Defraeter's page

Thank you for your answer Yakman & Thenovalord!!!

Hello
I take advantage of this thread too (sorry for my english, i'm french).

I search a new AP for my players but i've some constrainsts.

1) We've just stopped Kingmaker at book 4 because the subsystems were too heavy to manage and we don't have many time to play the AP.

Subsystems can be OK if
- they are well integrated on adventures and not too heavy to manage
- you need them just for 1 or 2 books

2) Story can be complicated but my players are slow, we have "few time" to run AP and we need to concentrate on adventure without spending times "outside the books of AP".
Before we use party at 25 or 20 pts, but i wish to return to party 15 pts because i don't want to manage the balance of game every time: i have no time to change things, so i want to play game as it's wrotten... about of course... a master always modify an adventure (smile).

3) We (or some of us) have already played Curse of Crimson throne, Kingmaker, Rise of the Runelords, Council of Thieves.
My players play, with another master, Skull & Shackles.

We don't want to play evil character.

I prefer a latest AP than an old one to be able to integrate the latest books.

In a first choice (which may change), we thought to Ironfang Invasion:
- there is, of what i understood, a subsystem "Militia" but it's not too heavy and you need it for the first 2 books only.

But perhaps the game environment is too close of AP Rise of Runelords or Kingmaker????

Any advices????

Hello, my players at Kingmaker want to do "Viking raids" during the winter's months.
As the Viking were doing, "all the population able to fight" will go to do the raid: the idea is to simulate the sending of fighters gone "to plunder another countries" using the rules of "Ultimate Campaign: build kingdom".

The results should be a gain in BP (Build Points), points of infamy, loss of population (because of battles in foreign plundered lands), gain of population ("slaves" captured), etc...

I think it's important that there is always a risk for players: they are not sure "the Raid" will be successful...

I don't want to play this part in the game and just to resolve it by "throwing a dice".

So i thought to simulate by a "temporary building" called "Raid" which will follows particular rules.

My idea is:
- 1 raid by kingdom in the same time
- minimum 3 months
- all development is locked inside the district during the raid (no other building construction for the chosen district)
- a penalty for the district on its bonus??? (like -x economy, -x stability)
- a loss/gain of population???

The "raid" is a temporary building which must be build each month of the raid.
i.e
The Raid
10 BP by month

penalty: x= number of the month of the raid
The first month, penalty =1, the second month penalty = 2, etc...

gain: when the raid is ended
draw a 6-dice.........1: 80%, 2: 90% 3: 100%, 4-5: 120%, 6:140%
result= (number of months x 10 BP) x (6-dice)= gain in BP

so a raid of 3 months may do a gain of
24 BP on a "1" & loss an point of infamy
27 BP on a "2"
30 BP on a "3"
36 BP on a "4" or a "5" & 50% gain 1 point of infamy
42 BP on a "6" & gain 1 point of infamy

Not sure at all of my idea...Do you have one???????

Maybe give another bonus-penalty system for:
- choice of the NPC "horde-leader"
- the defense of the land "plundered"
- counter-attacks of lands plundered or hostile raids against player's land
- ???

Any idea????

I wanted to erase my post and post it on "Advice" but Marc Radle was to fast...
And i mean Viking and "Vicking" is effectively a mistake.

I wanted to refere to the north people who scared Europe with theirs raids on boat between 8 and 11 century.

Sorry

I apologize, but what is a "Vicking"?

Some Norse pirates of about 1000 years ago in Europe

Hello, my players at Kingmaker want to do "Vicking raids" during the winter's months.
As the Vicking were doing, "all the population able to fight" will go to do the raid.

I use the rules of Ultimate Campaign and i'd like to find a way to simulate the raid.

My idea is:
- 1 raid by district
- minimum 3 months
- all development is locked inside the district during the raid (no building construction)
- a penalty for the district on its bonus??? (like -x economy, -x stability)

The raid could be a temporary building which must be build each month of the raid.
i.e
The Raid
10 BP by month

penalty: x= number of the month of the raid
The first month, penalty =1, the second month penalty = 2, etc...

gain: when the raid is ended
draw a 6-dice.........1: 80%, 2: 90% 3: 100%, 4-5: 120%, 6:140%
result= (number of months x 10 BP) x (6-dice)= gain in BP

so a raid of 3 months may do a gain of
24 BP on a "1"
27 BP on a "2"
30 BP on a "3"
36 BP on a "4" or a "5"
42 BP on a "6"

Not sure at all of my idea...Do you have one???????

