going to use this against my players I'm unsure what to do with them. I have ideas - they would work - but I'd rather hear what others do without discussing the merits of my thoughts. Please post if you have had 'whatever' done to you or have used it against a group at a game session as well or if it's pure theory. Bonus points if you can say what happened to your character and if you found the experience fun or frustrating.

My goal isn't to be frustrating - I want this encounter to be a foreshadow of something they won't have the power to deal with for a while and end with them being forced back to their home plane. They have access to teleport and other fast travel so ending up in an odd location isn't a campaign ender.

Thoughts and opinions are welcome!

2 people marked this as a favorite.

As per a recent thread where it was discussed that this type of product is deemed unfeasible (due to business reasons which I'm not here to critique or complain about) it was suggested that discussion of this type of product have it's own thread.

So here it is.

Given that the *product* atm seems out of reach I'm going to focus on the blog side of things - so with that in mind - what I'd like to see:

A New blog setup with a (bi-weekly?) post that gives GM's advice and guidance on how to run the rules. NOT an errata or FAQ. I'd rather see *from a GM perspective* how Paizo would handle things like mounted combat, underwater combat, aerial combat, spells such as freedom of movement, odd corner cases... (perception to see the sun?). I'd like to see posts by Paizo GM's and possibly devs with ideas and suggestion that don't fall into (if this is a blog format) published rules, although if a FAQ deserves a talk, that'd be ok also. For an example of what I mean take a look at this: http://paizo.com/paizo/blog/v5748dyo5lc12

High level play, how to scale up or down, when to gestalt or not, how to play high level without rocket tag, what to do to avoid rocket tag, etc.

So - I'm posting this looking for the following: Would you guys also be interested in this kind of product from Paizo? If So what other suggestions for topics could you bring up?

8 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite.

Dear Pathfinder dev team:


Rogue: Does the dodge bonus from the “offensive defensive” rogue talent (page 131) stack with itself? Does it apply to everyone, or just to the target I’m attacking?

There are two issues relating to this rogue talent.

One, in the first printing it provided a +1 circumstance bonus against the attacked target, which was a very weak ability. The second printing update changed it from a circumstance bonus to a dodge bonus, but accidentally omitted the “against that creature” text, which made it a very strong ability.

Two, it doesn’t specify whether the dodge bonus stacks with itself, and because this creates a strange place in the rules where bonuses don’t stack from the same source but dodge bonuses always stack. While we haven’t reached a final decision on what to do about this talent, we are leaning toward this solution: the dodge bonus only applies against the creature you sneak attacked, and the dodge bonus does not stack with itself. This prevents you from getting a dodge bonus to AC against a strong creature by sneak attacking a weak creature, and prevents you from reaching an absurdly high AC by sneak attacking multiple times in the same round.

Posted March 2012.

When trying to look this up - I found some old threads and then searched the Help/FAQ listed. Can we please get this officially answered? 3 years is a long time to wait for a fix. The ability as written does indeed create a weird place in the rules. :)

I just wanted to say thank you for no peanuts - I love the cardboard corners - it was a huge step up from the mess of peanuts previous shipments came in.

Unchained is great - love the quality and the feel of the pages is on target - no sticky pages like the monstrous codex!

I did have some odd claw divits on the front cover (not serious enough to make me upset - but figured you might want to know) - and an odd shallow cut on the back cover (same - not really enough to make me upset - but it did seem weird).

Looking forward to Occult Mysteries :)


My player takes leadership at the same time the cleric has a case of real life that takes him out of the game - the player when given a choice of *anything* says lets get a healer for a cohort... so I come up with something and make up a plan to get them into the game.

Synopsis - player (halfling cavalier) is an escaped slave (backstory) and part of the bellflower network - while staying in Magnimar he is captured by a group of mercenaries who get word of a bounty on him. The bellflower network sends the future cohort who approaches the party for help getting him back (note - cohort is psychic searcher oracle who 'knew' she needed to help before the kidnapping even happened). Player is into the idea - and to introduce the npc will be roleplaying her through the rescue.

