HalifaxDM's page

I have run homebrew game in pathfinder 1e like twice, but I mostly run adventure paths in same continuity, so yeah Golarion here x'D

(I run once "ooh spooky misty cursed island" sandbox that lasted few weeks before players had to quit and stone age campaign.)

(I am also running 5e campaign in faerun that is homebrew, because the newbie rpg player group I run 5e beginner box for when I tried out running 5e is still on going campaign :p We did beginner box, then curse of strahd then homegrew, they want to go until level 20 and I like players so I'm continuing running it even though I don't like the system xD Ah well at least I get to do my crazy homebrew stuff

Also running Devastation Ark aka starfinder currently)

On sidenote, mapping is paaaaaaaaaaaaaain. I do like both world building and improvisation, but making world maps is paaaaaaaaaain xD

Have you tried Wonderdraft?

I am with you. I have spent countless hours creating maps over my GM career either by hand or digitally with a variety of imaging tools and/or mapping software.

I purchased Wonderdraft about 3 weeks ago and in about 4 hours crafted a campaign map that was magnitudes better looking than anything I did before. And it is dead simple to modify later as it develops and exportable in a variety of formats.

I would post a link to their website but unsure if that would violate any forum rules.

I tried looking but could not find anything definite.

When using a spell or effect with an area of cone, how high vertically can it reach?

Can a 60 foot cone be angled so as to rise to a full height of 60 feet and attack enemies that high? Or is it considered to be launched on a horizontal plane, the effect extending 30 feet up and 30 feet down at the far end of the cone?

Is there any rule or guideline that covers this situation?

HalifaxDM wrote:

In fact you could argue that if they did each have their own space both mount and rider would provoke an AoO when moving through a threatened square allowing an opponent with Combat Reflexes to take an attack against each one.

What makes you think they don't?

A creature with combat reflexes could make attacks against both.

Ride By Attack wrote:

When you are mounted and use the charge action, you may move and attack as if with a standard charge and then move again (continuing the straight line of the charge). Your total movement for the round can’t exceed double your mounted speed. You and your mount do not provoke an attack of opportunity from the opponent that you attack.

Ride by attack has that line for a reason.

Well I can see how it could be interpreted that way. I could also see how that could just careful wording to ensure it was clear that an AoO could not be made on the mount even though it is not the creature with the feat.

That be said, I concede the point.

I apologize for stirring the coals. I missed the conversation earlier and was genuinely intrigued.

thorin001 wrote:

HalifaxDM wrote:

MrCharisma wrote:

By RAW it works for a rider and mount, exactly as you appear to have encountered it.

I argue that it does not work with a rider/mount. When mounted a rider and its mount share a space. They do not each have their own space and therefore cannot move through their ally's space or through a space adjacent to their ally's space(i.e. mount) because they share a single space.

I am totally fine with it being used for something other than a withdraw action however.

The feat specifies within reach, not adjacent. Are you claiming that something in your square is not within your reach?

That wouod appear to be incorrect.

ESCAPE ROUTE (TEAMWORK) wrote:

Source Ultimate Combat pg. 100

You have trained to watch your allies’ backs, covering them as they make tactical withdraws.

Benefit: An ally who also has this feat provokes no attacks of opportunity for moving through squares adjacent to you or within your space.

Has this changed? I thought the same as thorin001.

Re: HalifaxDM: Is there a reason we've re-opened this thread?
- It's almost 7 months since the last person posted.
- Everyone was in agreement.
- We had input from someone on Paizo's staff to corroborate what we thought.
That's as close to an FAQ as you're going to get, it seems weird to re-open a rules thread that's been answered so thoroughly.

If the text HAS changed then maybe we should start a new thread?

EDIT: It looks like it hasn't changed (at least not recently), a few people up-thread quoted the feat with the word "adjacent". I guess we just read the feat incorrectly.

All fair points. However I saw no harm in stating my view.

To me it seems pretty clear cut.

The Mounted Combat rules says to assume that you share your mount’s space during combat. To me that implies they have a single space and not each have their own space that shares the same squares. (In fact you could argue that if they did each have their own space both mount and rider would provoke an AoO when moving through a threatened square allowing an opponent with Combat Reflexes to take an attack against each one.)