EDIT: it's not the good forum, this post should be on "ADVICE"

Ninja in the Rye wrote:

Don't you know that Melee can't have nice things?

Also: A Magus can get a +5 Weapon a limited number of times a day at 17th level. Obviously a continual use magic weapon is broken, they should be banned from the game.

LOL. The problem, however, is that I know you are being sacrastic. Judging from the comments above, some of the others on this thread will actually think you are pushing for what they have probably already house ruled in their home games.

@Driver 325 yards: You can joke but i don't understand why you ask a question for which you've already an answer, and anyway you don't any care from others answers.

The "anything confusing" is that it occupies the belt slot and "can transform the belt into a single masterwork slashing and/or piercing melee weapon of her choice".
Sure, 1 standard action to transform and 1 standard action to revert.

But,
1) when it is transformed in a weapon, does or doesn't occupy the belt slot?

a) it goes on to occupy the slot (i think so): you cannot use of another belt, except if you add new abilities to your belt.
But, you can argue that as the belt is transformed, the new abilities don't work then...

b) it doesn't occupy belt slot when transformed (which is valid): then you can have another belt which functions.
But i ask myself if this is the intent of creator...
It is just as a more powerful transformative weapon which costs less than a weapon with transformative added.
Sure, you should have the belt slot free to transform your weapon back in a belt, but someone could argue that if the blet slot is occupied, the other belt ceases to function when you use the power of the bladed belt (i.e transformation belt/weapon), so when you revert your weapon in belt, your other belt ceases to function.

2) There doesn't appear to be a restriction on weapon type, designation, or size, except slashing/piercing melee.

The Bladed Belt seems to be too advantageous for the price and requirements necessary to make it(if compared to "transformative"). And the fact that it's a belt is just to explain the low price...

I think this magic item is perhaps a good idea on paper, but haven't be tested enough, so has been too vaguely worded.

Just look on "transformative" weapon ability and notice the differences...

Perhaps it will be better if its creator explains us what he wanted to do.

Waiting this time, it's another item i will put in the stasis's box.

I know I'm going to get an answer along the lines of "Uh, dire flail?", but I have to ask...

Does anyone else think that a bladed belt seems like a really bad idea?

I don't think so.

It's costly but possible to add power of "belt of physical perfection", or other like that, to this Bladed Belt.
And "the belt can be enchanted like a piercing and slashing melee weapon", so you can have the weapon of your choice among slashing & piercing weapons and you need to enchant just one time.

You have a weapon discreet which can change following your need. For instance, it may be interesting to have a longspear +2 with reach, and after a scimitar +2 with your shield.
And if you play a city-campaign, it's far more discreet to have a belt than your big greataxe on your back.

Yes
To be used, the bladed belt must use the belt slot. If you use another belt, the magic of the belt is no more active, because "not worn", so it reverts to a belt in your hands.
It is not because it transforms into a weapon that it frees your slot: it keeps on to count as your belt slot.
It's magic!!!

During the events of book 2, Curse of the Lady's light, the

** spoiler omitted **

have a tactic of "using bull rush to force PCs into squares
occupied by other enemies or furniture in order to make
them fall down".

Is this a valid use of bull rush, as I can't find rules for it anywhere?

Some monsters in scenario have "special powers" which only belong to themselves... and are not into the rules...

You could find another examples in other books with monsters that "cheat" with rules.
I prefer to call them "monster's special powers": no need to explain, it's just for the challenge!

unforgivn wrote:

If you make the first save (on the caster's action), then you're staggered for a round and the spell ends. If you fail that first save, then the other 3 saves are made once per round on YOUR turn.

Got an actual rules reference to this?

Also, does this mean it's best to fail the first save (not staggered), then succeed at 3 saves to not be affected by the spell at all?

reference? see the spell.

initial ST succeed: the target suffocate just for 1 round...........staggered for 1 round. No more effect.

initial ST fail: the target suffocate.......staggered. On its next 3 initiatives, the target will make a save. If a save is failed, he moves one step further along the track to suffocation. Of course, the target is at least staggered during this 3 rounds.

