Daeryon's page

Casters. Hands down.

Favorite class is the Cleric. It's versatile and you can build one into anything from a martial machine to a magical world bender.

I do like how Paizo has put out a lot of classes that have a very broad range magically. With classes like Magus, Hunter, Occultist, Investigator, Alchemist etc, you can customize your character to have the level of magic you are comfortable with.

However the poll leaves out the third option which is roguish type characters. Would you call a rogue martial, or a caster? It's neither.

Unfortunately this is one of paizo's biggest weaknesses IMO. The pure rogue is perhaps it's weakest class, being outdone by Ninjas, Slayers, Investigators and bards. If I were in charge of the next version of the rules, I'd look at boosting rogues.

Midnight Anarch wrote:

What mode are most of you finding that players take to infiltrate Fort Hailcourse? I'm curious whether players are opting to go up the walls, one way or another, and end up dealing with the tougher scenario up there or instead opt to burst through the front door (or otherwise enter there).

How has the choice of entrance gone for your players?

My players scaled the walls, and quite honestly would have been in real trouble if it hadn't been for a necromancer and a shaman who'd taken the flame spirit.

Three fireballs and a necromancer grabbing control of bad guys and making them fight on the party's side really turned the combat around.

First set of my players scaled the walls, went right into the Donjon, and ended up in a pitched rooftop battle. Everything came at them in waves (so as not to overwhelm them at once, I like to keep it fun). By the end of the battle the rooftop and courtyard was full of corpses, the town got a fireworks show courtesy of the Occultist, more summon monster spells were cast than I care to think about, and the characters managed to capture and interrogate Dagorbaatha. (I had Risi silence him later).

The second set sent in a halfling rogue by himself who secured the gatehouse and opened the front door for them. In contrast, this was almost too easy. They went from room to room liberally slaughtering.

I wouldn't have an issue with the two-handedness, but I might have an issue with the morningstar. It's a piercing AND bludgeoning weapon. not really what was meant when the rule was designed.

The material component for the spell is butter. Butter does burn but is solid at room temperature and you generally have to melt it first. I'd say it's unlikely that it's going to burst into flame if you apply a torch to a greased up area or person. It will make that teammate of yours extra tasty to the critter that is grappling and trying to swallow them whole though. ^.^

Of course there is nothing saying that the material components dictate the way a spell behaves but it's reasonable to say the grease spell acts like butter more than it does a fluoroether or fluorinated grease IMHO.

Agree. thus the house rule that while it doesn't particularly ignite easily, it does burn under fire.

Feyesh,

The purpose of feats is to overwrite normal rules and abilities. The feat is more specific, therefore trumps the previous rule.

That's how feats work.

What you seem to be failing to take into account is that the rule is allowing a 4th level character to have an elephant, Tyrannosaurus, Giant snapping turtle, etc in the first place.

That's pretty damn significant even if you count it as a medium Tyrannosaurus.

Compare to most cavilers who get a horse.

Also, the undersize mount feat would work. It's a more specific rule so it trumps the more generic rule of the mount needing to be one category larger.

Also per "ride" -If you attempt to ride a creature that is ill suited as a mount, you take a –5 penalty on your Ride checks.

So at most you ride your medium sized Tyrannosaurus with a -5 to your ride checks. For a whopping 3 levels before he gets Large.

Personally I think this is a far more contradictory quote:
"A beast rider cannot choose a mount that is not capable of bearing his weight, that has fewer than four legs"

How many legs does a Tyrannosaurus have?

Not all greases are flammable, for example fluorinated greases. As said by others above, The Grease spell does not state that the grease is flammable so it isn't. I imagine that the grease produced is something based on polytetrafluoroethylene.

You think it's more likely that the grease in the grease spell is Teflon? Rather than the normal definiton of Grease which is soap and oil?

Seems.....a stretch.

You stumbled into an old arguement here. The way we (my gaming groups) always compromised this is as follows:
Grease does not ignite from sparks, twigs, thrown torches etc.

However.......

If someone was under the effect of a grease spell and the area is placed under intense fire: (Fireball, molotov cocktail, etc) then since the spell clearly states that it IS grease, and grease would burn, we had it cause 1d6 extra damage.

It's a house rule, but it gets you out of the "if it doesn't explicitly say it in the spell it can't happen" people vs the "grease is just like gasoline wanna go down in my garage and see?" people.

The way I've handled this is:

#1. I give the players full permission to write their backgrounds. My deadline was that they had to have it in to me by the end of In Search of Sanity. If they did not want to, they could give me permission to write their background. (I was suprised how many said "you write it").

