Name of PC: Huroz
Class/Level: Half-Orc Inquisitor of Desna 9
Adventure: Hook Mountain Massacre
Catalyst: Charging the Skull Ripper
Story: Huroz, reacting before anyone else, boldly charged into the room containing the Skull Ripper. It took just a few seconds for the creature to grab her with it's claws and begin crushing the life out of her. Her friends tried anything they could to free her before she perished but came up short (by 1 on multiple rolls) and before long, true to it's name, the Skull Ripper tore Huroz's head from her body.
I am relatively new to GM-img and this was my first PC death. There had been a few close calls but as soon as she entered the room I knew she was in danger. Followed up by poor party rolls and awesome GM rolls I knew after the first round she would likely die. I know some GMs revel in slaughtering PCs but I can now say for sure that I am not one of those.
Thereis more than one example of Adventure Path encounters written in ways that either specifically state or at the very least strongly imply that an invisible caster's location isn't immediately known.
The first one that came to mind is from Rise of The Runelords.
Spoiler:
The Hidden Beast uses a silenced ventriloquism spell to hide his location while speaking to the PC through an illusion. This would be completely pointless if there were non-invisible "manifestations" that revealed an identifiable spell was being cast or that they somehow revealed his location.
Yes, APs are not "RULES" but I don't see how it wouldn't at the very least inform your perception of the rules that are written.
Kingdom magic items availability are laid out pretty simply in the Kingdom Turn Sequence section of the Ultimate Campaign book.
Settlement and Districts; Base Value:
The base value of a settlement is used to determine what magic items may easily be purchased there. There is a 75% chance that any item of that value or lower can be found for sale in the settlement with little effort. The base value of a new settlement is 0 gp. Certain buildings (such as a Market or Tavern) increase a settlement's base value. A settlement's base value can never increase above the values listed in Table 4—5: Settlement Size and Base Value (except under special circumstances decided by the GM).
Magic Items in Settlements:
In addition to the commonly available items in a settlement as determined by its base value, some buildings increase the likelihood of having specific or unusual magic items available for purchase.
Gaining Item Slots: When you construct one of these buildings, mark the appropriate boxes in the Magic Items section of the settlement's District Grid; this indicates that the settlement has gained a slot for an item of that type.
Filling Item Slots: In Step 3 of the Upkeep phase, you roll to fill vacant magic item slots in each district. Roll d% once for each district that has an open magic item slot (if the district has more than one, select one randomly). There is a 50% chance (51—100) that an appropriate magic item becomes available in that slot. This item's price cannot exceed the base value for the settlement (reroll if the item's price exceeds the settlement's base value).
Example: Jessica's settlement has a base value of 200 gp. She built an Herbalist last turn, giving the settlement 1 minor potion slot. In the Upkeep phase this turn, she rolls d% and gets a result of 62, meaning she can roll a random minor potion to fill the settlement's empty slot. She rolls on Table 15—12: Potions (Core Rulebook 478) and gets a result of 45, indicating a potion of a 1st-level spell. If she had rolled anything more valuable than the 200 gp base value for her settlement, she would have to reroll until she got an acceptable result. Once a magic item is rolled for a settlement in this way, it remains on the market until someone purchases it.
Pathfinder RPG Ultimate Equipment includes extensive random magic item tables for specific slots and price increments. These tables may be more convenient than using the magic item tables in the Core Rulebook.
Emptying Item Slots: If you are unsatisfied with a magic item generated by a settlement, there are three ways to purge an undesirable item and make its slot vacant. The first is to purchase it with your own gp, which makes it your personal property and means you may do with it what you please (use it, sell it at half price for gold, deposit it in the kingdom's Treasury during the next Income phase, use it as a reward for a local general, and so on).
The second method is to manipulate your kingdom's economy to encourage an NPC to purchase the item (such as a random adventurer passing through the settlement). During Step 3 of the Income phase, you may attempt one Economy check for each filled slot you want to empty. For every such check after the first one in a turn, your Economy decreases by 1, since these manipulations are harmful to your kingdom's economy and typically only serve to get rid of an item you consider undesirable. If the check fails, nothing happens. If the check succeeds, erase the item from that slot; you may attempt to fill the empty slot as normal in the next Upkeep phase. You do not gain any gp or BP from this sale; the money goes to the building's owner, who uses it to acquire or craft the next item.
The third way is to spend BP (1 BP = 2,000 gp) to purchase the item. If you take the item for your own use, this counts as withdrawing BP from the Treasury for your personal use (see Make Withdrawals from the Treasury). If you use the item in a way that doesn't directly benefit you or the other PCs (such as giving it to a hero of your army or donating it to a settlement as a religious or historical artifact), then purchasing it is essentially like other kingdom expenditures and does not increase Unrest or decrease Loyalty.