To resume:
initiative of caster: initial ST of target.
Succeeded ST...........staggered 1 round
Failed ST.............staggered at least 3 rounds with ST to do at each of target's next 3 turns.

@pad300: it's not possible to take a 5-foot step with another kind of movement
Take 5-Foot Step

Cool!!!
Thanks you all!!!!
You've given to me good bases for an half-fey.

I recognize i was a little scared by the race rules and how turn that.
You get the monkey off my back. Thank you!

Hello,

In one of my campaign, one of my player (his PC is human) had children with a fey (i.e a dryad). For several outside reasons, we stopped the campaign.
Now, i'll launch again the campaign 15 years later (in game-time) and this player'd like to play one of the children.
The idea is fun, but...

I checked the races and i don't find what could be an off-spring of an human and a fey.
May be i missed it.

I don't play with OGL, but if there is good stuff, why not?
I thougth for this race as something like half-elf or tiefling: i vaguely remember of an half-fey somewhere, but i believe it was too "overpowered".

1) Do you know if something not too strong exists?
2) if not exists, how could be this race?

...

There are magic item creation rules (these are a bit cheesy) ->
By making the item require a skill you can reduce costs by 10%
By making the item require an alignment or class you can reduce costs by 30%
...

cheesy? sure, but...

I don't see where is your question.

It is not because you're upon contact with something that your spell discharges, otherwise when you're upon contact with ground your spell will discharge as soon as cast...

The spell concentrate in your hand and you need to touch something to discharge. Happily.

And think this one: a wizard on his horse casts a touch spell... oh dear... the poor wizard kills his horse... but luck is with the wizard, his ennemies die laughing...

Also, what's a "Ring of Translocation"?

Also also, what new FAQ allows the imp to make wands?

I think he would say Ring of transposition

See FAQ
With its SLA, the imp may meet the prerequisite for some item creation feat...

EDIT:
With 1/day-- suggestion; spell-like ability (CL 12th), the imp may even select Craft Staff as soon as you obtain it.
So you have your imp-crafter...
If you don't need to craft, you just release it and 24 H after, a new imp with new feats...
so another imp-crafter or imp-scout or imp-fighter

Better than a cohort!!!!

hum... i don't like at all this FAQ... too much a kingdom for munchkin...or abuse...

And with the new FAQ, i mind the imp could even take Craft Wand feat...

I've never seen a diabolist's imp played, but i don't mind it's weak.
Sure, it's tiny, but it has 2 hands and can use items.
Same BAB as a druid of equivalent HD and can have UMD skill to use wands for instance.

In response to named bullet, a lesser rod of maximize would allow you to get free nat 20s for 1st level spells, expensive but worth it for some, really cheesy though... maybe use share spells, improved to give it to yourself and familiar (or animal companion for nature oracles)

PRD:

By the letter of the rules, it clearly works with maximize.

With empower, who knows? It's obviously not MEANT to work with the spell, and since you normally can't mess with d20 results like that, there's no rule that says you threaten on a roll result greater than a 20.

If you're trying to get constant vorpal crit threats (wth are you doing with a vorpal blade at lv3?), expect the GM to say no, laugh, and/or have you face a squadron of auto-hitting oracles with magic weapons.

Not sure it's "RAW".

And devs cannot cover all combinations.

Anyway, as you said, noone should accept these combinations with empower or maximise.

Defraeter wrote:

More realistic because it's more balanced between the weapons, for the game and it's not only grip a weapon but wield it to threaten. It's a way to balance actions and prevents skids.

Realistic =/= game balance. They really aren't related at all.

On the contrary, the game try to "simulate" with its own mechanisms. You break the realism of the game if you choices imply you favour some parts over others, so your game becomes unbalanced. The game balance is the measure of realism.

Defraeter wrote:

You "push" when you try to use rules to obtain advantages without paying for.

Isn't that what all characters do at all times? Am I "pushing" the rules by using a heavy mace instead of a club? Or choosing EWP: Katana rather than EWP: Kama?

I don't understand why you say that, your ex aren't related at all to the subject.

Defraeter wrote:

We are just applying the rules for ranged weapon: there are rules for reload, you know?

Right. They say you have to hold the weapon in one hand and use the other free hand to reload it. Once that's done, you're still holding the weapon in one hand, and if you don't re-grip it before you fire, you're taking the -4 penalty.