#2. I made clear to them that I had full editing rights to their stories, but I would talk it over with them.

#3. I made clear to them that their stories had to END 2 years ago.

#4. I made clear to them that I owned the last 2 years of their stories.

#5. When I designed the last 2 years, I kept in mind the character and tried not to do anything completely out of bounds.

So examples:

A Swashbuckler wrote a detailed 3 page story of her birth, early life and adventures around Golarion with a pirate crew of Gripplis.
I wrote about how they were attacked by slavers during a sea battle and the Swashbuckler was captured and sold into slavery. Weirali bought the Swashbuckler and gave them to Lowls. While working for Lowls the Swashbuckler was largely hired muscle. Lowls had promised freedom and a small boat in exchange for loyal service. Little did the Swashbuckler know that Lowls would double-cross them.

A catfolk figher let me write their background. She was a savage from an isolated tribe in the Mwangi. etc etc. Caputured by slavers, bought by Weirali, given to Lowls as a joke (Since he hates cats). Lowls hated the character and made her sleep in the barn, and work the gatehouse. She was forbidden in the main house.

A Cleric of Irori (Lawful Good), let me write their background. The background is they were actually a Lawful EVIL cleric of Irori who was very interested in the Elder Gods and worked for Lowls voluntarily.

Etc.

I'm not complaining as much as wondering if anyone else has swashbuckelers like this.

I find it hilarious. Yeah, sometimes I gotta break it down:
This is the acrobatics roll, this is the attack roll, now where did you get the bucket from? Etc.

And assigning difficulties is hilarious. How do you assign difficulty to surfing a dead body? I've taken to polling the table. 30? 35? 38?

The player doesn't care, they are just havin fun with the class. I just find it hilarious the problems I end up having to adjudicate. Exactly how long can you stand on a Kuru with a bucket on his head, and what's the difficulty when he tries to move? etc .

Derring-Do (Ex): At 1st level, a swashbuckler can spend 1 panache point when she makes an Acrobatics, Climb, Escape Artist, Fly, Ride, or Swim check to roll 1d6 and add the result to the check. She can do this after she makes the check but before the result is revealed. If the result of the d6 roll is a natural 6, she rolls another 1d6 and adds it to the check. She can continue to do this as long as she rolls natural 6s, up to a number of times equal to her Dexterity modifier (minimum 1).

Acrobatics:
In addition, you can move through a threatened square without provoking an attack of opportunity from an enemy by using Acrobatics. When moving in this way, you move at half speed. You can move at full speed by increasing the DC of the check by 10. You cannot use Acrobatics to move past foes if your speed is reduced due to carrying a medium or heavy load or wearing medium or heavy armor. If an ability allows you to move at full speed under such conditions, you can use Acrobatics to move past foes. You can use Acrobatics in this way while prone, but doing so requires a full-round action to move 5 feet, and the DC is increased by 5. If you attempt to move through an enemy's space and fail the check, you lose the move action and provoke an attack of opportunity.

Am I the only one who since the creation of the Swashbuckler class has to deal with things like this? (True actions my Swashbucker player has asked me to adjudicate):

Player: "Okay so I'd like to jump on that body, use it like a surfboard across the pool, flip off the body, somersault and stab the ghoul with my rapier. What's the difficulty for that?

Me: Uhhhhhhh.

(Several sessions later)
Player: "So this is what I want to do. I grab two empty barrells, I jump and flip over the two Kuru, drop the barrells onto their heads, grab the rafters and keep my feet on the barrells like I'm walking on the Kuru's heads. What's the difficulty for that?"

Me: You want to what? Did I say there were barrells?

It's always really funny, but sitting around determining diffuculty for these things off the top of my head is crazy. Am I the only one that has a Swashbuckler like this?

Daeryon wrote:

The hard thing to do would be to make Batman out of a Summoner. Next to that, Wizard is EASY.

Synthesist, and the eidolon is both the costume and utility belt.

Wow, I stand corrected.

The hard thing to do would be to make Batman out of a Summoner. Next to that, Wizard is EASY.

Exactly my point, plus I got the bonus of being the king. The rest of the party didn't see it my way however.

Because we'd never get players to use anything but Mithral weapons.

You could build batman out of several classes any more. Not sure how old the orignal debate is, but Wizard would be one of them. Off the top of my head:

Easy batmen:
Vigilante (duh).
Investigator.
Rogue.
Brawler
Alchemist
Ninja

A couple slight modifications batmen:
Wizard
Slayer
Arcanist
Occultist

It's a stretch but you can kinda make a batman:
Sorcerer
Bard

Did this one myself as a player:
Playing a paladin member of a group, we fight our way through an entire adventure. Kill big bad guy. Looting ensues. Players start grabbing everything in sight.
Large crown of the Scorpion King on a pedestal.