The Escape Route feat, while it does not explicitly say so, heavily implies the two creatures who have the feat would each have to occupy their own distinct space to allow the interaction (i.e the "moving through squares adjacent to you or within your space.) required to gain the benefit.

Anyway, I did not see the harm in putting my view out there. Obviously for PFS using 1E rules my view would not be the table stance but in my home games that would be how I would (and have) rule(d).

By RAW it works for a rider and mount, exactly as you appear to have encountered it.

I argue that it does not work with a rider/mount. When mounted a rider and its mount share a space. They do not each have their own space and therefore cannot move through their ally's space or through a space adjacent to their ally's space(i.e. mount) because they share a single space.

I am totally fine with it being used for something other than a withdraw action however.

Thanks, Fuzzy-wuzzy. That is perfect. It gives me a baseline to work from.

I looked through the CRB and Ultimate Combat and could not find out how much siege engines weigh, in particular the standard catapult and the gatebreaker ballista.

I think this is going to come up in the next session I run and was wondering if the community had any thoughts.

I was thinking at least a tonne for the catapult and probably about 3 times that for the gatebreaker ballista.

To add further confusion to the fearmonger, it looks as if the archetype retains the channel negative energy class feature which is normally activated by two uses of touch of corruption.

p. 262

Charlatan's Cape

Caster level is listed as 3rd and Aura is listed as faint evocation and illusion.

Looks like it should be CL 13 and Aura of strong conjuration and transmutation.

Hate is a strong word but some things that bother me which I would like to see addressed at some future time:

1) Lack of exciting or challenging travel rules including environmental hazards and mundane challenges that can effect even high-level characters. For example, a travel fatigue system that isn't nullified by cure light wounds.

2) The skill system could be streamlined to narrows gaps for challenges related to skills. Ad the system stands now, the typical 1st level NPC simply cannot even cope with the basic needs of life in Pathfinder world.

3) At death door rules. Right now, as the rules stand it is virtually impossible to kill even a 1st level commoner outright with a sword thrust (4 hp and a Con of 10 and it would take at least a crit from most low-level people to kill a commoner outright.

4) Disintegrate spell that leaves gear intact. Nothing hammers home the fact that magic items are baked into a character's power progression more than this spell which can completely destroy your character but leave all stuff nice and shiny for the replacement character.

HalifaxDM wrote:

But the real question is whether the sniper can actually pick out his target at that range with a -240 or so to his Perception check.

Depends whether they have a telescope. For 8k you can get a 250x telescope. Seems to imply that it'd reduce perception check penalties by something in that ballpark. (Like a lot of mundane gear - such isn't actually spelled out.)

Hehehe ... I suppose but I would imagine the crossbow would have to mounted on the telescope instead of vice versa. The thing weighs 44 lbs and likely stands 4 feet or so in height since the things are made to view celestial bodies. I guess it could be part of some crazy long-distance tri-pod mounted defense system.

But the real question is whether the sniper can actually pick out his target at that range with a -240 or so to his Perception check.

So, instead of choking dust, or sneezing powder, you're just going to throw fistfulls of cocaine at people?

Somehow I just pictured a halfling version of Tony Montana doing this.

I'm having a really hard time understanding the special raw materials. Like, I understand that using them is supposed to modify your craft checks (such as making them crafted faster or less likely to fail), but how do I determine how much I need? The price is only given per pound, but that doesn't seem right. For example, an adamantine rapier weighs half as much as an adamantine scimitar; these two are supposed to cost roughly the same, but under this system would you need half as much adamantine for the rapier, thus making it half as expensive to craft?

Shouldn't these special materials just be price modifiers? I don't understand why the costs are per pound.

I was wondering the same thing. Does anyone have any thoughts on what this should be?

Least he got to know it had a proximity trigger. Usually I just get to know there is a trap, not anything about it. I might see a tripe wire or a pressure plate but that's about as far as it goes. Cus how does one see a proximity trigger, etc.