Players will investigate and find the hideout - a warehouse in magnimar - where the mercenaries are holed up. 2 fights planned - one inside the big warehouse - and then one inside the cellar where the two leaders are meeting with a pair of duergar (sp?) who are attempting to make a better offer for purchase of the halfling for (no one wants to really know what they do with their captives... honestly). The basement has a hidden entrance that the duergar use and do frequent business with the mercenaries - in this case the bounty is much higher than the dwarves want to pay and so they are arguing over price and past business but have a shield up that silences sounds going out or into the area for 'privacy' which will keep them out of the upstairs fight.

I am looking for maps. Ideally a warehouse map - largish with some open areas and interesting 'stuff' placement - things half high for cover or height advantage - stuff possible to 'bull rush' into something by knocking it over, etc.

Stairs going down under a trap door that's currently open.

Then a sub-level with a meeting room - two offices - a 'common room' and a secret entrance to a tunnel/stairs.

On the off chance that anyone is interested in making this/has a map similar or knows a good link to one - I'd much appreciate it - having seen the maps makers here this was my go-to place.

Note - this is not for online - I will be printing these for battlemaps - as such the quality doesn't need to be super high (dpi) but a grid is a must.

5 people marked this as a favorite.

O Foundation upon which we defied the darkness
Shine brightly for all these days
Sweet laughter falls to harshness
Weep for the lost ways

Beacon of hope that wounds could be healed
Shine brightly for all these days
Light that has fallen, and evil unsealed
Weep for the lost ways

Kenabres… shine brightly again for all these days.

(wrote this after we finished book one in our campaign and thought I'd share...)

Given the recent 'ring of invisibility' threads I've been referencing my old 1st edition DMG quite a bit lately...

One thing that (I had forgotten) stuck out at me was the way spellcasting used to be handled - Casting a spell was never something completed on a wizards own initiative - they would begin the spell and then had to spend time casting it.

To keep people from having to pull out old books to reference here is the gist of it.

1st edition broke down time as thus:

Turn = 10 rounds
Round = 1 minute
Segment = 6 seconds.

There were 10 segments to a round - 10 rounds to a turn.

How it broke down for spellcasting (simplified) was as such:

Caster init = start casting, add cast time = segment spell is cast.

Melee init = roll + weapon speed. If this was a number in between the casters start and final number - a melee could attack the caster (and stop the spell instantly).

Now... to just get this off my chest - I like the concentration system I personally wouldn't change that - however I was curious if anyone has attempted a mix of the old school and new school to essentially bring melee/caster balance - considering the usual answer to this topic is to 'buff melee' I was curious if this approach of making casters slightly easier to disrupt has ever been brought up?

Proposal for a modification mixing old and new:

Spells take a casting time = to the level of the spell in initiative order - with the exception of spells that are already 1 round casting time which still require casting until the start of the casters next turn.

Example = Wizard casts a Magic missile - rolled a 14 on initiative - at count 14 he begins to cast - at count 13 the spell goes off (making almost no difference for a 1st level spell.

Example (2nd level) = Wizard casts invisiblity - rolled a 14 on initiative - at count 14 he begins to cast - at count 12 the spell goes off (allowing something to see the casting and react if they happen to have initiative count of 13).

Example (5th level) = Wizard casts a cloudkill - rolled a 14 on initiative - at count 14 he begins to cast - at count 9 the spell goes off meaning that there are 5 rounds someone could react to the casting.

Final adjustment - if the casting time lowers the imitative to 0 or lower - move those 'segments' into the next round starting at the top of the initiative order - this doesn't count as a 'spell cast this round' against the spellcaster.

This is the general idea - specific spells could be given a slower or faster cast time which could further allow balancing of the bigger super powered spells and or make some lesser used ones more valuable than they currently are - feats could be added to adjust casting time and such.... it would add a new danger to casting on the battlefield that currently doesn't exist....