In short, the special buildings add additional specific magic items.
There is also the fact that nothing in coup de grace says the weapon has to do lethal damage for it to work.
coup de grace wrote:
Coup de Grace: As a full-round action, you can use a melee weapon to deliver a coup de grace (pronounced "coo day grahs") to a helpless opponent. You can also use a bow or crossbow, provided you are adjacent to the target.
It just says you need a helpless opponent and a melee weapon. Non-lethal unarmed strikes work just fine, as do whips and saps. since these all count as melee weapons.
If you are going to focus on the language used in the ability I think it is worth pointing out the use of the word "alternatively" between the first option and the second option. This strongly implies an "or" choice rather than "as well as".
Taking "alternatively" in context with "You may use natural divination (in any combination) once per day plus one additional time per day for every four oracle levels you have attained." it is rather straightforward, you can read the entrails or the birds or the dirt, in any combination, up to the number of uses you have per day.
Also, there is this. This is helpful, especially when dealing with creatures that have natural reach and are using reach weapons. Annoyingly omits gargantuan creatures in the diagrams, but other than that it is quite helpful.
No, there is no dead zone. Creatures that have a "natural" reach have no dead zone. This means the elasmosaurus threatens every square up to 20 feet out.
If you go from directly east of the base of the Irespaon (which is an established 300 feet high) to the Fogwall Cliffs that would only be around 2000 feet. A 200 foot rise over 2000 feet is a 10% grade. That is steep. Much too steep for anyone to have thought putting a bridge there would be a good idea.
Here is a google steet view that gives a pretty good representation of a 10% grade street.
As the title states, I have a question about the topography of Magnimar. Specifically I am interested in the "Summit" section of the city.
The Summit has mostly natural borders, the Seacleft to the north and west and the Fogwall Cliffs to the east. In my head I had always assumed the Summit was relatively flat and that the Seacleft and Fogwall were of similar heights. In re-reading "Magnimar, City of Monuments" I realized that this is may not be the case.
In the book the Fogwall Cliffs are described as being "steep but stable escarpments that plunge, on average, 100 feet to the sea below." The Seacleft on the other hand is around 300 feet tall. This is implied by the height of both the Arvensoar and The Irespan.
Is there an error here somewhere? I just don't see how the topography makes any sense with that much of a rise from one cliff to the other.
This is also what I was thinking, but as a PFS table, I have to try to find as much hard rule support as I can, and have yet to be able to locate willingly getting hit. I know you can willingly fail a save, but have been unable to find something about taking 1 on CMD.
I don't play PFS. One of the reasons I choose not to play PFS is reasons just like this. It is basically pointless to argue anything rules related that is not set in stone. This is very much house rule territory with a sprinkling of RAI.
I wish you had said from the beginning that this was a PFS question, I wouldn't have bothered replying.
I think you can clearly allow someone to walk by you without harm. You allow your allies to all the time in fact and you could allow a enemy to as well. But the main question is on if they end their turn in your square. They mechanically can't because it's an illegal move, but meta-game they know that someone is there. So it's kind of a weird place in the rules
That isn't what a lot of the posters, like Anguish and Oilhorse, are saying though.
They are arguing that you don't get a choice to allow an enemy to pass through your square, at all.
Anguish wrote:
Two allies moving through a square I can imagine; they're cooperating, one deliberately moving to one side while the other moves to the other side (of a square). When one participant can't cooperate, it's not going to work.
and
Oilhorse wrote:
The games allows allies to move through your square freely, but not foes.
The OP also aid that his GM wouldn't allow this.
sgrifit wrote:
from the GMs perspective, although he(the enemy) failed to detect me via normal means, he knows me to be in that square because he cannot enter or end his turn there.
...choose to allow people making an overrun attempt to pass through.
This.
My character is standing in a 5 foot wide hallway and an orc rushes toward me, attempting an Overrun maneuver, to get at the squishy wizard 10 feet behind me. I can choose to allow him to pass by me if I don't really like the wizard much.
My invisible character is standing in a 5 foot wide hallway and an orc is rushing forward to attack the squishy wizard 10 feet behind me. He didn't perceive me so he didn't attempt an Overrun maneuver. Because he isn't actively trying to knock me down on his way through my square I somehow cannot manage to get out of the way in time and have to "let" him just bump into me?
The simple act of drawing a hidden weapon doesn't require a check. It is drawing the hidden weapon "unnoticed" that requires the sleight of hand check.