Me (Paladin): I detect evil on it.
DM: No evil.
Me (Paladin) (not getting anything as players have looted everything else in sight). I take the crown.
DM: Ok.
Me (Paladin): I put it on.
DM: (Facepalms). Congratulations guys, you are now the Scorpion King and his scorpion minions via the cursed (but not evil) crown.

Both of my parties had a rough time with the Tatterman. The shadow walk ability gave the first party fits. Also, they did not figure out that he was vulnerable to silver, they luckily did excellent against the fear abilities.

The fear abilitites took out 50% of the second group, but luckily they tried sliver early on and were able to hold on long enough for the fear-affected to return to save the day.

Concur with Zandalus Sees!
You can lead a party to plot details, but you can't make them care if they just want to smash things.

You can always do an end-of-adventure detail rehash/summary:

And that's a wrap! So to sum, you are stuck on the island for a week or so helping herd mental patients and OH! Winter says: "WE FOUND THIS STUFF, YOU CAN READ IT, OR NOT". (Drop papers on table, and walk).

Both of my parties mowed through Zandalus. IMO he's just the red herring before the Tatterman shows up anyway.

He sounds almost exactly like a Gm I had a long time ago. ‘Cept he’d let us get to about level 12, but it wouldn’t matter. His npcs were the stars, his...

Looked at your descrption and it sounds like we had a real similar experience but it's not the same person. My situation was 20 years ago in New Jersey.

Daeryon wrote:

Worst part was when we'd get aggravated about the way the adventure was going, his attitude was we weren't "roleplaying enough". His brother, who would play characters stolen directly from whatever movie they had last watched (Samurai movies, "Leon" the Professional, Die Hard etc), he considered a "brilliant roleplayer". His brother would always know the correct thing to say to the drow slavers so they didn't shave his head and tattoo "Slave" on his head like they did everyone else in the party, etc.

Favoritism is the thing I hate the most in a GM. I have had bad GMs I give a pass to just because they treat everyone at the table equally. One of the other wise best GM I've had I grew to hate playing with because of how blatant is favoritism was to certain players.

Sadly the favoritism wasn't the worst part by far. It was just the way the DM was malicious with everyone else. I mentioned 3 campaigns, but what I left out is that it was 3 campaigns because the DM would drop the campaign the moment the characters got powerful enough to assert themselves. (right about level 5 or 6).

I remember when the party pulled together and slew a dinosaur the DM expected us to run from the campaign got dropped right there. "that's ridiculous". Next session we were rolling up new characters to start at level 1.

With now years of hindsight it was obviously a control thing. He wanted to control the whole story, including how are characters were built, what they did, and what they thought, the moment he stopped being able to do that in accordance with the rules, he'd either change the situation: "you are captured and they take all your spellbooks, so now you can't cast anything, and they take your cleric's holy symbol" etc. Or he'd drop the campaign and start over.

Similar to Isthill I've built in a few backup plans. Involved in some of my PCs backgrounds I wove some individuals and a Great Old One (I used Dagon instead of Nyarlathotep) that have some vested interests in the PC's sucess.

Replacing someone while in the first two campaigns however is fairly easy.
During ISOS if a PC dies, they are replaced by a PC found elsewhere in the asylum who also worked for Lowls but got seperated from the group in the chaos.

During TTT it's easy enolugh again to work in another PC who used to work for Lowls that lost his/her memory and was left in Thrushmoor instead of in the asylum.

It's after that where replacing PCs gets complicated.

Used to play with a group that included the DM and his little brother.

The DM was sadistic. First, he only liked the fighting classes, if you attempted to play a spellcaster, rogue, etc, your entire gaming experience was a series of being beat up by fighters, barbarians, Caveliers, etc.

Second, he only liked human characters (and dwarves). If you attempted to play an elf, a halfling, etc, you were just in for this miserable time of every barbarian/fighter picking a fight with you.

Adventures (I think I played 3 campaigns with the group before giving up) all seemed to consist of a formula similar to:

You are nobody, first level. You get beat up. You get beat up again. You get beat up and captured. You meet an NPC the DM really seems to think is interesting.....but he's just a real prick, and about 5 levels higher than you, so you can't even talk smack.