Starting the next book so I figured I'd pick up a new thread.

Page 11 - Voices of the sun:

Ability scores seem off... From what I can figure they have an extra +1 on charisma - as this results in a 17 it makes no difference to the game but just weird.
How I figured this....


Harpy starting stats (for elite array)- this is done subtracting 10 or 11 from the base harpy stats for an even number.

Mummified =
Str +4, Int -2

1 stat from level up

Final stats for the voices =

Ok so working in reverse - strip the mummified template off we get:


This should be the final array of a harpy/rogue 6.

Take the starting stats and apply the elite array to get:
Str 16(14+2), Dex 19(15+4), Con 8(8+0), Int 9(13-4), Wis 14(12+2), Cha 16(10+6)

Attacks for the +1 composite longbow should read:
+13/+8/+3 1d8+6 (Attack bonus = +11 base, +5 dex, +1 enchantment, -4 non-proficient)
as harpies and rogues are not proficient with longbows - damage listed was off by 2 - the longbow is +5 str as noted in the statblock so damage should be +6 (+1 enchantment, +5 str)

Attacks for the +1 khopesh should read:
+18/+13/+8 1d8+6(17-20) (Attack bonus = +11 base, +5 str, +1 weapon focus, +1 enhancement) - damage listed and attack bonus was 2 higher (for the bow as well)

Attacks for talons should read:
Talon x2 +11 1d8+2 (Attack bonus = +11 base, +5 str, -5 secondary) damage is 1/2 str due to secondary


I count 7 skill points unused (based on Harpy skill 4+int per HD, rogue levels 8+int = (4*7)+(8*6)-(2*13) = 50, 43 are spent as near as I can tell) however as listed I can't figure how they got a 6 in disable device. I get:

+1 skill point, +3 class skill, +3 1/2 rogue levels, +5 Dex, -2 no tools, -2 armor = 8

As disable device is not available untrained it has to have at least 1 point in it. This really doesn't affect gameplay - just found it odd.

Hit points - I get 116...

7d8 = 31 (mummified changes all hit die to d8's - modifying the harpy base hit die)
Rogue 6 = 27
31+27 = 58 (13d8)
+3 hit points per hit die (undead, using cha) = 39
6 rogue levels +1 hit point per level = 6
toughness = +1 hit point per hit die = +13
39+6+13= 58

13d8+58 = 116 - hit points listed = 142 - unsure where the extra come from.

Base harpy saves +2, +7, +6 - Subtract base stats to get actual bonuses of - Fort +2 (Con 10), Ref +5 (Dex 15), and Will +5 (Wis 12)
* note - base saves remove the feat 'great fortitude'
Harpy saves (assuming the starting stats with elite array)= Fort +1 (con 8, so 2-1), Ref +9 (Dex 19 so 5+4), Will +7 (Wis 14 so 5+2)
Rogue level 6 = Fort +2, Ref +5, Will +2 and +1 dex
Final saves before mummification = Fort +3, Ref +15, Will +9

Mummification change makes Cha the fort save making it Cha 16 (+3) + Rogue 6 (+2) add harpy base +2 = 7

Saves after mummification = Fort +7, Ref +15, Will +9

Saves listed in the book = Fort +9, Ref +17, Will +11

I have no idea why they are so different. These guys have no feats or magic items that modify saves.

CMB should be +16 (not 18) - 11 (BAB) + 5 (Str)
CMD should be 32 not 34 - 10 (base) + 11 (Bab) + 5 (Str) + 5 (dex) +1 (dodge feat)

1 person marked this as a favorite.

So given that Mythic seems to have a few broken abilities lets have a conversation about what is broken and how we can fix it.

I start the conversation with two of the biggest ones:


Power Attack (Mythic)

Your attacks are truly devastating.

Prerequisite: Power Attack.