Normal Sleight of Hand Skill:
Draw hidden weapon without trying to hide it as a standard or move action = no check
Draw hidden weapon covertly as standard action = normal check
Draw hidden weapon covertly as a move action = normal check -20
Skill Unlocks change this to:
10 Ranks: Draw hidden weapon covertly as a move action = normal check -10
15 Ranks: Draw hidden weapon covertly as a swift action = normal check -20
15 Ranks: Draw hidden weapon without trying to hide it as a standard, move, or swift action = no check
20 Ranks: Draw hidden weapon covertly as a move action = normal check
Or at least that is how I read it.
I think a Developer (Mark?) may have addressed this in a post before the book came out last year but I couldn't find the post.
Metamagic rods hold the essence of a metamagic feat, allowing the user to apply metamagic effects to spells (but not spell-like abilities) as they are cast. This does not change the spell slot of the altered spell.
Bolded the important bit from the Rod section of the CRB.
By cherry picking the paragraph in question you leave out the parts that are clearly most important.
Inner Sea Gods wrote:
Marriage for love pleases her, as does finding love outside a marriage when doing so does not hurt the spouse. Shelyn does not require fidelity, but teaches that you should not be reckless with other peoples' hearts, nor should you tolerate those who are reckless with your heart, for an oft-broken heart is slow to heal.
Shelyn in no way supports "cheating." She supports polyamory when it occurs openly and with trust.
It is a relatively common mistake, from both new GMs and new players, to run a wildshaped druid according to the bestiary entry rather than the Beast Shape spells.
For example, as written, the druid in question could turn into a medium snake but wouldn't gain the "constrict" special attack.
In the end though it doesn't matter what happened. The fact of the matter is that mistakes are going to be made. Even veteran GMs flub a rule every now and then.
My advice is that you own up to any mistake made and do better next time. It sounds like that is what you are doing. If that isn't enough for your players then that is their problem.
If they are your friends then it is petty of them to hold any sort of grudge.
Let's be clear when you say 'shouldn't have' you mean 'wasn't written into the adventure path'.
I mean changing/adding abilities that make for a significantly harder encounter when it isn't appropriate. Especially due to a mistake.
I have no problem making changes but they have to be smart changes. I changed a few things with the encounter in question myself, just in the last few weeks.
Not sure what you are asking me on the "should' thing.
the player should fully understand how their own character works and the rules involved
It wasn't a player's character that the mistake was made on, it was an enemy the players were fighting.
I assume you are just making this mistake because you didn't read the whole thread and are not actually arguing that a GM shouldn't know how a druid he is controlling should work.
At 1st level, a magus can expend 1 point from his arcane pool as a swift action to grant any weapon he is holding a +1 enhancement bonus for 1 minute. For every four levels beyond 1st, the weapon gains another +1 enhancement bonus, to a maximum of +5 at 17th level. These bonuses can be added to the weapon, stacking with existing weapon enhancement to a maximum of +5. Multiple uses of this ability do not stack with themselves.
As a 7th level magus you can use it once and add a total of +2 bonus however you want to do that. You cannot use it more than once a round and, even if you could, they don't stack if you use it multiple times.
Every member of every noble family, except for the mayor and the Kaijitsus, could die in the initial raid and it would have no effect on the story. There is a monetary reward for turning over (or not turning over) evidence of Scarnetti crimes in book 4 but it is not related to the main story and is easily missed by players
The most important thing when running this AP is giving each character a reason to care about what happens to Sandpoint.
Personally, I think that anyone of those noble families used to living in Magnimar would find Sandpoint "beneath" them.
I would go with a Scarnetti bastard/hostile takeover angle, but that's just me.
Under the bestiary entry for Shadow (and Greater Shadow) the link for the incorporeal defensive ability links to the Incorporeal Subtype rather than to the Incorporeal (Ex) ability on the Universal Monster Rules page.
First of all, an overrun attempt (which is how you use the Trample feat) is a standard action. That means neither you nor your mount get to also make attacks of any kind beyond the free hoof attack your mount gets to make against any target you knock down. It's also normal movement, so you provoke attacks of opportunity as normal (unless you have the Improved Overrun feat as well).
I read that as saying that non-improved overrun provokes twice from the target and improved overrun doesn't provoke at all from the target.
Edit: Or maybe only one from the target of a non-improved overrun? I am not sure on that point. Definitely no AoO with improved overrun though.
This part is key and cannot be stressed enough. The short answer to your question is no. There is no easy rule for you to become a monster creator. No matter what angle you take you are going to need to involve your GM, heavily.
You also need to keep in mind that your GM may simply not allow it to happen.
Knowing where, why, and for what purpose you are doing the dip may help narrow down any recommendations. Generally the more information you provide, the better.