Eventually you accomplish some things. However you are beat up and captured again, and all your stuff is taken from you. (Including all spellcasting materials/theives tools if you need those) You are sold to drow (or crazy barbarians, or hungry gnolls) they torture you. They make you fight in a pit for their amusement, etc.

Worst part was when we'd get aggravated about the way the adventure was going, his attitude was we weren't "roleplaying enough". His brother, who would play characters stolen directly from whatever movie they had last watched (Samurai movies, "Leon" the Professional, Die Hard etc), he considered a "brilliant roleplayer". His brother would always know the correct thing to say to the drow slavers so they didn't shave his head and tattoo "Slave" on his head like they did everyone else in the party, etc.

Best gaming decision I ever made was to stop playing with them.

I've run it twice and neither party had a problem. First party had 2 light spells and enough characters with darkvision where the attic whisperer didn't stand a chance.

Second party channeled the hell out of the room. (and I think tossed in an improvised molotov?) Either way, a very anti-climatic encounter.

Honestly, the AP doesn't prevent you from changing characters, but it just works better if you keep the same core group. I know as a GM sometimes you build things around certain characters and then when their players suddenly get bored with them and want to change it tosses your plans out the window. Maybe that's what's going on here.

OK, I am about to start this adventure path soon, loving what ive read so far (only needing some minor changes to suit me), but one thing is bugging me about part 2. What is the actual point in fort hailcourse. Other than maybe discovering that the royal accuser is dead. Don't get me wrong it's a nice location and all, but i don't feel it really adds anything to the overall story, other than xp for the characters before Iris Hill. I'm wondering if there is some crucial bit of information i can put here so my players dont feel like they've wasted their time?

I do get the whole should march off to kick in the door of the county ruler without some official backing, (ie the royal accuser). I'm fine with hooks to get them there before Iris Hill, just what do they get out it in the end narrative wise? I know unless i put something really important there my players will ask what the point was. Any thoughts? or have i just missed something really obvious and important in my stupidity?

The main point would seem to be that it establishes that the fort and all law and order is gone. Cesyll, the magistrate, and the Royal Accuser are all toast. Also all guards. There's some clues in the archives add context and flavor. You Rescue a kidnap victim. And generally are able to piece together that there is some kind of huge conspiracy in town involving Skum, Oozes, kidnap victims, etc.

Honestly, is it mission critical to take out the fort first? No. However, it gives the characters some loot, some xp and definative proof that things in Thrushmoor have spiraled out of control.

I've found that killing characters in their sleep is never good.

They just don't like it. And you either end up ret-coning it 5 minutes later, or they get resentful.

I agree that if they are not running a watch at this point they are almost asking for it, but my inclination would be to give the targeted PC a shot regardless of how sleathy Risi's roll would be. (some fluke if need be.......loud noise, familiar acting funny, etc).

We run the grapple using the monster grab rules as suggested online. It just works way better.

Does anyone have experience running this with other races then core? I have been thinking about giving my players each a set of races to pick from using the core races with some races drawn from the lands bordering with Ustalav like tieflings, Dhampirs, gangelings and ratfolk because I enjoy that race.

Also considering if a Samsaran or android could fit in somehow in this atmosphere?

Yep. Ran the first two chapers twice. unusual races run through include:

At least in the first two chapters there's not much problem with race. (though the tiefling had some issues early in the asylum with people trusting them, there's nothing that's unworkable). The characters are recruited by Lowls, he's a decadent King in Yellow guy, so I just had it that he liked collecting unusual employees.

The biggest issue was with the catfolk, as you discover in chapter 2 that Lowls is afraid of cats. So I just worked it into the background that the catfolk was a "gift' to Lowls meant as a joke, and Lowls never let it in the house, keeping it outside sleeping in the stables.

All in all like any adventure you should have a well balanced party.
Here's how the classes I've run through the first two chapters did:

Cleric of Irori - This guy has performed the best, and helped his party the most.
Nature Oracle - Did well, not stellar but well.
Swashbuckler - Though not the AP I would have picked for one, this character made the most of it and was very successful (and had a mean dice hand).
Rogue - Was very handy in the asylum. Not so much once you leave.
Occultist - This class was born to play this AP.
Bard - Was not very handy, but to be fair was not played well.
Fighter - Was a very sucessful blender when needed.
Hunter - Possibly the most surprising, expected this character to be next to useless but has turned out to be very sucessful so far.

The only concerns I would have would be:
Paladin - There's some dicey stuff in the AP, you'd have to have a DM that wasn't all "You can't even look at the Necronomicon without falling".
Animal companions - You have to be careful about what is chosen, I had to talk the Hunter out of his first choice as it would have been useless for the first 4 levels.