Benefit: When you use Power Attack, you gain a +3 bonus on melee damage rolls instead of +2. When your base attack bonus reaches +4 and every 4 points thereafter, the amount of bonus damage increases by +3 instead of +2. In addition, the bonus damage from this feat is doubled on a critical hit, before it's multiplied by the weapon's critical multiplier.

You can expend one use of mythic power when you activate Power Attack to ignore the penalties on melee attack rolls and combat maneuver checks for 1 minute.

Why it's broken - the bonuses on power attack themselves aren't the problem - it's the line "You can expend one use of mythic power when you activate Power Attack to ignore the penalties on melee attack rolls and combat maneuver checks for 1 minute" for a single use of mythic power - using no action you ignore the penalties for 10 rounds. The progression ignores up to negative 6 on attack rolls.

I believe that this feat can be fixed by one of the following:

  • Reduce the duration to one round and require a swift action to use
  • keep the duration and no action but remove the attack penalty reduction
  • keep the duration and require a swift action to use and make the attack penalty reduction only work on the round activated

If you have another idea that would make this a bit more balanced I'd love to see it - we are looking for input into a house rule for our games.

Next up - Mythic Vital Strike:


Vital Strike (Mythic)

You can strike your foes with incredible force.

Prerequisite: Vital Strike.

Benefit: Whenever you use Vital Strike, Improved Vital Strike, or Greater Vital Strike, multiply the Strength bonus, magic bonus, and other bonuses that would normally be multiplied on a critical hit by the number of weapon damage dice you roll for that feat.

Extra damage from sources that wouldn't normally be multiplied on a critical hit isn't multiplied by this feat.

Ok breaking the problem down behind a spoiler to make the numbers not clog up the conversation... (it has a minor spoiler from wrath of the righteous in it also so...)


Barbarian level 7.

Str 16 to start - human +2 str = 18

+2 ability score from Iomedae = 20

+2 from level up = 22

+2 from tier 2 = 24

Rage = +4 = 28 Str

Feats = Power Attack - weapon focus - vital strike - whatever else
Mythic feats = mythic power attack, mythic weapon focus
Mythic power attack = -2, +6 (for 2 handed it would be -2,+9)

Earthbraker - 4d6 + 18 ( 9 * 2 power attack) + 26 (13 * 2 Str)/3

Barb mythic power attack/vital strike = +7 (level) + 9 (str) + 1 (weapon focus) = +17 to hit

That's a minimum of 48 and max of 68 damage. Without Mythic Vital Strike it would be a minimum of 26 and a max of 46.

Crits would be a min of 140 and max of 180. Without Mythic Vital Strike they would be minimum of 74 and max of 114.

From one hit. From a barbarian with a starting strength of 16, and *NO CHEESE* (outside of the built in mythic cheese)

If my math is off please let me know - what this means is one feat gives the following : Your min damage is now more than your previous max damage.

This is broken - there is no getting around it - no mythic surge needed - no actions used - and makes situations where you can use a charge attack to get in close - then use a mythic surge (swift strike - swift action) for an extra standard attack - getting off a vital strike for insane damage. At 2nd tier you can then use a free action for yet a third standard action - letting you hit again.

This means that 7th level Barb in the example gets 3 attacks for the cost of 2 mythic points and his swift action. He does a minimum of (charge power attack - 24, mythic vital strike 48, mythic vital strike 48) 120 damage, and a maximum of 170 damage.

This feat scales with the vital strike chain in a straight linear fashion.

Fix - I have no idea - at a minimum I suggest that this feat only works with a swift action surge. I'd lean towards including language that only allows a single vital strike per round regardless of the number of standard actions on your turn. I would also think only applying the 'multiply by the number of dice' language to crits only - which would make this feat very random - but satisfying when it does go off.

Open to suggestions...

Please bring up other examples.

So the biggest thing I like about 5th edition (from the free online PDF anyway) is the idea of ritual spells.