Having said that, I have always been a fan of Feather Fall and Expeditious Retreat.
Harrowed-Path, if you wish to get the attention of the powers that be then please calmly state exactly what you want.
Harrowed-Path wrote:
See the very first post.
You didn't actually calmly state anything. You were aggressive from the start. People replied, calmly, and then you got more aggressive and moved right on into abusive. I honestly don't know what you expect to actually accomplish here.
The fact of the matter is that society play isn't everyone's cup of tea. Personally, I greatly prefer home games.
But then he gets all passive-aggressive about it : I don't want it to be used, but I don't want to be upfront with the players and tell them I don't like travel spells, so is there some way I can nerf the spell into uselessness?
Different interpretations I suppose. What I see is a GM who is willing to go the extra mile to make things more interesting for his players.
I didn't take anything he said to mean that he wanted to fundamentally change rules or anything like that, simply that he was curious about what things could happen to players while using wind walk. I don't see his intent as being any different than someone who says "What interesting things can happen to my players riding their horses down this road?"
Sure, some players and GMs prefer to hand-wave as much of the travel process as possible and that is fine but that doesn't seem to be the case with this GM and group of players.
Obviously I am taking his word on it but, if his players like the way the game is going does any of this really matter?
I have just a couple of things to add but I want to say first that I applaud your thought process and how I think that you approach the game.
I think your main mistake was using the word prohibit. Many people have a strong negative reaction to that word due to having a poor GM/Player experience. Worded differently, I believe that your question wouldn't have garnered anywhere near the level of venom as it did.
One question I have for you is about the weather and the fly checks issue. The spell states that they are in gaseous form and THAT spell states that all fly checks are made automatically. To actually have the weather effect your characters this part of the spell description would have to be changed/ignored.
I, for one, am curious what you decided to do about this and also about what ideas you and your player came up with.
*Edited for spelling and grammar due to sleep deprivation.
For what it's worth I think that the Smite Evil ability states clearly that a paladin adds the damage to all damage rolls and this should include spells, channeled energy, thrown holy water, wands, and every other case in which a paladin is required to roll for damage against the target of his Smite Evil.
One FAQ that I find to be very telling, that hasn't been mentioned, is this.
FAQ wrote:
Smite is not an effect on the weapon, it is an effect on the paladin. The weapon still needs to be magic to harm the incorporeal creature, and even a magic weapon still only deals half damage against it.
An effect on the Paladin. I read this to mean that the manner in which the damage is dealt is irrelevant.
I believe that this unequivocally states that Smite Evil should effect all damage, not just physical weapon damage.
A higher level paladin can have more than one Smite Evil in effect at the same time, correct? If both targets of magic missile are under the Smite Evil effect both would receive the bonus damage. If both can receive the bonus damage then that means each missile's damage roll is affected by the Smite Evil.
Items as Spells: Does using a potion, scroll, staff, or wand count as "casting a spell" for purposes of feats and special abilities like Augment Summoning, Spell Focus, an evoker's ability to do extra damage with evocation spells, bloodline abilities, and so on?
No. Unless they specifically state otherwise, feats and abilities that modify spells you cast only affect actual spellcasting, not using magic items that emulate spellcasting or work like spellcasting.
This has absolutely nothing to do with Smite Evil. This FAQ covers feats and abilities that affect "actual spellcasting." Smite Evil make no such distinction.
Crimeo, your original question was answered was it not?
Clearly no one agrees with your point of view on this thread and you are just banging your head against the wall.
Also, it is news to no one that the rules don't always make logical or mechanical sense. Search the forums for the invisibility rules and you will find countless examples of people finding issue with them. Your outrage isn't news.
I am currently the GM for a RotRL game and have a Fighter and Ranger who are both ranged focused.
The Ranger's player intends on going into Arcane Archer with a Sorcerer dip and the Fighter is going 90/10 ranged vs melee feats.
The players are actually having a great time with the fact they are both "Archers." The have a nice role play thing going where their character's are competitive but friendly, doing things like betting on who will have the best shot or the most kills. It reminds me a lot of the Gimili and Legolas dynamic. It is one of the highlights of the campaign so far.
Of course that is just an example of it working and no, it won't always work out like this. The great sin committed by your GM is that he killed any chance of a positive experience.
Like your GM, I am not a min/maxer either. I have a few players that are and we coexist just fine. In my opinion your GM is being far too heavy handed and I wouldn't have even started the AP under the conditions you described let alone continue to try and work around his prejudicial restrictions.
I am torn between Sanctum of the Serpent God and Pyramid of the Sky Pharaoh. I thought about it and I would say that the locations in these two chapters (and the two AP's overall) are my favorite, and what sets them apart from the other final chapters.