In this situation I ruled that he was able to discern some common variations on the rune that drawn for the symbol of stunning to recognize that special trigger conditions had been utilized. It was a reward for smart playing to some extent. He normally relies on the trap spotter talent but when entering the chamber and saw the strange runes and writings on the opposite wall he chose to examine the symbols from the doorway instead of approaching and make an active Perception check. I decided that since he took the care to do so, he should be aware that there is a proximity trigger though I did not tell him the conditions. The wizard then used detect magic and a really good spellcraft roll to identify what the trigger conditions were.

Blakmane wrote:

A 45 on any skill check is beyond superhuman. The rogue doesn't need an explanation for how he bypasses the trigger any more than the bard needs to write a sonnet to use his perform skill. You should have let him beat the trap - otherwise you are invalidating potentially his only useful ability and making him feel like he is wasting his time playing.

Depending on the DC, a natural 1 might have let him pass fine as well. There are no natural 1 instant fails in skill checks.

My specific reason for the DM fiat was because they'd used Dismissal on every single combat in the dungeon level up to that point (having gone in fully rested). Since these were combats rated a full CR over a full party and then we had a no-show, I decided to force them into one combat so we wouldn't be done with the entire session in 30 minutes.

(Normally I would just let them continue playing, but we play on a university and have to keep all the tables together so that players don't accidentally spoil the rest of the dungeon for players at other tables)

Ultimately, my reason was because he didn't have anything to disable it over the 15 feet he had to stay away. If he could get up to the trap, I'd have totally let him do it, but it was triggered based on anyone stepping into the area.

For what it's worth a similar situation arose in a game session I was running recently. I this case it was a Symbol of Stunning trap with a conditional trigger to be set off when any non-drow came within 10 feet.

The rogue easily perceived the trap from 30 feet away when he entered the trapped chamber and wisely chose to not to approach when I informed him that he could discern a proximity trigger. Instead the party discussed and were debating between having the wizard dispelling the trap or the rogue jury-rigging something to disable it from afar. The party decided that the rogue would try it as the wizard only had 1 dispel magic prepared and wanted to save it.

Using a pair of discarded spears from a previous encounter they lashed them together and I allowed him to make the check at -5 penalty. Since his DD is +30 and he has Skill Mastery he automatically disabled the trap as it was only DC 32 and his take 10 DD with the penalty was 35.

For what it is worth, the rogue player did not feel cheated or invalidated in any way. In fact, he was rather pleased with himself and the rest of the party for coming up with an innovative way around a difficult situation. (Not to mention that with his trap spotter talent and his insane scores he pretty much auto-disabled 4 CR 10 whirling blade traps with purple worm poison).

To be honest, I actually have a hard time making any trap feel relevant given that his skills are so high (and they weren't really all that hard to get them that high either) and know that every time I put a trap in an adventure I am pretty much giving free XP. I still feel the need to put them in the adventures though, otherwise he might feel robbed for making these choices and then having nothing to use them against.

Interesting comments in this thread although I would like to say that there are sometimes when it should be exceedingly difficult to simply Disable Device some traps, especially when they are placed by intelligent and cunning foes.

For example, a powerful drow wizard has placed a symbol of stunning on the main entrance to her lair with the specific trigger to activate when any non-drow passes within 10 feet of the symbol. While a rogue could most certainly perceive the trap before triggering it, getting close enough to disable it without triggering it would be difficult I would think.

Also, on a side note, does anyone else feel that the standard, by-the-book traps are pointless by the time characters are at level 13 or 14? Even the CR 20 traps in the CRB are only DC 34 and it's not that far a stretch for a 13th or 14th level rogue to have +30 or +32 Perception and Disable Device when dealing with traps which makes those high CR traps a real easy way to obtain large XP returns.

Thanks for the responses. That helps.

Does anyone know of any feat, spell or class abilities that give modifiers to caster level checks?

The only ones that come to mind are Spell Penetration and Greater Spell Penetration but I was wondering if anyone had come across others,

I see lots of spells and effects that modify skill checks, ability checks, etc. but nothing that specifically calls out caster level checks.

For example, sickened condition gives a penalty to all attack rolls, weapon damage rolls, saving throws, skill checks, and ability checks but seems to not modify caster level checks.

