Good thread is good
Also agree this is a good idea.
Search Posts
I agree with the OP. Though I feel like the inverse is also happening at the same time. With +level being applied to everything, the tightness of the math, and the +- 10 crit rules, characters at higher levels DO in fact appear godlike to lower level challenges (ala high fantasy). For me it has felt like the purpose and spirit of many of the changes/rules have been at odds with each other. While the spell nerfs, stronger monsters at level, and normalized/generic characters make you have that gritty type of Sword and Sorcery feel (which I actually have enjoyed during actual playtesting to some extent)... You also have situations where high level characters cannot fail low level challenges, cannot be hurt by low level monsters, etc. Maybe these two things CAN be gelled together coherently and it just requires more tweaking. But part of me believes they really need to choose a specific focus.
I'm also curious about this as I prep for the Affair at Sombrefell Hall. Specifically, level drain (Enervated x) does seem to be non cumulative just by a straight reading of the players handbook p319. But this runs counter to all past iterations from 3rd edition and pf1. Also, it does seem a little weak and limiting for the monster as a previous poster noted. I'm curious if this is the correct reading or it IS in fact supposed to stack cumulatively.
I agree with the OP, character building/options feel limited and lackluster. The offenses are hard to enumerate because they're present throughout in small doses. So in ancestries, skill feats, class feats, multi-classing its a constant struggle running into choices that seem one dimensional or weak. Class feats have the strongest options, but it feels like you only get a very precious few. For some classes I feel like more of these feats should be baseline, or we should be able to pick more then 1 at a given level. Or they should be moved to general feats so they can be picked up more easily. Specifically, building my Paladin has been a limiting experience in comparison to PF1 or 5e. Even with some solid choices I can't help but miss the other things at that level which used to be baseline in other editions. Also, the oaths are bad. =/
I'm having the same issue. Hopefully it will be fixed soon. =/
TLDR:
---------------------------------- I'm DM'ing a group that just finished the first book, though I've read through the 5th. Personally, I think the main idea of the AP is sound and interesting. Enough that I was very excited to DM it when it was announced. However, I think it overall falls short of what it should or could be. Some of that is personal preference. I would of preferred a lot more intrigue and deeper thought into the power struggles that would be taking place because of the Glorious Reclamation's successes (IE- The back of book 5 should not be a sidebar. An entire book or two could have been made with that stuff and the story would of been better for it.) However, a bulk of the material degenerates into fetch quests that stray quite far from the central conflict. Areas that I think should have gotten way more time are at best glossed over or not covered at all. You never really connect with the Glorious Reclamation as a real enemy. There is no exploration of key antagonists like Archbaron Fex, Alexeara Cansellarion, even Abrogail. Their motivations and plans are left unexplored. And you're left with thinly veiled reasons to become Agents of Thrune (something that deserves a lot more focus and depth), The entirety of book 5 (and much of books 3) is devoted to something that should take maybe 1/4 of the book. Generally, the PC's are doing uninteresting things in the scope of what is happening in the country. What about assassinating key political figures that could aid the GR? Leading armies to crush real cities like Senara and not just small towns? Subverting the nobility to further secure Abrogail's rule once the GR is eliminated? (Tangent, how did the GR take both Castle Dinyar and Senara and not take Misarias?) Why not more deeply explore the actual rebellion instead of outlandish rituals that solely serve to lead to mechanically interesting but contrived fights. (Exception: The inferno gate ritual and premise was a totally cool idea. It was just the execution of the rest of that book and the fetch quests that were horrible) Also, the AP continually reinforces the PC's as brute force thugs instead of exploring the idea of them as fully fledged big bads in their own right. They should be given opportunities to feel like THEY are the boss fight. The Glorious reclamation should need to come deal with them proactively. Its unbecoming of villains to be constantly chasing around their enemies like errand boys. Essentially, the PC's are kind of uncool, and receive little glory beyond being patted on the head by Abby. There is a lot of interesting organizations that are intrinsically tied to Cheliax that would fit fantastically into the AP as either antagonists or allies. Whats going on with the Hell Knight Orders? Their completely glossed over and added in only a token fashion. Specifically, the order of the Gate if we're talking about book 3. What are the Queens Hands doing?: (Anya Jeggare and her Abby bound gang of super loyalists) Aren't they kind of important to go unmentioned through an entire rebellion where you intimately get to know the QUEEN. Abby was statted up. Why not explore using the chaos of this conflict to depose her? Perhaps join with Fex and together back another Thrune to the throne. One who is interested in giving out some of those unused Duke titles perhaps. Why sell your soul to Abrogail for ... what? Gold? Pc's are hella rich without her. Can we get an information section that actually lists some counties or further expands our understanding of the nobility? Its kind of useful if your party has interest in upward social mobility. idk. I'm ranting now. Suffice to say I'm making a lot of tweaks in our home game.
