Combatbunny's page

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)

------------------------
Longer Thought Process:

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?

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?

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 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?

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.

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

The seven branched sword from UC is a 2handed sword listed as a monk weapon.

If the monk can flurry with it... is it treated as a 2-handed sword for damage purposes?

ie- Does it get the 1.5x from strength and also toward Power Attack?

Or does it follow some other set of rules. Or perhaps you can't flurry with it?

Seems like a lot of damage if you can. Essentially combining the best parts of two weapon fighting and using large 2-handed weapons with a big Str.

Simple question: Does Channel Energy count as an attack if it could potentially harm other creatures in the vicinity? Does the nature of a spell/ability make it an attack or only its effects?

For example: If a good cleric channels during a sanctuary and there are no undead present is that an attack? Only healing is being done.

However, If there are undead present then they would take dmg from the posative channel. Does it at this point become an attack?

The question also works in reverse for Evil clerics and negative channels.

The base ability for the Artifice Domain is:

"Artificer's Touch (Sp): You can cast mending at will, using your cleric level as the caster level to repair damaged objects. In addition, you can cause damage to objects and construct creatures by striking them with a melee touch attack. Objects and constructs take 1d6 points of damage +1 for every two cleric levels you possess. This attack bypasses an amount of damage reduction and hardness equal to your cleric level. You can use this ability a number of times per day equal to 3 + your Wisdom modifier."

In a game recently, I used the power to destroy a lock on a door and gain entry into a secure room. That part worked fine, however, there was some disagreement over whether this could be done quietly or not. I as the player wanted to be as sneaky as I could given the circumstances. However, the GM ruled that the power would naturally make quite a bit of noise as the metal ripped and shredded apart.

I argued against this ruling briefly, but I do (and did) see where the GM was coming from. So I'm curious: Are there specific rules for a spell/ability like Artificers Touch and the collateral noise it makes? Obviously the spell implies verbal and somatic components as the Mending spell, but does the nature of the action go beyond those noises? (ie- destroying a construct, in this case metal)... Or is the effect magically silent?

Let me first say- Obviously, you can change anything with enough time and effort. You could completely re imagine Golarion as a high tech future world if you put 50 man hours into it.

What I'm asking, however, is whether Golarion at its core is compatible with a lower magic/level E6-8 or similarly styled campaign without losing too much of its flavor.

If so, what major changes do you think you'd use? Especially in strong magical areas or cities with histories of characters with extreme power (Ex- Osirion, Katapesh, Cheliax, Baba Yaga, etc.)

I ask only b/c I have a group thinking of starting a new campaign and I'm torn between using my own Homebrew world or Golarion. Homebrew obviously is crafted the way I like my fantasy (lower magic and power, etc), but still, its much smaller than Golarion and doesn't have near as much Flavor or as much community and published support :)(I mean common Golarion has almost everything).

Can you think of any strong examples of places where toning down the magic would strip the area of its identity?

Anyone else feel like Arcane Blast and Shield could probably be a balanced part of the base Wizard/Sorcerer classes from level 1? (Giving low level spell casters more options then: "I ready my crossbow.")

And what in the world makes them powerful enough to require a lvl 10 pre-req?