Thoughts or comments?

When using the Song of the Fallen performance to keep a dead ally fighting, is any additional damage done to the revived ally or any healing done a moot point?

My assumption is yes but I was wondering if any of the others here had an opinion on the matter.

That would have been Wes and myself.

And yes, "Prince of Darkness" was the inspiration. I don't regard it as an obscure movie, though... But that's probably because John Carpenter is my favorite director.

IMHO, one of the most underrated directors in Hollywood. It was a such a shame that the genius behind films such as Prince of Darkness, Big Trouble in Little China, Memoirs of an Invisible Man, The Thing, etc were not widely recognized as much as they should be.

I'm happy with pathfinder. I like the system. Can it be improved? sure. Are there things I don't like here or there? sure. But on the whole I am happy with the game.

This. I have played Pathfinder since it's inception migrating from 3.5 (and previous to that all editions back to AD&D and BECM). Yes there are some things that niggle me about PF such as escalating skill bonuses and DCs to ridiculous levels and travel rules that are a little to dull and simplistic but overall PF is one of my two go to games (the other being Savage Worlds).

Go team Paizo!

I will confer that the Crayola ones work great

'preciate it, Erik.

As always, Paizo rolls a 20 for customer service.

Sorry to be a hassle, but I was not paying very close attention when I placed this order I intended to get the "I love this game shirt" and the "King Slayer Black Ale" shirt but I apparently forgot to add the King Slayer shirt to my cart (serves me right for shopping before the first coffee of the day).

Is there anyway that the King Slayer Black Ale shirt in XXL can be added to this order retroactively?

If not, no biggie, as I will just place another order but figured it would not hurt to ask.

If the rogue had Quick Draw it would work out.

Dimensional Savant can allow you to flank with yourself, but remember you don't provide flanking until you attack from a square. So you attack (start providing flanking from that square, move to square on opposite side of creature, and attack again. That second attack will benefit as thought the creature were flanked.

However, Outflank specifically says you and an ally. In this specific case, I don't think you can count as your own ally and outflank will not function with you being able to flank due to dimensional savant.

I'm not 100% sure though.

From the FAQ

http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fm#v5748eaic9nda

Ally: Do you count as your own ally?
You count as your own ally unless otherwise stated or if doing so would make no sense or be impossible. Thus, "your allies" almost always means the same as "you and your allies."

I have always played that a flying creature can only 5' step if they make the DC 15 Fly check to hover.

You will never find any RAW ruling on it but I would probably have it work as alchemical siege engine ammunition but maybe without the italicized portion:

Alchemical Fire: This hard, ceramic canister of alchemist's fire can be used as ammunition in catapults and trebuchets. When it hits its target square, it deals 4d6 points of fire damage to each creature and wooden structure within 5 feet of the target space, and each creature must make a DC 20 Reflex saving throw or catch on fire (wooden objects automatically catch on fire). Every creature and wooden object within the area between 5 and 30 feet of the target space must make a DC 20 Reflex saving throw or take half the fire damage, but they do not catch on fire.

On a siege engine mishap, this ammunition explodes before it is launched, dealing its damage to the siege engine and all nearby creatures and wooden objects as if one of the spaces of the siege engine (crew leader's choice) were the target square. This alchemical fire ignores the hardness of wooden objects.

In any event I would not worry too much about it unless you see it being abused. I figure there would be some significant penalties in hitting your square and the cost is like 500 gp with a couple rounds to get it off.

Like I said, not RAW, but I like to reward innovative play and thinking.

This is actually very nice. Thanks!

I will let you know what I think after I have used it for a while.

This would definitely be top on my list to buy

The DM was really cool about letting us use it as a tourist attraction at the port we entered. We charged 5 SP per customer to view and touch it. I think we had 160 customers, plus everyone bought us drinks. Needless to say our Infamy had big ole boost. We sold three scales and some false lair information to a local cartographer so he can create treasure maps.

I like this ... a great way for the dm to promote interaction with the setting.

This actually came up in a recent game and I let them sell the corpse (after spending a fair amount of time harvesting it) for the dragon'S CRx500 gp.

Big +1 here.