dot Your work is appreciated :)
My group is tackling the court this coming weekend and I also have similar worries/complaints. At Fort Estanzo I actually did combine the encounters. It was going poorly for the pc's until the necromancer blinded Nalinga. Then they turned it around. At the Court of Spears though I have similar concerns regarding how the fights are spread. I agree that logically this should be one big almost continuous fight. Which would be, with all the creatures as written, an unwinnable fight for a party of level 3 PC's. Specifically, I can't get passed the idea that the LG paladin of Iomedae god of honor, valor, glory, heroism etc- is content to wait until all of her compatriots are dead before engaging the fight. She should be the first into the battle not the last. There might be something to be said for her needing to get her armor on (assuming she was sleeping) but that's about the only reason I can come up with for her not immediately taking an attack on the Court seriously. I mean how often are they attacked here? I doubt its commonplace enough for her to shrug it off as a minor incident. So yes, I've been trying to come up with a more logical flow to the encounters but have not yet come up with a good plan. I'll let you know what happens I suppose. And I guess I'm curious, how did you guys end up playing the court? Your post is old enough that it probably happened already.
Good points. Though I think Fex would have to be a little deluded to believe that controlling the Inferno Gate would in some way allow him to secede or overthrow Abrogail. At least on its own. Perhaps I'm not fully respecting the power of the gate, but Fex is lacking the kind of infrastructure (armies, land, POWERFUL ALLIES) that would be necessary to unseat one of the most powerful nations, and specifically ruling houses, in the Inner Sea region. Fex is, after all, simply a low level baron in charge of a second rate town. Having access to an army of Devils is certainly powerful, but hardly unique in Cheliax. If he had machinations to perhaps work with the Glorious Reclamation. That could perhaps make things a bit more interesting. Though as written I'm not sure they'd accept his help. We are not told the constraints that prevent Thrune from more personally dealing with the Inferno Gate. But those complications (if they do indeed exist) would be helpful to perhaps understand Fex's intentions.
Peasants would never work anyway. The book specifically calls out that the Devil needs CR 8 creatures for the sacrifice. But theoretically it could of been anyone of that power level. Why not someone who doesn't happen to work for you? ANd how important is it for Fex to gain prestige with the government in book 2 if he's just going to betray the Queens wishes by taking over and not closing the Inferno Gate. Does he intend to keep that a secret? Or leverage it in some way?
TLDR : What is Fex's endgame goal in relation to the Crown and his place in government/power? At what point in the books does Fex start planning the Inferno Gate? Why does Fex help turn the PC's into the threat he sees necessary to eliminate in book 3? (via making them Thrune Agents) ------------------------
I'll be GM'ing our first game of book 1 this weekend, though I've read all the way through the 4th installment. The one thorn in my mind moving forward is Darellus Fex and understanding both his personal ambitions/choices and his relationship with the PC's. 1) In book one its pretty straight forward. Fex finds some up and comers to help him solve some local rebellion issues that he personally doesn't have time to deal with (perhaps because he's working on plans for the Inferno Gate?). His choice to have them sign the Hellfire compact makes sense. It establishes some measure of control over the party and ensures they're the right type of mercenaries he wants to be dealing with. Book one makes sense. 2) Book two is where I start to have issues understanding what Fex is thinking. Has he started planning for the Inferno Gate and how to make it happen? If so, why induct the PC's as Thrune loyal agents? He himself has ambitions that go against the crown. So why go out of his way to make his own underlings beholden to someone other then him? What does he really gain from making them go through that ritual? The book says he would gain prestige as the patron of such agents. But is that type of prestige something Fex even wants? Moreover, how does having said agents retake Kantaria fit into his plans? How is Fex leveraging the accolades from this victory into something he can use? Is he trying to get closer to the Queen? Or does he have some other plans? 3) Third book has Fex bring in a Bound Thrune agent to induct the PC's into the Trusted. This choice and progression is the hardest to understand. At this point Fex has already figured out the Inferno Gate and is planning to betray the PC's who he considers a threat. Why make the PC's even more legitimate? Might there be some blowback for killing Thrune Trusted agents? Also, why betray the PC's at all? To this point they've shown a fairly high capacity for both loyalty and competence. Why destroy such a valuable resource? Do his future plans not include any competent allies? Why not simply have the PC's gather some powerful Glorious reclamation NPC's to sacrifice? Also, wouldn't having the PC's bring sacrifices be much safer then trying to attack them at the Gate? The choice to engage in mortal combat with the PC's when it doesn't seem completely necessary seems odd. Also, he doesn't stack the deck very well in his favor (as he's invariably supposed to lose). He's gambling a hell bound soul on attacking a competent group of adventurers 4 on 1. And to make it worse he HAS to win. He can't escape if the fight goes poorly. He's going all in on this one moment. It seems at best risky and at worst foolhardy. He's had time to prep this and seems calculating yet it comes off as rushed. Why?