Since those rules make your argument break the game, you're creating new rules about how the "Draw or Sheathe a Weapon" action acts differently for ranged weapons. Those are house rules.

No. Not at all. Each ranged weapon has its rule.

You search to create difficulties where there are none to justify your point of view. Your argument is just nonsense.

Defraeter wrote:

EDIT: oh! we pass the 100 posts!!! another achievment!!! ;-)

Me? I'm shooting for that 1000 post mark, like another recent thread - whose contents I will not mention - that was eventually locked.

You're very gourmand...it may be a sin! ;-)

Want to know how people explain the use of the Buckler (RAW) with this Free Action to drop and another Free Action to re-grip.

Since as RAW, you do not get the AC bonus from the buckler if you use that hand for fighting or spell casting.

You forget you must don a shield if you want to wield it.

Defraeter wrote:

It's not because you don't agree, you have to say the others use "house rules".

The only argument for the move action nonsense is that you're using the "Draw or Sheathe a Weapon" action, which is a move action. (Or the "Manipulate an Item" action to Retrieve a stored item)

Neither of those actions have any differentiation between melee and ranged weapons, so the same action would apply to both.

Thus, by not applying the action equally, you're using house rules.

No. We are just applying the rules for ranged weapon: there are rules for reload, you know?

EDIT: oh! we pass the 100 posts!!! another achievment!!! ;-)

Note that there is no "pushing of rules" involved in this since there's no clear rules. And note that the Creative Director of pathfinder has stated at one time that it's a free action to release a grip (no mention of gripping) and at another time that it's a nonaction both to release and to grip (or rather, switching hands is a nonaction).

And I don't see how it's inherently more realistic with move action. It then takes longer time to grab a weapon than to say a few sentences, and about as much as moving 30 ft or standing up from prone.

More realistic because it's more balanced between the weapons, for the game and it's not only grip a weapon but wield it to threaten. It's a way to balance actions and prevents skids.

You "push" when you try to use rules to obtain advantages without paying for.
Some want cast with hand full with a swift for ex and be able to do a full round in the same turn with 2Hweapon.
This is possible with metamagic and feat like Still Spell: it has a cost of course, but this feats have been created for that.

Or to justify they can "switch" objects in theirs hands. So it allows...

Or they says, i have a 2Hweapon like a longspear that "i cannot put in my scabbard or my backpack" and "everyone takes them with one hand to walk as a walking staff", so "i am always Ready"...

Jodokai wrote:

let me help clear it up: Ranged weapons are treated differently than melee weapons, since they are, you know, different.

Ah, so your house rules are that it's a move action to put a free hand back on a melee weapon, but not on a ranged weapon. You should have said so. Any other exceptions you want to mention? Perhaps for weapons that are both ranged and melee, like the Axe Musket?

It's not because you don't agree, you have to say the others use "house rules".

In my party, those who are for free or non-action are more often players who want to "optimize", and don't matter if they have to "push rules" to their limits.

Those who agree to move-action are more often players/GM who want a play more realist and balanced.

I apply move-action since i play DD3+ and i have no problems. Feat Quick Draw is only useful when you effectively draw weapon from a scabbard.
It prevents many abuses, the 2Hweapon to be the "only one interesting weapon" and forces players to plan theirs actions.
The monsters have the same.

I'm not at all convinced by supporters of free or non-action. And i remind you that the pathfinder devs's intents was to have a more balanced game and to prevent the "skids" of DD3.5...

I was meaning more as a Majority feel it should be a Free Action.

No, it's just your "feeling".

I am sorry, i was too naif.
I didn't thought and didn't wanted the "friendly war" begins again.

I was one of the first 4 or 5 years ago who was defending the "move action" for re-grip.
I have always used it in my games and it was no problems.
I wanted to clarify at that time if i was "in the rules" or not. JJ Jacob answered that he prefered "free action" but recognized that "move action" was RAW and RAI too.

5 years after, nothing has changed. The rules always are not clarified, but it seems it causes more problems because of new classes and new powers which may make great profits of some of the action's choices for re-grip.

I don't mind this debate is useless, quite the opposite, i think this choice may have great impact on our play (i.e think to some DPR optimizations...).