I would bet this is a common problem. "We're adventurers! Not Librarians! Now where's the tavern wenches?"

A couple tricks I used:

A character had a vague deja-vu moment on seeing a book title. (prompting him to pick it up and start reading).

Subtle hints from the DM like: "WOW. He found something in a book. What a neat idea".
Suddenly they were almost all librarians.

I'm pretty sure that it's a reference to the fact that they were marked by Hastur. From what I read about Melisenn, I think she would stop at nothing to eliminate those who might be competition for what she believes is her rightful position.

"We are all worthless before the Unspeakable One! Even if he has marked you, I am the one who will open this world to him."

The characters have in some way been marked by Hastur, or for Hastur. I don't know that it's ever clarified. It comes up again much later towards the end of the AP when another antagonist says that essentially they belong to Hastur and have been marked so.

"An occultist can invest a portion of his mental focus into his chosen implements for the day"
"He can divide this mental focus between his implements in any way he desires. If an implement is lost or destroyed, the focus invested in it is lost as well, though the occultist still refreshes those points of focus normally."
"Once mental focus is invested inside an implement, the implement gains the resonant power of its implement school, and the occultist can expend the mental focus stored in the implement to activate the associated focus powers he knows. If a resonant power grants a bonus that varies based on the amount of mental focus invested in the implement, the bonus is determined when the focus is invested, and is not reduced or altered by expending the mental focus invested in the item. Once all of the mental focus in an implement has been expended, it loses its resonant power until mental focus is once again invested in the implement."
"The implement’s bearer gains the benefits of this power until the occultist refreshes his focus."

So based on that I'd rule that the object continues to have the mental focus in it until 1 of 3 conditions are met:
#1. The mental focus points in the item are expended.
Or
#2. 1 day passes since the mental focus was placed in the implement.
or
#3. The item is destroyed.

The one argument against this would be the wording "If an implement is lost or destroyed, the focus invested in it is lost as well" which I would say leaves room for a GM to rule that when you die you've technically "lost" your implements.

IMO I do not recommend.

I've found that players often get jealous about the stupidest things.

If you do go ahead you need to make sure to have equal emphasis and cool backstory on all of the players, give them each something equivalent to what you give the "lost heir" in terms of backstory and goals.

In my experience it's probably better to run them all of supporters of a lost NPC heir, or as all "lost heirs" coming from the same family.
But even that can be tricky.

If I had to do something like this i'd probably arrange something like:

Character 1 - the lost heir.
Character 2 - the lost heir's betrothed.
Character 3 - A character who has incredible motivation to protect #1 and #2, something like: You pledged to your dying father on your mother's grave and before all the Gods that you would protect them and restore them to the throne.
Character 4 - A character who's fortune is directly tied to the restoration of #1 and #2. He needs a pardon specifically from a this king, his house restored or something like that.

That way everyone goes in with the concrete goal of a team. The issue of course is that the whole thing goes to pot if character 1 is an idiot, runs off with prostitutes, treats character 4 meanly, etc.

Quote:

Create water also only makes 2 gallons of water per level and consumes a spell slot.

Except it's an orison, so can be cast every single round of every waking hour, if need be. Assuming the camp has 30 people (which I think is a little exaggerated), she could make enough water for all of them for a day in 18 seconds...(Level 5 = 10 gallons per cast, enough for 10 people at a go). The real problem might be something to store the water in afterwards.
Also...it's an orison...there likely isn't much else she needs this slot for right now for the defense of the camp. Her current spell selection is clearly set up for keeping the camp safe (purify food and drink, stabilize, even guidance). Given she's a cleric of Pharasma, and she likely knows there are undead about, she should probably have Disrupt Undead available, but that's about it.

Point taken. I hadn't considered that under the Orison rules she can create 2 gallons of water per level an infinite amount of times per day.

Pretty silly to think a first level cleric can practically create a lake if he wants.

I think I had calculated 30 people at one point when I did the math, so yeah, easy for her.

so then I'd go with the main idea of my post, she's doing it for the purpose of watching the PCs.

Yeah, There's a few references in Thrushmoore Terror that it's been several years that the party has worked for Lowls. I went with 2 years on average, as some of my party's ages don't make sense to have spent 5 years with Lowls and have had a history before that. (A 17 year old would have joined Lowls when he was 12? As what? A pageboy?).I wanted everyone to have the opportunity to make a their own background.

Also there's an incident I left off my list:

#9 One (or more) of the PCs got into an arguement that nearly came to blows with a member of the Sleepless Detective Agency in town.