Ok. If I had to distill my above response into a shorter question it would relate to this idea of the Devils "supposed" to being out of control. Why is that the assumption? Does Fex explain it somewhere that I glossed over? Does it make sense considering the lawful nature of Devils? Demons get out of control but Devils are more structured in how and why they do things. The PC's could believe a rival Hell faction is controlling the situation but there is definitely someone/thing in control. Given that idea of control, its EXTREMELY suspicious then when the PC's finally step into The Pit only to see Fex and a giant Heresy Devil waiting patiently for them unharmed. What is stopping the PC's from concluding the very plain truth? What is obscuring Fex's control of the situation and thus betrayal in this last scene? Or better yet, if you were running Fex as DM- What would you say to the PC's initially to assuage their concerns or explain the situation?
A) First a short question: Is Visperthul the devils true name? B) I'll admit I've only just got the book yesterday and haven't had time to fully read everything. However, during my initial perusal I came away with a pretty serious critique- The module at its core is about Fex’s betrayal and yet the actual betrayal is done so poorly it begs the question of why even present it as a possible surprise? There are so many clues, and specifically the way in which the final confrontation plays out at Fort Arego seems set up to make the PC’s assume Fex is against them. Specifically, why are all the devils and guards in the fort being inherently hostile to the PC’s? Isn’t that a massive tell? The PC’s are forced to wade through a sea of Devil guards just to arrive at the Inferno Gate, a location Fex said he did not know, and see not only their benefactor but a massive Heresy devil waiting patiently for them. How did Fex get there? Why is this devil now friendly? Why were they not attacked? Etc etc. Even without all the very strong clues littered throughout the module, just the staging of the final encounter should be enough to give the PC’s pause. Two of the clues that lead toward Fex's betrayal are very heavy handed: -Starting with the INT 15 thief guildmaster who happens to possess detect magic but didn't notice the massive aura on the pendent he's wearing nor did he consider looking into its value? And wait, not only that but he actually possesses all the information about the object in a language he can read. He still seems happy with treating it solely as a "pretty trinket" and parting with the 98k magic pendant for only 2k. Its also a little surprising that Fex kept notes of such a nature just laying about for any thief to snatch up or that a thief would grab such notes without having a specific interest in them. -OR the more egregious clue. In which two errant devils attack clearly superior opponents BEFORE completing their intended mission of delivering apparently TWO copies of the same letter for their master. This is despite their ability to greater teleport and fulfill said task almost instantly... Additionally, said letter happens to contain the names of both parties, why? Along with a string of information that doesn't even need to be said. The letter as written lacks any necessary or useful information for Fex (with perhaps an exception for the siege). It’s clear purpose though is to give the PC's the heads up. No thought required. Now barring massive failures on the PC's part, the module intends for the PC's to have knowledge of Fex's betrayal going into the final encounter. This is fine. My issue is that we don't need to dumb down our enemies to accomplish this type of forwarning/forshadowing. INT 15 guildmasters should be played as such. INT 22 devils shouldn't be writing two copies of a letter that doesn't matter and use the principal parties names within. Fex as someone who has been planning this for some time should have been a good bit less obvious in his betrayal. Or if he’s going to be that obvious he should of been better prepared (summoned Erinyes should already be there #action-economy-matters.) ---
I ended up trying to have the dragon use hit and run tactics. He'd breathe from the mist (1rd). Then land and bite from reach (2rd). Full attack for a round (3rd). And then try and re-enter the mists to prepare for more breathing (4th). The party was able to defeat him somewhere in the 3rd cycle. They were lucky in that they blinded the dragon early in the fight, the witch was making liberal use of her debuffs, and the flaming sphere scroll was used to good effect. There was also a well timed web spell somewhere in there. There was 1 player brought to negatives early when he got isolated but his teammates were able to heal him up. As I recall he was also the one who got the killing blow on the dragon in the end. A thrown hammer with precision damage (rogue) smacking the poor blind dragon in the head. Was a nice ending :). Everyone was low health at the end of the fight. Mostly due to the breathing I'm sure. The parties APL was on the low end of the high tier (6 players), so they had fewer HP to work with.