Defraeter:

Detect Magic takes 3 rounds to pin down a magic location. There are any number of ways to defeat it. Multiple auras, constant magic in the area, lead sheeting, false positives (thanks Booksy), a trap having a longer than 60' detection range etc etc.

Magic traps radiate magic, there doesn't have to be wording to enable Detect Magic to work. This is normal functioning. There would have to be wording to deny Detect Magic its normal functioning. Regarding your 'detect and disable' quote, it usually states that Perception must be coupled with trapfinding in the case of magic traps. Not that Perception is the only means.

As another example of detect magic vs a higher level spell: detect magic can even detect invisible creatures. It just doesn't do it very well. Even Paizo staff members have stated this.

- Gauss

Gauss, it was more irony than other thing. Because everyone argue on obscure points of rules which could "unbalance the game", but seems to admit without the sadow of doubt that a simple cantrip can do everything, defeat even very high spell or make coffee.

Oh! I don't know where you've seen the magical trap may be detected by detect magic.
Nowhere it is written.
It's written the spell or spell effect is effective when the trap is triggered. And before... not active.
And only perception is an help to detect trap (or what is written in spell).
Many players say that detect magic do "all", but nothing in the rule comfort their vision.
Trap

And why give CR to traps if it is so easy to find it?

I'm always wondering why a simple cantrip could detect magic trap.
In each spells which do magical traps, they say "Magic traps such as xxxx are hard to detect and disable." And after give how and who can detect.

I don't see anywhere that a cantrip can defeat spells of level 2+.

If you haven't any rogue, you have summon or HP...

I will not "argue" with you, my english is not as good as my own language.

In DD3.5, curse of lycanthropy had "another way" to cure
DD3.5 Curing Lycanthropy " A remove disease or heal spell cast by a cleric of 12th level or higher also cures the affliction, provided the character receives the spell within three days of the lycanthrope’s attack.

The only other way to remove the affliction is to cast remove curse or break enchantment on the character during one of the three days of the full moon. After receiving the spell, the character must succeed on a DC 20 Will save to break the curse (the caster knows if the spell works). If the save fails, the process must be repeated."
DD3.5 Lycanthrope - search Curing Lycanthropy

This "only other way to remove the affliction" has been removed in Pathfinder.

After, you can do as you want if you think this curse is too hard...

EDIT: ninja'ed

It's a curse that functions as a disease. But it's not a disease.

Curse of Lycanthropy (Su) A natural lycanthrope's bite attack in animal or hybrid form infects a humanoid target with lycanthropy (Fortitude DC 15 negates). If the victim's size is not within one size category of the lycanthrope, this ability has no effect.

Only natural lycnthrope can "infect" with the curse.

There is no conflicting information, curse of lycanthropy is stated as a curse in the affliction.
Mummy rot is especially named curse and disease in Bestiary.
"Mummy Rot (Su) Curse and disease—slam;..."

The curses may need some special way to cure them, that's the case of lycanthropy. It's especially written in its description.
The way to remove the Curse of Lycanthropy is strange, but it's the only way (i.e remove disease or heal by a cleric/oracle of 12+).

And Wolfsbane is a poison that has an effect on curse of lycanthropy TOO: you need to prepare some Restoration lesser in case of...

I think it's an inheritance of old DD, and the devs keep it as it was written for this curse remains one of the most dangerous...

For curse and Remove Curse, it's worded "usually", that doesn't mean it's always the case. And no cure are written for Lycanthropy in glossary of CRB. So as it's written in Bestiary, you must apply those of Bestiary.

For Lycanthropy, it's a special case: the cure is specific to this curse and it's only by a cleric level 12+ with a remove disease or heal. Nothing else.

As the Bestiary is more recent than CRB, the rule inside Bestiary supersedes those of CRB anyway.

After... it's up to the GM to "soften his play" or allow players to have an access not too hard to scroll of remove disease lvl 12 or a priest lvl 12.
Because curse of lycanthropy is really a big nasty curse that can kill fastly an entire party. So players must be very very careful...

Paizo Blog Combat Maneuvers

Eidolon Link"As a result, the summoner and his eidolon share magic item slots."
The eidolon "use" the master's slots, so there's only one slot for neck (and for slots of head).

On your next turn, you place the second hand back on the hilt as a free action, full attack, and then remove the second hand as a free action...rinse, repeat.