I'd say yeah, you lose quarry and improved quarry.
Since per animal focus "This ability replaces all instances of the favored enemy class ability."

This is one of the things I'm puzzling over as well.

It's not helped by the fact that I currently only have part 1 and 2, but digging around this is the "facts" I seem to have some up with -

#1. The PC's background is left intentionally vague on purpose, for you to fill in as DM if you want.

#2. The PC's now are not who they were before in many ways. Working for Lowls they were somewhere between neutral and evil. I'm puzzled how this would work in a paladin, or a good cleric, but thankfully I don't have to. (No paladin in my party and cleric is neutral).

#3. About 2 to 5 years ago the PCs were given to Lowls by Weiralai, a Denizen of Leng. Weiralai may have acquired them from Gnoll slavers, specifically one named "Biting Lash".

#4. Lowls sacrificed the PC's minds in exchange for something about 2 days before "In Search of Sanity" starts.

#5. One (or more) of the PCs beat someone to death while working for Lowls.

#6. One (or more) of the PCs started a barfight (probably not a stretch for most parties) and owes on a tab at a bar.

#7. One (or more) of the PCs was friendly with a man in town. (not hard to do).

#8. One (or more) of the PCs hid some things under a dock in Thrushmoor (possibly hiding them from Lowls?)

So this leaves things really vague as to who they were before being captured by Gnoll Slavers (if you decide to use this route), and who they were while they worked for Lowls.

For the pre-Gnoll slaver portion the world is your oyster. Some of my PCs wrote their own backgrounds (I told them they could as long as they stopped about 2 years ago). Some of my PCs thought it would be more fun to let me write their backgrounds. (I offered). High adventurers? Schlubby cretins? Degenerate Cthulhu cultists? Have fun.
The one condition is that somewhere between 2 to 5 years ago they ended up in Gnoll slaver hands, or directly in Weiralai's hands.

Once Lowls gets the PCs things get more difficult. Mostly I would say the PCs stayed at Iris Hill, only occasionally going to town, like full time house staff. It's possible some magic compulsion was used on them, either provided by Lowls or Weiralai. Ideas of what Lowls did with them are:
Fighters etc - Hired muscle. body guards.
Wizards etc - Spell/research resources.
Clerics etc - Occult research, mystic explorations, religious knowledge base. (maybe character had studied Elder Mythos)
Rogues etc - Spies, assassins, "purveyors of rare objects". General dirty work.

So using my party as an example:

The Hunter was an adventurer who was captured by Gnolls in the wild. She was used by Lowls as muscle.

The Fighter (Catfolk) was captured by the Gnolls for use as an exotic slave. He was given to Lowls (who is afraid of cats) by Weiralai as a joke. He was not allowed in the house, had to sleep with the horses and mainly guarded the gate.

The Cleric of Irori was Lawful Evil in his former life (now Lawful Neutral since re-awakening). He dabbled in the Elder Mythos as was brought in as a research partner.

The Occultist skipped the whole slave experience and had worked with Weiralai previously similar to how Lowls does now. He did it for the research benefits.

So looking for ideas. I thought I had done a good job steering the players well, but after being turned down entry into the Fort, even though they knew their were monsters they proceeded to Iris Hill. Again I prevented them from going in the front, but they insisted on trying the back. It went poorly and they all ended up surrendering to some of the cultists and the assassin. Surrender made a fair amount of sense given not just how the combat was going, but also how everyone was positioned making escape difficult if not impossible. Bottom line I need some creative suggestions to give them an out.

Tossing out some ideas:

The Sleepless agency (with or without Winter) can rescue them.

The PCs don't remember it, but they have some history in the town. You could introduce another NPC that remembers the characters, has access, and wants them to escape. (A scullery maid that had a crush on one of them? A butler/valet that was a friend? someone who makes food deliveries to Iris Hill smuggles them out in his wagon?)

Similarly you could introduce a cultist NPC who for their own motives (jealousy? Spite?) wants the other cultists to fail and releases the characters in exchange for some sort of bargain.

"It's a mystery Scooby Doo" - Someone can secretly let them out. You can figure out the whos and whys later.

Stupidity - Someone fails to find the rogue's lockpicks when searching them. A guard gets distracted and does not lock the door correctly.

Kuru anger issues - One or more of the Kuru decide it'll be more fun to beat up the PCs giving them an opportunity to escape...

Decadence gone wild....one or more of the decadent cultist nobles decides to "play" with one or more of the PCs giving opportunity for escape..

There's something no one knows about the room they are held in...a secret exit, a hidden key, a significant weapon.
etc.