I need some help understanding how Hypnotism works in the final encounter (tier 1-2). How have you all run it? The author seems to have a straightforward idea in mind (pcs disarmed briefly) but I'm not sure that exactly how the spell should function. Relevent part of the spell-
Spoiler:
"While the subject is fascinated by this spell, it reacts as though it were two steps more friendly in attitude. This allows you to make a single request of the affected creature (provided you can communicate with it). The request must be brief and reasonable. Even after the spell ends, the creature retains its new attitude toward you, but only with respect to that particular request.
A creature that fails its saving throw does not remember that you enspelled it."
So, at which attitude should we consider the pc's starting at? Hostile? Indifferent? Moreover, does the BBEG need to make diplomacy checks to get them to comply with the request? Does that depend on whether the PC's personally think throwing down their weapons is a unreasonable request? If so, this spell becomes useless as most of those checks are quite high. And the BBEG doesn't have diplomacy. Unless they're attitude is being moved to helpful- then its possible. Also, if they do throw down their weapons the spell seems to imply that they will not attempt to retrieve them during the fight as- "the creature retains its new attitude toward you, but only with respect to that particular request." But isn't that a bit too strong for a tier 1-2? Permanent disarm for possibly the entire party (2-8 HD of creatures).
This post was prompted by my prep for #1-47: The Darkest Vengeance (1-5) that I'll be running this weekend. There were some good suggestions in the GM thread from Jason S about tweaking the final encounter to be slightly less deadly and more cinematic. I'm just curious if we can use suggestions like that?
I know this is an old/dead/sore subject and I don't really mean to rekindle any arguments about whether or not GM's should be allowed to change scenarios on the fly- Brock has made it fairly clear that it is unacceptable. However, there seems to exist a consensus that some of the older scenarios needed to have some parts altered either because of outright mistakes or as a tool to clarify a mechanic or story element. There was an expectation or hope that someday there would be errata to those scenarios from official sources. To my knowledge this has never really happened. While we do not have "official" errata every scenario has its own GM thread, and in many of the older scenarios GM's offered small tweaks (sometimes larger tweaks) that improved game play at their tables. My question is- are we allowed to use those suggestions from the community threads and essentially consider it sanctioned community Errata? Obviously this isn't talking about season 3+ scenarios that are 6 player appropriate and generally more balances. But the older season 0, 1, and 2 scenarios. Often you'll see 5 star GM's offering creative tweaks that make the scenario more balanced/fun/compelling. In no way am I talking about adding Beholders to the end boss scene because its "more challenging". I'm talking about small thematic tweaks already written down for the community to consider. Is this within a PFS gm's prerogative (or even duty)? Or, conversely is there some official errata page that I'm unaware of?
+1 To Golo's idea
So I'm running this on Sunday and I'm trying to plan contingencies related to the final encounter in my head. Spoiler: Of course anytime the party faces off against a dragon you want the fight to be memorable and challenging. Luckily the table looks like it will be in the high tier, so they won't be fighting a dragon the size of a house cat :).
On paper the fight looks moderate to challenging if played in a straight up fashion (Breath then melee engage until finish using retreating 5ft steps for AOO's because of the ice floors). I'm somewhat fine with this approach though its a little simple and doesn't use the strongest tactical advantage in the room- The fog cloud. I don't want to be unfair with the dragons tactics. But what is seriously stopping it from remaining in the fog cloud and continually using its breath weapon from safety? I mean, I can see how a dragon might have enough bravado to engage in melee when it thinks its stronger. But if the melee isn't going in its favor, whats stopping Aralantryx from retreating into the fog bank and fighting from there indefinitely with its breath weapon? Would a dragon suicide itself against superior melee forces if it has such a strong tactical edge elsewhere? Of course the PC's may have ways to deal with the Fog. And that would make for a good conclusion. But I think its fair to assume that they may not given the very specific nature of seeing through fog or moving it. Is such a tactic fair/unfun in this context?
I'll chime in and agree with DeathQuakers sentiments. Restricting class building options is a poor choice. The diversity, possibilities, and crunch are all what make creating characters so much fun.