I see absolutely no issues with this.

The re-grip of your weapon is not clarified in the rules. It may be a "free action" or "a move action": it's GM'Fiat for the moment.

And JJ Jacobs didn't clarified this point as he said:"...And at the end of your turn if your free hand remains free you'd be able to return it to grip your 2H weapon so you can still threaten foes and take attacks of opportunity if you want."
Nowhere he speaks of the action you've to use "to return it to grip".

That's a pity, but rules are always not clarified.

Horselord:

Reach weapons partially use the ranged combat rules for what you can and cannot target (Cover and concealment etc.). The ranged rules show you can target a creature's specific square.

So it doesn't say it directly, but you can choose what square is the target.

Since it neither says you must target it's closest square nor that you can target any other square it occupies I will continue to use the ranged targeting rules for this. It really isnt unreasonable since a creature that is both adjacent to you AND 10feet away (see my earlier diagrams) from you qualifies as both.

Perhaps we should ask JJ's opinion, but I wont tonight. I have to get some sleep so I can GM tommorow.

- Gauss

I think you search to turn round the rules where it doesn't need.

And it's a nonsense that says a creature is at once adjacent and not adjacent.

Defraeter, I don't think the third option is possible because of what Deylinarr posted.

PRD wrote:

Each domain grants a number of domain powers, depending on the level of the inquisitor. An inquisitor does not gain the bonus spells listed for each domain, nor does she gain bonus spell slots. The inquisitor uses her level as her effective cleric level when determining the power and effect of her domain powers. If the inquisitor has cleric levels, one of her two domain selections must be the same domain selected as an inquisitor. Levels of cleric and inquisitor stack for the purpose of determining domain powers and abilities, but not for bonus spells.

Otherwise looks spot on.

Yes, i missed that! ;-)

DG, the reach weapon description specifically states "opponent" and whether or not the opponent is adjacent.

Yes, i agree. You cannot attack an adjacent opponent regardless its size with a reach weapon. The rules are very clear.

Thanks you Tom S 820 and asthyril for your fast answers!!!!

Evangelist / Hidden Priest.... Forget RAW. I would say this is hard role play. For a PC who is shouting to get more people in to faith X but hide the fact he is in faith X. It just seem head uphis own but backwards to pull off to me.

Hard but cool to play!!! I must hide this fact to others players...too... and keep on to help the party.

ex 1: inquisitor 5 (Valor Inquisition)/ranger 3 counts as
- level 5 for powers of Valor.

ex 2: inquisitor 5 (Valor Inquisition)/cleric 3 (domain 1: Valor Inquisition; domain 2: Strength) counts as
- level 3 for domain Strength
- level 8 for powers of Valor inquisition

ex 3: inquisitor 5 (Valor Inquisition)/cleric 3 (domain 1: war; domain 2: Strength) counts as
- level 3 for domain Strength & War
- level 5 for powers of Valor inquisition

Sure, Sable Ranger is a regional archetype of Varisia. And the Sable Company Marine is a force, an army of Korvosa.
You searched the difficulty when you took this archetype!!! ;-)

Perhaps, the easiest way would be to pay a wizard to be teleported in Varisia and the mountains (noth of Korvosa city) where hippogriff are living...

I agree with Grick.
And Racial Heritage counts for any "effect", and an effect is not a racial feature.

FAQ Ultimate Combat

Oh! i see, sorry
I have your answer
FAQ Ultimate Combat

I take the most of this thread. ;-)
I want to play a cleric with a god who have Trickery as domain.
The problem is that in the campaign i play, the setting of the GM is that the officials NPC forbid this god.
If the officials discover i worship this god, i will be tortured before be killed.
The GM says it's possible i worship this god (that's in the setting), but how can i do to hide my faith in this god?
By RAW, you must be able to present your sacred symbole for spells and channel.
And domain Trickery is all except discreet.
And your aura is also not discreet.
In fact, if you take domain Trickery, everyone will know it...it's the height of ridicule!!!!

I will not be able to hide i am a cleric (for internal campaign reasons), so i thought to pretend i am a cleric of an another "accepted" god.
But it seems the archetype Hidden Cleric doesn't fit well with that...
Is it possible to use Hidden Priest to pretend you're worshipper of another god?

I used the PRD, and it's written in PRD Ultimate magic
Inquisitions