I played this that Winter wants people to be helped, and is capable of using these spells, and this WAS her plan prior to the PC's showing up, but that now that the PCs are here, her plan changes.

I played Winter as very suspicious of the PCs and their motives. She wants to save any channels in case of ghoul attack, and save any cure spells she has in case one or more of the PCs turn out to be dopplegangers. Can she (or her people) do some of the tasks needed? Sure...but she primarily assigns these tasks to the PCs so that she can have someone watch them and report back to her on what the PCs are up to, how willingly they help out, if they seem genuinely concerned, etc. (I had Winter always have a guard on the PCs at first 24-7 who kept their distance and tried to look inconspicuous who's duty was to report back to Winter at the end of their shift). After the party cleared out Oathsday and helped get the boilers running I then had Winter trust the PCs enough to leave them unwatched).

Create water also only makes 2 gallons of water per level and consumes a spell slot. It's recommended in disaster situations to have 1 gallon of water available per person per day for drinking, cleaning, teeth brushing, etc.

She simply does not have enough water for all the people she is protecting unless the PC's fix the boiler room, etc.

If the survivors have another water source, she also gets to use this spell slot on something else.

If you've got a more specific quesiton you'd like Faq'd on this I can re-write the original question. Of you can make a seperate thread.

First - the generic rule on caster level:

Caster Level
A spell's power often depends on its caster level, which for most spellcasting characters is equal to her class level in the class she's using to cast the spell.

You can cast a spell at a lower caster level than normal, but the caster level you choose must be high enough for you to cast the spell in question, and all level-dependent features must be based on the same caster level.

In the event that a class feature or other special ability provides an adjustment to your caster level, that adjustment applies not only to effects based on caster level (such as range, duration, and damage dealt), but also to your caster level check to overcome your target's spell resistance and to the caster level used in dispel checks (both the dispel check and the DC of the check

Here's where I interpret the more specific Occultist rules to be stating that you use Occultist level as caster level:

"Unless otherwise noted, the DC for any saving throw against a focus power equals 10 + 1/2 the occultist's level + the occultist's Intelligence modifier." - First indication that Occultist level is what is relevant.

"The ray deals an amount of energy damage equal to 1d6 points + 1d6 points for every 2 occultist levels you possess beyond 1st (2d6 at 3rd level, 3d6 at 5th, and so on, to a maximum of 10d6 at 19th level). "
Again a reference that Occultist level is what is used when calculating the effect of the focus power.

The only classes that I am aware of where a caster level is not equal to your class level are Rangers and paladins. Even Bloodragers use their level as caster level for bloodline powers.

And in the case of Paladins and Rangers it's specifically stated to handle their CLs differently than normal.

As the Occultist starts 1st level with the ability to cast spells his caster level would be the same as his occultist level.

I always like the ability of clerics to be atom bombs when it comes to the undead, so don't knock the Turn Undead feat. With the party being a rogue, sorcerer and paladin, I'm imagining that you are one of the front line fighters, so I'd also consider basic combat oriented feats.

The FAQ, at least as I read it, is only referring to *spell level* and I get that. And if the ability were an actual spell, I can see how you get to the caster level == your current class level in the class that grants the ability. Although it's not really all that well spelled out either.

The crux is that the powers that be put in a clause to handle the corner case of "not based on an actual spell". And went out of their way to a stipulate a caster level rule. Why if the caster level is just your current class level, and that is the default, do you need to define that? You did need to define the spell level but not so much the caster level.

Why waste the space?

This is how I'm viewing it now - but honestly, can't make a firm decision, just interpretation based on FAQs cited, etc:

The rule citing caster level - This rule is a generic "spell like ability" rule. So as it is broad, the specific rules involving Occultists would override it. The powers under Occultist state how they are handled in regards to level of the Occultist.

The reason the rule you cite does not simply say class level, but rather caster level is becuase it is possible to have a class level of for example 9, but a caster level of only 6 if one was a multi-classed barbarian/sorcerer, Fighter/Wizard, etc.

I just ran this final battle and I didn't find any issue with the Tatterman's power level. Especially after fighting the bag lady, the Onirogens, and Zandalus he was quite a challenge for my party.

If anything I found Zandalus to be the underpowered one.

The Tatterman's DR, regeneration, fear causing abilities, sleep inducing abilities, and his ability to at one point enter the shadow plane (and take someone with him) gave my party fits.

They eventually overcame him, but it was not an easy fight. He took out two PCs (who re-entered the fray after healing) as well as 2 skeletons created by the party's Occultist.