This is similar to my original line of thinking. Essentially shouldn't the possessing entity be able to jar her out of a slept condition? OR- Perhaps she ignores the spell because its an overlapping and competing mental control spell (CRB 209)? OR- Perhaps the possessing wizard/gate can jettison one of the umbilical cords on her turn and thus damage her and wake her up? OR- Maybe she just falls asleep like a baby. IDK. I kind of like the umbilical cord jettison idea because it still allows her to be slept and lose a turn of actions and begin from a prone position. But it doesn't end the entire scene in one stroke, and seems to be in line with whats plausible in this scenario.
Dotted for posterity
Thanks guys :)
I was just curious if you can stack Gore attacks if they're coming from seperate powers/items. In this case- Lesser Fiend Totem- Grow horns and gain a Gore attack while raging. and Helm of the Mammoth Lord- Use tusks to gain a Gore attack. Can these two be used together in the same attack action since they're coming from separate sources? Or does one override the other since they're both "gore" attacks. claw/claw/bite/gore/gore ? (assume other abilities for claws and bite) or only claw/claw/bite/gore ?
I'd say my thoughts fall in line with Finlander's. If there had been gauge-able metrics up on the board it might have been easier to identify with what we were doing. But simply using the colors didn't pull us into what was happening. I never really understood if what we were doing was having a palpable effect. I think a more specific tracking process or more detailed information from the GM's about what was happening with our participation would of gone a long way toward drawing us into the conflict. Playing in the low Tier I was kinda bored by the end of the night. I think the only people that really felt an epic conclusion to the event were the upper tier players.
Also had a great time :). Constructive thoughts- 1. Mustering was chaotic but seemed to work out in the end. A slightly less stressful system would be nice. I sometimes felt like we were mobbing coordinators while selling ourselves like goods in a bazaar. A lot of the suggestions already mentioned would be great. People checking tickets at the door being at the top. 2. Gm's were a mixed bag. I think I had the full gambit from fairly poor to truly excellent. On the poor side there were quite a few that didn't seem to have prepared very well or didn't know the rules solidly. In most cases it was not a big deal. The only time it did mildly bother me was in the case of BoneKeep part 2. We were not able to finish the scenario in a 5 hour slot mostly (in my opinion) due to the GM having to constantly draw maps and check stat blocks/read rooms. I almost wish I'd put a stopwatch on every time he stopped the flow of the adventure to read something. We still ended up getting most of the credit for the scenario but with the way we were blazing through the rooms I wouldn't be surprised if we'd have finished an hour early with a different GM instead of missing the final 3 rooms. Overall I would just encourage all GM's to take prep work seriously and have their maps drawn out ahead of time. It makes a massive difference.
Definitely not my favorite special. But much like Jason's friend it wasn't because it was too hard but rather because it was entirely a one note event. Something about the endless combat sequences didn't elicit the excitement or interest that I've experienced with other specials. I kept thinking- "When are we moving on to the next part". Except there was no next part. And this is coming from someone that genuinely likes a lot of combat... so idk. Still it was a packed ballroom and I had a decent table so it was a good night overall :).
I was considering multiclassing Barbarian/ninja. However, I'm curious if I could use Ninja abilities while Raging. Specifically can you use Ki to increase attacks? Or even better, can you actually use Ki powers-Vanishing Trick, etc?
I disagree with this general notion that character death irrevocably leads to a bad player experience. Especially when we're talking about low level characters that have little personal attachment to the players. In fact, I always considered character death one of the great strengths of 1st and 2nd Edition DnD where it was more than common. Death/struggle/skillful play are what make DnD/Pathfinder more then just storytelling time. Its what allows us to be playing an engaging and thought provoking GAME with choices that mean something. Plenty of parties have defeated that specific encounter, even using all 1st level pregens. Is it challenging? Yes. But personally that only gets me more fired up about PFS and what challenges it can offer in the future.
I'd say your answer lies entirely upon the personality of the commander in question. But some possibilities include: 1) If the commander has some sass to her she may very well have backhanded/slapped/punched the PC as soon as the immediate combat was over. Perhaps with a warning about respect and language, etc. This could also occur well after the incident in some private setting. 2) If the commander's personality includes rule through intimidation or martial strength she may very well have physically assaulted the player to literally strike home a lesson (assuming she believes herself martially superior to the PC). 3) If she's more relaxed or cautious she could have simply told the PC in no uncertain terms to watch their tongue in the future and not mention the incident. Since it didn't happen in front of people its not a big deal as long as the PC doesn't in some way talk about it. Assuming he does talk about it THEN I'd think about lashings, docked pay, fines, etc. 4) She could have simply ended his contract. Leadership rarely likes to be tested and will remove a perceived problems without a second thought. Generally no ones irreplaceable. 5) Maybe she has tough skin and doesn't really give a rats ass about what he said. Hell maybe it made her smile. People say all kinds of things in the heat of the moment. Depending on the situation and her appreciation for rough speech maybe they can be new drinking buddies!