To summarize - using the same spells/day magic system we have in pathfinder but reducing the # of spells per day drastically - however many spells have a new 'ritual' tag. These spells can be cast without having to memorize them, with the caveat that they take 10+ minutes to cast.

I like this thought - this makes *all* the spellcasting classes a bit more versatile and allows the idea that some spells/magic/'stuff' should generally always be available to a party outside of combat - which changes the idea of how to build encounters and adventures - with the idea that given some time the cleric can always ask for some advice from their deity - or that the wizard can always setup a circle of protection if given enough time/etc.

Also by limiting the # of slots for 'combat' use the casters are made less 'god' and reigns in the power creep - although I don't have any practical knowledge of how this plays out at higher levels.

I'm interested in what other people think of this system, vs other attempts at changing the caster progression that have been attempted.

After the first two books and learning a bit about how they do monsters I think I'm getting better at this :)

Onto the show:

Page 22 - Kixexa - Her attack should read:

Melee 1d8+8 plus 1d6 fire (it's listed as 2d6+8)

Efreeti nobles don't get a new attack - and the slam attack is 1d8 base - if she were using the falchion it might be different, but she's listed as slams and her tactics mention slams specifically. I considered she might be using her enlarge ability - but it would still be wrong (see below), and she's not listed as using her enlarge ability in the tactics.

For the record - if she's using enlarge it would also affect her AC, init, saves and such - stats:

Size huge
Init +8
AC 23 (T13, FF 18 CMD 39) (+4 Dex, -2 size, +10 natural, +1 dodge)
Fort 10, Ref 12, Will 14
STR 29, DEX 19, CON 22, INT 16, WIS 18, CHA 19
CMB 24; CMD 39
Melee 2 slams +20 (2d6+9)
Space 15; Reach 15;

Now - big question I have is how her saves are figured...

Looking at the Efreeti - base saves are 7 10 9
Efreeti noble only adds 3 HD and casting to a creature - no save changes

Looking over her stats - she *seems* to conform to the normal rules (as far as I can tell) - that is - base Efreeti - add 3 HD and casting for noble - add advanced rebuild template (+4 to all abilities, +2 to natural AC) - but somehow she gained +1 fort, +1 Ref, and +3 Will to her saves.

I can't figure where these came from (those increases are above the increase from advanced). If anyone knows the difference I'd love to know.

Taking a monk archtype that replaces stunning fist as a bonus feat at first level (such as flowing monk) if I were to take the feat later after meeting the pre-requisites for it - would I still get uses per day as a monk or would it act like a non monk taking the feat?

So with hopes that I have the mistakes ironed out this time around - onto the new adventure (which I have to start out saying... IS AWESOME!)

Page 17 - Khabekh-Shu

He has guidance as a level 0 spell - it's not in his bloodline list - it's a cleric/druid spell - not sure where it came from unless I'm missing something fairly glaring.

Page 18 - Cultists

These guys also have guidance on their spell list - at this point I feel like I'm missing something - but it's not on their bloodline spell list either - if someone knows where they gain access to the spell from - let me know because it seems odd.

Does anyone have a good soundtrack and or 'sound effects' type stuff for a haunted house (I'm avoiding any spoiler info just because).

So... even with the new alchemy manual that is out - I find myself looking for actually interesting magical\mundane\special gear that works well with the alchemist class.

Looking up items that actually interact with the alchemist special abilities leads me to find a honest lack - boro beads and the vials (which are almost the same item - but slightly twisted in how they work enough to make them different).

Considering the above I thought I'd create this thread looking to poll the excellent community here (which has given me 100+ handkerchief items, and 100+ awesome tome ideas).

I have to be honest - even with my player hitting level 6 now - I still really haven't gotten my head around this class, and thus I'm having a total 'creative' block trying to find interesting things for him (and outside of generic stuff - to make it interesting in an older AP you have to be willing to tailor things a tad).