I would especially interested on more involved exploration and travel rules especial if they involve delegation of various roles to party members such as guide, lookout, animal handler, etc with actions and skill checks for each one.

IMO this would help players create parties that did not solely focus on performing well as a team in combat but also when interacting with the world environment.

So in reviewing the Energy Drain ability and the rules for negative levels, I noticed this line in the PRD regarding negative levels:

A creature with temporary negative levels receives a new saving throw to remove the negative level each day. The DC of this save is the same as the effect that caused the negative levels.

With the energy drain spell and the energy drain ability the negative levels become permanent after 24 hours if the Fort save is failed and with the enervation spell the negative levels do not last long enough for this to come into play. With raise dead a permanent negative level is gained.

As far as I know, these are the primary sources of negative levels.

So is anyone aware of any sources of negative levels that remain temporary indefinitely until the save is passed?

This is neither a complaint or rules query ... just a matter of personal curiosity. :-)

Yea that is pretty much the conclusion I had come to but thought it worthwhile to ask in case anyone was more innovative than I was.

Thanks for the responses!

In one of my campaigns I am intending on having the players contend with a hobgoblin mercenary general who is known for riding a wyvern.

I know I could use the Leadership feat to give it to him as a cohort but I would like this enemy to be a cavalier. However I can't see any way that I can replace the mount ability with a wyvern (the general would be around 13th or 14th level).

My alternative would be a tactician fighter archetype using Leadership but I am rather set on a cavalier.

Any advice on how this could be accomplished with a cavalier without needing to use Leadership?

Well the Perception and Disable Device DCs would be 33 (25 + spell level of 8)according to rules for magic traps. My PCs will likely not have to deal with it head on now as they have managed to obtain the password bypass that was placed on it.

In the end I decided to assign it a CR of 14. This was mostly a gut decision as I felt CR 9 too low and the calculated CR of 64 was ridiculous.

I am designing a Incendiary Cloud trap and I am confused about the CR.

According to the rules for a spell trap that does damage you calculate the average damage (6d6 for 21.5), multiply by 2 as it effects multiple people and multiply by 15 for the 15 round duration for a total of 630 damage which would make the CR of the trap 64.

I am going to use the CR of 9 (for highest level spell effect) but just wanted to check with you guts to see if I am missing something.

I am not totally soured on traits but I can see where you are coming from. As I actually do not run any campaigns set in Golarion I tend to mine the traits for my home-brew custom world of Il-Pareth and my home-brew Greyhawk campaign. Looking back at them I realize I am much less restrictive as far as requirements go.

I do like your generalized set of traits, though. I might just riff off of that idea myself. :-)

I have my player's track the weight and encumbrance as Ravingdork says. We don't waste oodles of time on it but it will come into play for those times when characters get Str damage or penalties.

Thanks for all the great responses. Like I said it stemmed from a silly musing we had regarding a fighter who carried a pole-arm for all occasions.

As a GM I do not think I would worry too much about it myself but it did get my brain thinking about a modified encumbrance system that not only accounted for weight but bulk factors as well.

This questions stems from a silly musing a buddy of mine and I had the other day but is there such a thing as a scabbard/sheath/hanger for polearms and/or spears and longspears or are they something that are generally carried in hand?

An enthusiastic +1!!

I would award full XP. I enjoy it when my players make use of their surroundings and not just their attack bonuses and foes to overcome enemies and obstacles.

It does seem that the effects are drug addiction are very severe ... not that are not in real life but RL drug addicts can function more or less for years sometimes before succumbing their addiction either fatally or mentally.

I am going to have to look into this as one of my current campaigns involves a drug-smuggling ring. The once a week addiction effects as suggested might work out better.

This is funny. I chuckled quite a bit

Good for Paizo, but I also love seeing The One Ring in the top five. A great game with not enough publicity or exposure.

Agreed. Such a wonderful game that really seems to catch the flavour and essence of the novels.

My DM already tried to pull that crap on me, replacing the Animal Companion with an Eidolon or Summoned Monster.

This seems wrong. My understanding is that you can command a summoned monster to do whatever you want to do within its capabilities as long as you are able to communicate with it with no need to spend move or standard actions.