Good to hear others agree its reasonable. :) I hadn't considered Iomedae as an option owing to her depiction as your standard courtly knight that leads from the front. Even within the linked code the first line is somewhat iffy: "I will shine in her legion, and I will not tarnish her glory through base actions." But I guess its a matter of interpretation. Sarenrae actually has more lines that match the ideal of the character. Though she does specifically reference "literal light" being important. Which of course would be counter intuitive to a sneakier character. I've actually been deeply considering Shelyn. A ninja esque paladin with a theme of redemption/art/beauty. Though letting everything attack me first might be a little cumbersome ;). Still a fun idea.
So first off, sorry for bringing up another pally ethics thread! Normally I'd let sleeping dogs lie, but I've been considering this combination, and I'm somewhat worried about the "act with honor" clause in the paladin code. **Additionally, a paladin's code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents** Specifically, I've been considering whether attacking from invisibility is a dishonorable action (ie- more along the lines of using poison), or if it should be seen as just another tool a paladin has to thwart evil. Perhaps along the lines of having Darkvision, using spells, etc. Personally I'm very willing to see it as just another tool if used in context properly and role played well with the rest of the paladins code. However, given the codes specific admonishment of poison and paladins general aversion to the rogue class I thought it might be prudent to get other peoples input on the matter. Especially for society play.
For what its worth: When I played this scenario in the 3-4 sub tier Agalorn fireballed the bridge with two or three PC's on it, but didn't manage to do enough damage to destroy it. I don't remember the damage dice for his fireball at that tier but I don't think it was a terrible roll. Thus the bridge being destroyed is perhaps not a foregone conclusion at that level. Still we definitely got lucky. I thought that while it was a scary incident there was nothing inherently unfair about it. Deadly... Yes. But the party had definite cues that we mostly ignored while sallying forth. Overall I thought it was a nice addition that got everyone's heart pumping and left you with a "lesson learned" type of feeling. Thankfully, our party was pretty beefy and made short work of Agalorn shortly thereafter. I think I remember a summoner or druids (I don't remember) raptor jumping from the first platform to the main platform and having Aggy's face for lunch. Good times.
dotted
Dotted for future curiosity. :)
Dotted. Thanks cheapy :)
So, the way I'm reading this the combat would go as follows: 1. G scorpion attacks and hits with pincer 1d6+4 and immediately initiates a grapple (via Grab). If successful, he also immediately deals constrict damage 1d6+4. Turn ends. 2. Second round. G scorpion continues the grapple as a standard action, if successful he deal 1d6+4+poison Stinger damage (via this quote: From the grapple section in the PRD:Quote:Damage: You can inflict damage to your target equal to your unarmed strike, a natural attack, or an attack made with armor spikes or a light or one-handed weapon.) He then also gets another free 1d6+4 damage from Grab and another 1d6+4 from the constrict..
That seems to be what its saying... But seems overpowered. Maybe the Stinger would replace the grab pincer damage? Edit: Essentially i agree with Hogarth
So if a monster has a claw/claw/Bite as his natural attacks, can he do all three with a standard action? (and thus is able to have a move action as well) Or does he need a Full round action to get all three attacks in? Thanks
I'm planning an encounter with an Alchemist BBEG and homebrewed goblin sappers (essentially goblins with different alchemical bombs strapped to them). The goblins are all suicide bombers drugged and conditioned into service by the Alchemist. Should be interesting :) .
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think melee characters had nearly as many base attacks in Ad&D as they do in Pathfinder. So to pump all their attacks to full BaB without first reducing the number of them would be going beyond the spectrum of returning to an Older rule Variant... And as a very real side effect it would probably make high level Melee absurdly deadly. Like, in a crazy off the chart sort of way. (Since melee already does some of the best DPS in PF at the moment anyway) I know you stated that you'd like to make a "High Powered" variant. But are you really sure you want it THAT high powered?
I think creative team play should always be encouraged and I'd venture that Paizo agrees, given their inclusion of the Teamwork Feats in the APG which essentially require two players to build their Feats in sync.
|