Most difficult thing for them was figuring out that he was vulnerable to silver. The adventure could have used a better clue in this regard. (Though handing out vials of silversheen and silver daggers should have been clue enough).

Spell resistance is based on caster level, not spell level. You roll d20 and add your caster level to see if you overcome the SR of the enemy. So it doesn't matter what level "spell" the power is considered to be.

The only time this matters is for concentration checks, which are based on spell level.

My head hurts. But I get this point. I'm confusing CL and maximum spell level.

So we assume (probably correctly) that an Occultist's caster level is the level of his Occultist class. No reason not to.

I'm still left with a problem reconciling this:

If a character class grants a spell-like ability that is not based on an actual spell, the ability’s effective spell level is equal to the highest-level class spell the character can cast, and is cast at the class level the ability is gained.

So at 15th level if you acquire energy ray, you would cast it like it was a 5th level spell, BUT since the actual power description is more specific than the general rule.....you ignore this rule and defer to the Focus Power description.

I think that reconciles all my issues? I need to think on this.

For the record, I'm still confused beyond all understanding of how to implement these rules as worded.

I would THINK that the intent of the rule is to allow an Occultist to gain a focus power, and use that focus power as the level of Occultist he/she is when they gain the power. However the FAQ cited would seem to indicate otherwise, as Occultist cannot cast spells as high level as Clerics, Sorcerers, or Wizards.

So at 15th level max spell an Occultist can cast is 5th level, Clerics and Wizards can cast 8th level, Sorcerer's 7th.

So, if at 15th level an Occultist acquires Energy Ray the power states "The ray deals an amount of energy damage equal to 1d6 points + 1d6 points for every 2 occultist levels you possess beyond 1st (2d6 at 3rd level, 3d6 at 5th, and so on, to a maximum of 10d6 at 19th level). " (Indicating that at least for this purpose what is important is Occultist level, not spell casting level). However for purposes of spell resistance we would treat this power as 5th level since it is sp and this is the maximum level spell the Occultist can cast?

Right Chess Pwn, your ideas sound reasonable, I grant, but it makes a couple assumptions.
Do you have a source that "CL of a SLA granted by a class are always full class level of the class granting the SLA. So the level you pick it up doesn't matter." ?
Or
"Now it's effective spell level (which spell slot it would use) I would say is based on the level the class grants access to the SLA, "?

I agree Lintecarka that what you are saying makes more sense, but that's not the way it's written, and that's why I'm asking for clarification.

First in regard to your question about a disadvantage for supernatural abilities -
I asked earlier what would be the point in listing all Focus powers as (su), but the listing half the actual focus powers as (sp) individually. Chess Pwn pointed out that "If something blocked your ability to do SU's but not SLA then your focus power ability would be blocked for all focus powers"

I'm pointing out then that if his interpretation is correct, certain focus powers are subject to any disadvantages that might affect su powers (hypotehtical one such as what he brought up), as well as things that might affect sp powers (such as spell resistance).
I agree that in a general sense having su powers is not really a disadvantage, however if we interpret things the way it appears, a power such as "Energy Ray" could be blocked both by something that blocks sp powers and/or by something that blocks su powers.

In the grand scheme of things however, this is the least of my concerns. I'm more concerned about the implications of power level in regard to:
"If a character class grants a spell-like ability that is not based on an actual spell, the ability's effective spell level is equal to the highest-level class spell the character can cast, and is cast at the class level the ability is granted."
So by a literal interpretaton of that rule, an occultist picking up Energy Ray at 9th level would cast it with a lower level effectiveness. When encountering spell resistance, does energy ray have the same CL if the character picked it up at 1st level vs if the character picked it up at 9th?

If something blocked your ability to do SU's but not SLA then your focus power ability would be blocked for all focus powers.

Okay, I can see that, but then that's kinda of a sucks either way catch all. It's both su and SP so suffer both sets of consequences. It's effectively worse than either or.

You are effectively saying that if a focus power is listed as su, it's su, however if a focus power is listed as SP, it's both SP AND SU, as using focus powers in general is Su.

Which is kinda my point to this question. Some of the implications of this take the Occultist class from something really cool to something where a lot of the powers are diminished, you suffer bad consequences as pertains to both SU and SP, you need to keep track of what level you acquired what power, and some powers diminish significantly depending on the order you select them.
I also have to determine now if every occultist focus power is "based on an actual spell" as it will have different consequences than the two focus powers next to it as one is treated sp, but not based on a spell and one is treated SU.....so 3 focus powers I've already got to treat them 3 different ways?

Honestly, makes the class a whole nother level of complicated.