So please help - hopefully some more ideas will get me going and I'll feel up to contributing - but as of right now I don't think I 'have it'.

What I can do is give you a bit of background - a half elf slightly disfigured by a previous explosion - likes to collect samples of almost anything they encounter, enjoys fireworks a great deal (even though they never seem to go off well for him) - he is a 'mindchemist' and enjoys the idea of actually mixing his stuff up to find a solution, while he does want boro beads (it's the #1 item he is looking forward to) those don't last an entire campaign. Hopefully this helps.

Page 19
"Old Eye-Taker" Sotenre

CR should be 4 - Base level 4 aristocrat is CR 2 - Dread Skeleton adds 1 - bloody skeleton adds 1 - XP should be 1,200

Senses should loose darkvision - neither dread skeleton or bloody skeleton gives darkvision (oddly enough).

HP should be 38 (4d12+12) Based on the skill points he has he used +1 hit point on all of his aristocrat levels and undead use CHA for bonus hit points (his is 14 so +2) giving him a total of 37. The dread skeleton template replaces all HD with d12.

The CR for the entire encounter is slightly higher than a CR 5 - (due to the CR increase of the judge) - instead of 1,600 exp it is 2,000 exp - I don't really think it matters in the long run but if you want to run by the book remove 2 bailiffs or the bloody template from the judge to hit CR 5, or leave it alone sans hp changes and add variant to the judge... :)

Under Open locks:


The DC to open a lock depends on the lock's quality: simple (DC 20), average (DC 25), good (DC 30), or superior (DC 40).

If you do not have a set of thieves’ tools, these DCs increase by 10.

Under Thieves' tools:


This kit contains lockpicks and other tools you need to use the Disable Device skill. Without these tools, you must use improvised tools, and you take a –2 circumstance penalty on Disable Device checks.

Which is it - or is that supposed to be cumulative - and if so why not just include it in one place? It doesn't make sense to have a double penalty.

The spell "Guards and Wards" has the following effect:

Confusion: Where there are choices in direction- such as a corridor intersection or side passage- a minor confusion-type effect functions so as to make it 50% probable that intruders believe they are going in the opposite direction from the one they actually chose. This is a mind-affecting effect. Saving Throw: none. Spell Resistance: yes.

How would you go about describing this to the players - and or running it in this day of drawn out maps and such - I'm curious because I was trying to figure out what to do with this mechanic - or if it would be a neat 'one time thing' but grow totally obnoxious to play out at the table.

OK - I now have every pawn made so far - and in the next 3 months I expect to get Bestiary 2, then Reign of Winter, and then Bestiary 3.

That's alot of pawns.

I love these things - they are awesome. They look great - they play great - they look awesome next to mini's.

So what kind of cool stuff can you do with this line next? Much like the 'cards' series I'd love to see you put out a set that is "Conditions/Buffs/Debuffs" - this could be as simple as 'slotted to fit on top of the pawn' to something that is supposed to be on the mat itself.

I'd love a set of 'dead/unconscious monster player' tokens as well. Possibly some that indicate fire/grease/ice/etc. would also be cool.

Note that this is just a suggestion - there are many many conditions/effects/temporary terrain conditions which the pawns (IMO) could represent well - I wouldn't expect these to be a major set - but I think that these types of pawns would be a great product.

Situation - playing a paladin of Sarenrae - basically taking the idea of trying to redeem the world - patiently.

Those of you who have read the 'code' in the splat books might note that Sarenrae (unlike say... Iomede) expects the Paladin to play smart and try to find the good in a situation or person (generally). I chose this path specifically because of how Sarenrae has no issue with interaction with other faiths - always being patient in the hopes of turning evil.

It seemed a great fit without beaming the rest of the party over the head with the lawful stupid stick.

Now one of the party members has purchased a slave - (it is lawful where we are currently) and I'm trying to find some guidelines in how to handle this... so... thoughts?